The Nephilim

[Happy]

Scripture is talking of men, not angels.

FALSE. OT men never referred to human men as "sons of God". Nor were human men ever called "sons of men" until John 1.

OT men after Gen 6, reveal in Job 38 WHO the "sons of God" are as THEY understood. And that the "sons of God" were present when the earth was being created.

The flood was a judgment against men, not angels.

So? No one said it was. However we do know by Scripture, Angels disobedient to Gods Word, become subject to their "estate" being changed. From heaven to earth, such as was the case with satan and 1/3 of the angels in heaven who rejected Gods Word, being cast down to earth. And the holy angels who came to earth, who become "unholy" on earth, were cast down to hell.

Angels receiving a consequence from God, about the same time the flood was occurring, has nothing to do with WHY, simply because it was occurring near the same time-frame.

Men marry and bear children, not angels.

Scripture does not say that!
Scripture says, men were designed to marry women and bare children.
Scripture says, HOLY angels do not marry. Which is an indication they do not bare children, because those who follow Gods Word, would marry and then procreate.

Scripture specifically said, "sons of God" did marry daughters of men (whom both the daughters and men) are humans, and did have offspring.

The only ones called "sons of God" in the OT, were those out of Gods heavenly host, which includes Angels.

There are no passages describing the procreation of angels

FALSE. Gen 6 reveals, "sons of Gods" married human women, and had offspring with them.

You should have noticed, they were Angels who came to earth HOLY, and while on earth, fell, became unholy, and were cast down from earth to hell, for their consequence of becoming unholy.

[Edited, insults removed]

Men were never called "sons of God" in Gen.
Thus the authors were not calling mankind "sons of God".

WHO were the "sons of God" are subsequently revealed.....as HOLY Angels.

AND not until John 1, is mankind told how and under what circumstances, can THEY be called "sons of God".

and not Scripture.

FALSE.

Gods Word tells us angels are of the heavenly realm,

Yes. Gods Angels were created HOLY. However Scripture also notifies us NOT ALL REMAIN HOLY, and they are cast OUT and DOWN of "where" they were WHEN they become UNHOLY, by going against Gods Word!

even those who left their proper place belong to this category (e.g., the struggle with wickedness in the heavenly realm).

No. Those who left their proper place, is those WHO STOPPED being HOLY, and are cast out and down from their first (heaven to earth) estate, and in some cases, cast out and down from their second (earth to hell) estate.

And the latter IS precisely applicable to the "sons of God" in Gen 6.

 

[JonC]

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.



Thus you must be a Gnostic.

When did I say your faith was based on mysticism? Oh yea. That's right...I didn't. I said Gnostic, not Mystic. By your own statements (the ones I quoted twice a moment ago) you have your statements on haven been given "the understanding of God" to know "Divine" things beyond what God has revealed to us in His Word. This is a Gnostic type of belief.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, it is applicable to this thread because this "understanding of God" you claim to have been granted to know things beyond Gods Word forms the basis of your argument. Where others appeal to scripture you appeal to this secret knowledge God has given you.

Second, and less related but more important, it does not really matter if the "sons of men" were angels or if they were godly human beings. It doesn't matter if their children were giants (physically) or if they were men if old, mighty heroes. But our basis for truth, for testing doctrine, does matter. This is why your subjective method of interpretation fails, regardless as to the validity of your interpretations.

 

[Happy]

Whether or not Jon is wrong about you is one thing,

His being wrong is precisely MY right to call him out, and I did. PERIOD!

and his posts are anything but a deflection.

His posts to me absolutely were a deflection. The topic is the Nephilim, NOT His introductory false testimony against me.

He is well read,

So what? Many people, and even Satan is well read in Scripture. Being well read, IS NOT the determining factor, of understanding what one reads....ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE ITSELF.

And further, since he is SO well read; NOT ONCE did he reveal one Scripture, stating that the very authors who wrote Gen 6,
identified WHO the "sons of God" are.......

WHO the "OT MEN" thought the "sons of God" are was NOT REVEALED until Job.

And NEVER were "sons of God" an applicable term toward HUMANS, until John 1.

[Edited, insults removed]

and very thoughtful on things he chooses to speak about.

uh huh....right...uh no....lol. He is like you. Thoughtful, as long as he is conversing with someone who is in agreement with him. And when the other person can not be swayed to his or your thinking....

He starts attaching the other person to FALSE "name tags", (Gnostic, heretic,) speaking for the other person, (their belief in myths, them not using Scripture )saying things the other person has not said.......and you have done the same things.....

[Edited]

He has no need to "deflect".

Of course he does. He provides NOTHING Scriptural to back up "HIS" claims, and can not get a person to be swayed to his "logical" thinking; so like you.....[edited; insults removed]

[edited: insults removed]

That even occurred between you and myself. I posted a general overview, and SAID, if you require a verification on something to ask me specifically. YOU responded with your disagreement to the WHOLE of my text and you required the whole of my text to have Scriptural verification.

My text had started out that God created man, and was called man....

[Edited, insults removed]

[Edited, insults removed]

 

[JonC]

His being wrong is precisely MY right to call him out, and I did. PERIOD!



His posts to me absolutely were a deflection. The topic is the Nephilim, NOT His introductory false testimony against me.



So what? Many people, and even Satan is well read in Scripture. Being well read, IS NOT the determining factor, of understanding what one reads....ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE ITSELF.

And further, since he is SO well read; NOT ONCE did he reveal one Scripture, stating that the very authors who wrote Gen 6,
identified WHO the "sons of God" are.......

WHO the "OT MEN" thought the "sons of God" are was NOT REVEALED until Job.

And NEVER were "sons of God" an applicable term toward HUMANS, until John 1.

[Edited, insults removed]



uh huh....right...uh no....lol. He is like you. Thoughtful, as long as he is conversing with someone who is in agreement with him. And when the other person can not be swayed to his or your thinking....

He starts attaching the other person to FALSE "name tags", (Gnostic, heretic,) speaking for the other person, (their belief in myths, them not using Scripture )saying things the other person has not said.......and you have done the same things.....

[Edited]



Of course he does. He provides NOTHING Scriptural to back up "HIS" claims, and can not get a person to be swayed to his "logical" thinking; so like you.....[edited; insults removed]

[edited: insults removed]

That even occurred between you and myself. I posted a general overview, and SAID, if you require a verification on something to ask me specifically. YOU responded with your disagreement to the WHOLE of my text and you required the whole of my text to have Scriptural verification.

My text had started out that God created man, and was called man....

[Edited, insults removed]

[Edited, insults removed]

"Happy", you are missing the point. Had God wanted to clarify beyond doubt who these men were, He would have done so. Only a fool would pray to God that He reveal to them what God Himself has not seen fit to reveal in Scripture. Instead of praying to know things beyond God's revelation of Scripture, why not just pray that God reveal/unveil the revelation He has already given in His Word? There is more there than you can take in through a lifetime, and you will find the Spirit revealing more and more to you as you grow in Christ. God has created us in Christ Jesus for good works prepared beforehand that we would walk in them. Let's walk in them and not try to discover other paths.

Again, here is where I stand on this topic:

There exists more than one interpretation of exactly who Genesis 6 is referring to as "sons of God". None are without problems, but all are can be legitimate from the phrase itself.

"Sons of God" is not used in Scripture before this point (except perhaps in Job, depending on were you place Job in terms of dating). BUT "sons of God" is used in ANE text (and in the text contemporary to Moses). Here earthly kings are referred to as sons of certain gods. This is a valid interpretation, although it would be using language contemporary to the writing of Genesis.

"Sons of God" is used to speak of angels, but (apart from Job) this would be the first instance. But this may be a legitimate interpretation as well since angels are called "sons of God". It is not, however, without problems of its own (which I've mentioned in the course of this thread).

"Sons of God" could refer to one group already introduced. One problem here is that this would be the first instance in Genesis for doing so....but it is the first instance of using the term period, so this is not necessarily a problem.

"Sons of God" could be a combination of the last suggestion and the first (those whom Moses and his contemporaries would have referred to as "sons of god" in a secular sense were in reality involved in demonic activity). So some have suggested the passage points to the demons possessing these kings. I do not think this is the case, but I understand the reasons.

I think the first and third are the most likely. I like the third, that these are a people of God, because it remains within the context of chapters 4-7. I like the first, that Moses is using ANE language to identify earthly kings which would identify the Nelphilim as the heroes of legend. I think that there are too many problems associated with the angelic view (although I admit it could be correct in some form), and the demonic tyrant view seems to be pushing bounds.

 

[JonC]

First of all I don't know or care what Gnostic "types" of belief are.

Yes, I realize this. But since you do not know or care you have no basis to accuse me of lying when I inform you this is the type of belief you hold. You are, by your own admission, replying out of ignorance.

Gnostics held that they possessed knowledge beyond what was available in Scripture. For them, God's Word was not sufficient as they desired His understanding of things beyond Scripture itself, or meaning that was hidden from the average believer.

In other words, a Gnostic holds to the belief system you have affirmed on this thread. I was not labeling YOU (I don't know you) but what you stated on this form. I don't even know if you really believe what you wrote. So I deal with words and statements. You claim on this thread and as a foundation to your doctrine a Gnostic form of belief.

I am not sure what you assumed I was saying, but in the future just ask if I use a term you dont know. And now you do know, so perhaps you can tone down the rhetoric.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

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.

Rev--not to get to much into this- [b/c the thread itself seems to be getting a little personal]--but I agree with the 'sons of God' translation of Duet 32:8--& if this is correct--then it would be referring to 'angelic' or 'divine beings' [most likely a divine council reference- after the Tower of Babel incident]-it was this particular textual debate that put Heiser 'on the map' with other scholars [despite his other odd connections]----however if he is wrong & the translation should remain 'children of Israel'--then it would be a 'human' reference---either way it does not help the debate against a Gen 6 angelic interpretation--b/c the Hebrew bene ha’elohim--always refers to angelic or divine beings--every other place in scripture--here's the link to Heiser's article-
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

 

[JonC]

Rev--not to get to much into this- [b/c the thread itself seems to be getting a little personal]--but I agree with the 'sons of God' translation of Duet 32:8--& if this is correct--then it would be referring to 'angelic' or 'divine beings' [most likely a divine council reference- after the Tower of Babel incident]-it was this particular textual debate that put Heiser 'on the map' with other scholars [despite his other odd connections]----however if he is wrong & the translation should remain 'children of Israel'--then it would be a 'human' reference---either way it does not help the debate against a Gen 6 angelic interpretation--b/c the Hebrew bene ha’elohim--always refers to angelic or divine beings--every other place in scripture--here's the link to Heiser's article-
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

I had never considered to a large extent (until this post) the view regarding "sons of God" being an ANE expression for secular kings. I would suppose, if this interpretation is correct, it would be dependent on language contemporary to Moses (which there are examples supporting this usage). Have you considered the interpretation, and if so what do you believe are its failings? (At first I'd say other usages of "son of God" in the Old Testament, but then again we do have "morning star" used in different ways).

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I had never considered to a large extent (until this post) the view regarding "sons of God" being an ANE expression for secular kings. I would suppose, if this interpretation is correct, it would be dependent on language contemporary to Moses (which there are examples supporting this usage). Have you considered the interpretation, and if so what do you believe are its failings? (At first I'd say other usages of "son of God" in the Old Testament, but then again we do have "morning star" used in different ways).

For me personally--the point you bring up-- its why the 'judges/rulers' view is 2nd on my list of possible interpretations of Gen 6--I even once considered if it could be a possible 'double reference'- ie the angelic beings being the judges/rulers--but the text is to vague to push it that far--but in regards to 'sons of God' ever being human rulers--the idea was relevant in ANE times & I always take historical context into interpretation--but when an exact term/phrase has restricted use elsewhere is Scripture [such as Hebrew bene Elohim]--it would need clear evidence as to why this term has an alternative meaning in only 1 particular biblical text-- despite its consistent use elsewhere. It's not that it cannot be done--it's just I've yet to see it done with this particular Hebrew phrase--in fact when I had to debate my thesis in front of the council of professors--my mentoring professor [who was also a Hebrew & Greek teacher] was so certain that bene Elohim was referring to 'angels' in Gen 6-that he told it was the only evidence I needed to prove the main premise of 'sons of God' being angels in this passage. Honestly I am not as sure as him--of this 1 point alone being the make or break proof point--but it is a personal example of how restricted bene Elohim really is in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

For me personally--the point you bring up-- its why the 'judges/rulers' view is 2nd on my list of possible interpretations of Gen 6--I even once considered if it could be a possible 'double reference'- ie the angelic beings being the judges/rulers--but the text is to vague to push it that far--but in regards to 'sons of God' ever being human rulers--the idea was relevant in ANE times & I always take historical context into interpretation--but when an exact term/phrase has restricted use elsewhere is Scripture [such as Hebrew bene Elohim]--it would need clear evidence as to why this term has an alternative meaning in only 1 particular biblical text-- despite its consistent use elsewhere. It's not that it cannot be done--it's just I've yet to see it done with this particular Hebrew phrase--in fact when I had to debate my thesis in front of the council of professors--my mentoring professor [who was also a Hebrew & Greek teacher] was so certain that bene Elohim was referring to 'angels' in Gen 6-that he told it was the only evidence I needed to prove the main premise of 'sons of God' being angels in this passage. Honestly I am not as sure as him--of this 1 point alone being the make or break proof point--but it is a personal example of how restricted bene Elohim really is in Scripture.

Thanks for the link. I'm more inclined to view Genesis as using ANE expression to speak of a godly people intermarrying with ungodly people, but I have to admit that my view is dependent more on issues I have with other interpretations than it is a clear cut defining point in the text itself. And, of course, in the end it is not a matter of great importance as the Nelphilim of Genesis 6 perished in the Flood. It's an interesting topic.

 

[TCassidy]

Genesis 4:26

“To Seth, to him also (הוּא גַּם, intensive) there was born a son, and he called his name Enosh.” אֱנֹוֹשׁ, from אָנַשׁ to be weak. In this name the knowledge of human weakness and frailty were expressed; and this knowledge led to God, to that invocation of the name of Jehovah which commenced under Enos. יְהֹוָה בְּשֵׁם קָרָא, literally to call in (or by) the name of Jehovah, is used for a solemn calling of the name of God.

When applied to men, it denotes invocation; to God, calling out or proclaiming His name. The name of God signifies in general “the whole nature of God, by which He attests His personal presence in the relation into which He has entered with man, the divine self-manifestation, or the whole of that revealed side of the divine nature, which is turned towards man” (Oehler).

We have here an account of the commencement of that worship of God which consists in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, or in the acknowledgment and celebration of the mercy and help of Jehovah.

While the family of Cainites, by the erection of a city, and the invention and development of worldly arts and business, were laying the foundation for the kingdom of this world; the family of the Sethites began, by united invocation of the name of the God of grace, to begin to build the kingdom of God.

This passage, of course, establishes the two descents from Adam, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, or the Cainites, the Daughters of Men, and the Sethites, the Sons of God. Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos (Enosh), which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam is called "the son of God." This fact, given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, invalidates the argument that men were never called "son(s) of God" in the Old Testament.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Genesis 4:26

“To Seth, to him also (הוּא גַּם, intensive) there was born a son, and he called his name Enosh.” אֱנֹוֹשׁ, from אָנַשׁ to be weak. In this name the knowledge of human weakness and frailty were expressed; and this knowledge led to God, to that invocation of the name of Jehovah which commenced under Enos. יְהֹוָה בְּשֵׁם קָרָא, literally to call in (or by) the name of Jehovah, is used for a solemn calling of the name of God.

When applied to men, it denotes invocation; to God, calling out or proclaiming His name. The name of God signifies in general “the whole nature of God, by which He attests His personal presence in the relation into which He has entered with man, the divine self-manifestation, or the whole of that revealed side of the divine nature, which is turned towards man” (Oehler).

We have here an account of the commencement of that worship of God which consists in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, or in the acknowledgment and celebration of the mercy and help of Jehovah.

While the family of Cainites, by the erection of a city, and the invention and development of worldly arts and business, were laying the foundation for the kingdom of this world; the family of the Sethites began, by united invocation of the name of the God of grace, to begin to build the kingdom of God.

This passage, of course, establishes the two descents from Adam, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, or the Cainites, the Daughters of Men, and the Sethites, the Sons of God. Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos (Enosh), which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam is called "the son of God." This fact, given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, invalidates the argument that men were never called "son(s) of God" in the Old Testament.

T-cass--while i have read & respected other post I've seen of yours on the BB--your statement here really gives NO evidence what so ever to support your view--you basically just used a lot of words [with no substance] to say Gen 4 & 5 give genealogies & Seth was a godly man [which does not prove his entire line was godly]--you do NOT deal with the fact that ha’adam” is used as a generic term for 'mankind as a whole' in Gen 6:1, thus it should also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of ‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In essence, based on the original language & the context-- these daughters cannot be limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of ‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the logical identity of the these daughters. Next you use a Greek term in Luke's genealogy--while totally neglecting the restricted use of bene elohim in the Hebrew OT--And you have NO explanation for why the Sethite view has NO historical verification until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal---now--do these points by themselves totally prove without a doubt the angelic understanding of Gen 6---No--but they begin to put in place evidence that far out weighs a Sethite misunderstanding--despite this I did like your posts a while back on the Millennial debate--so don't think I'm trying to undermine your integrity as a bible student as a whole--just think your not bringing the same scholastic effort to this debate as you did there---God bless

 

[JonC]

T-cass--while i have read & respected other post I've seen of yours on the BB--your statement here really gives NO evidence what so ever to support your view--you basically just used a lot of words [with no substance] to say Gen 4 & 5 give genealogies & Seth was a godly man [which does not prove his entire line was godly]--you do NOT deal with the fact that ha’adam” is used as a generic term for 'mankind as a whole' in Gen 6:1, thus it should also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of ‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In essence, based on the original language & the context-- these daughters cannot be limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of ‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the logical identity of the these daughters. Next you use a Greek term in Luke's genealogy--while totally neglecting the restricted use of bene elohim in the Hebrew OT--And you have NO explanation for why the Sethite view has NO historical verification until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal---now--do these points by themselves totally prove without a doubt the angelic understanding of Gen 6---No--but they begin to put in place evidence that far out weighs a Sethite misunderstanding--despite this I did like your posts a while back on the Millennial debate--so don't think I'm trying to undermine your integrity as a bible student as a whole--just think your not bringing the same scholastic effort to this debate as you did there---God bless

Ok….bear with me because I know this is not the position you hold - if we were to take the “bene Elohim” phrase to be a concession to ANE language (and to refer to kings, rulers or judges) and these daughters to be the Sethite women, the result would be kings of certain nations taking to themselves Sethite women and fathering men who were the mighty heroes of old (something more akin to Pharaoh and Moses than angels and men)?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Ok….bear with me because I know this is not the position you hold - if we were to take the “bene Elohim” phrase to be a concession to ANE language (and to refer to kings, rulers or judges) and these daughters to be the Sethite women, the result would be kings of certain nations taking to themselves Sethite women and fathering men who were the mighty heroes of old (something more akin to Pharaoh and Moses than angels and men)?

I love how your thinking so deeply about this---so let me word it this way--could you take this proposal & convince me that it disproves the angelic idea--probably not--but if you took this idea & developed it--you could certainly bring together a theory that would have at least some biblical plausibility--i would research deeper into the 'rulers/judges theory' & see if anyone else caught the connection you just made-- & see if they have developed it any further--regardless--I'm totally impressed with your effort & how your bringing all the hermetical evidence together to think outside the box on this difficult subject

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Ok….bear with me because I know this is not the position you hold - if we were to take the “bene Elohim” phrase to be a concession to ANE language (and to refer to kings, rulers or judges) and these daughters to be the Sethite women, the result would be kings of certain nations taking to themselves Sethite women and fathering men who were the mighty heroes of old (something more akin to Pharaoh and Moses than angels and men)?

if it helps-here is a link to the article i used when footnoting that point---its now online--start at p 325 [p 6 of pdf] & read to at least p 331--it will at least give the evidence of the Hebrew being limited to 'human class' women--[a point modern Sethite supporters have picked up on causing them to alter their theory; see Matthews Genesis NAC] http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Van Gemeren - The Sons of God in Gen 6.1-4-Evangelical Demythologization.pdf

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11 PM Pacific.

 

[JonC]

if it helps-here is a link to the article i used when footnoting that point---its now online--start at p 325 [p 6 of pdf] & read to at least p 331--it will at least give the evidence of the Hebrew being limited to 'human class' women--[a point modern Sethite supporters have picked up on causing them to alter their theory; see Matthews Genesis NAC] http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Van Gemeren - The Sons of God in Gen 6.1-4-Evangelical Demythologization.pdf

Thank you.

 

[Happy]

Adam is called "the son of God." This fact, given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, invalidates the argument that men were never called "son(s) of God" in the Old Testament.

Men were NEVER called "sons of God" in the OT.

It is LATER, that it is revealed, "men faithful to God only" are called "sons of God", which then is later known, it is an applicable term to ALL men who are faithful to God only.

Pretending THE PEOPLE in the OT applied that term to themselves or knew it would be applied to them is nonsense and out of context, which invalidates your claim.

 

[rlvaughn]

in fact when I had to debate my thesis in front of the council of professors--my mentoring professor [who was also a Hebrew & Greek teacher] was so certain that bene Elohim was referring to 'angels' in Gen 6-that he told it was the only evidence I needed to prove the main premise of 'sons of God' being angels in this passage. Honestly I am not as sure as him--of this 1 point alone being the make or break proof point--but it is a personal example of how restricted bene Elohim really is in Scripture.

That seems pretty overconfident to me. It's not like there are that many passages -- two that are uncertain (Gen. 6), two in context that most people accept as being angels (Job 1, 2) and one slightly different wording that most people accept as being angels (Job 38).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11 PM Pacific.