Slaughter of the Nephilim, the forbidden race, by Gods people (O.T.)

[CS1]

all good points CSI.


whats Jude talking about when He teaches of the men of Sodom going after "strange flesh"?

strange flesh would be in context to the perversion that was happening ungodly lust.

Gen 13:13
But the men of Sodom were[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. is says MEN of Sodom were wicked why would the context not say angels to better support the [/FONT]Nephilim? why does it say strange flesh speaking about angel who had no flesh?

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] this is man having sex with the same kind of flesh ie, each other strange:Greek word :[/FONT]héteros[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] hmm that word look familiar [/FONT]

 

[Denadii]

No, making mention of something is not necessarily recommending it, nor is any such mention a nod to divine inspiration. NONE of the apocryphal writings even claim divine inspiration, and neither are any of them written in Hebrew, plus, they teach immoral practices. Also, they clearly contradict the teachings of Scripture in places. The RCC canonized them mid 16th century because they supported some of their heresies.

None of the history books or reference books you read mention divine inspiration but you still use them

 

[CS1]

None of the history books or reference books you read mention divine inspiration but you still use them

you them but you cannot change the context of gen 6 with other books lol that is not correct Biblical interpretation. no other book can be had to gen 6 context to make what one wants to mean when the Context is there in the chapter and verses of Gen 6 aka the book of Beginnings

 

[Denadii]

you them but you cannot change the context of gen 6 with other books lol that is not correct Biblical interpretation. no other book can be had to gen 6 context to make what one wants to mean when the Context is there in the chapter and verses of Gen 6 aka the book of Beginnings

This makes me wonder why you, and a few others assign the meaning that you wish to see, when it does not say that.

 

[CS1]

This makes me wonder why you, and a few others assign the meaning that you wish to see, when it does not say that.

well actually I am not . Gen 6 speaks for it's self which the Hebrew also supports. I did not assign anything . the truth is Gen 6 speaks about men who had relationships with women that God did not approve of .
what I have seen is those using a verse here and there in chapter 6 of Gen as they did in Job, 2 pet and Jude.
But yet i'm assigning the meaning of what I wish to see?
the whole chapter of gen 6 does not support angels sleep with women making giants, nor does one verse in Jude, or one verse in 1 pet not one verse in Job.

But you do with it what you want . i have not insulted you or been rude . but you have not provided anything to change the context of what is in gen 6

 

[Denadii]

well actually I am not . Gen 6 speaks for it's self which the Hebrew also supports. I did not assign anything . the truth is Gen 6 speaks about men who had relationships with women that God did not approve of .
what I have seen is those using a verse here and there in chapter 6 of Gen as they did in Job, 2 pet and Jude.
But yet i'm assigning the meaning of what I wish to see?
the whole chapter of gen 6 does not support angels sleep with women making giants, nor does one verse in Jude, or one verse in 1 pet not one verse in Job.

But you do with it what you want . i have not insulted you or been rude . but you have not provided anything to change the context of what is in gen 6

Please explain how giants came from men and women Human men and women...You Know that these giants were not human. Right?

 

[CS1]

Please explain how giants came from men and women Human men and women...You Know that these giants were not human. Right?

the word "Giant" in gen 6 a bully or tyrant:
also the word "nĕphiyl which the word [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Nephilim comes from could be speaking of a area of land where these warriors came from.

The Hebrew translation does not say they were BIG aka Giant people. I do not know where Giants came from but what I do see in the bible is that Gen 6 does not says that angels had sex with women and made giants . I can tell you that the nephilim in Gen 6 were human because the context shows that.
as far as where Giants came from I cannot explain that not does the bible ; unless we form a presupposition which you could be right but cannot say it is absolute because in Gen 6 doesn't support that. Where the bible is silent we cannot or should not added to it.
I can tell you that Andre "the giant" has a picture of is very small mother who gave birth to him which he suffered the disease that caused him to not stop growing which I can tell you too I do not know why .

The Giants also known as nephilim in Gen 6 were men aka human beings[/FONT]

 

[Blik]

I do not understand why the big controversy. Scripture tells us certain angels can take on human form. That is how it is. It tells us that some angels took on human form and slept with human woman. What is to discuss? It also tells us that great wickedness resulted. Scripture didn't say to use your intelligence to figure these things out, it just tells us that is how it was.

It doesn't say if the children this union produces is human or angel, it would if it was important to us. If it follows how inheritance works with humans, the children unions produce are half and half. It does say it produced wickedness.

It is interesting to me that we are told there are still sometimes angels among us who take on human form although by the context of the verses it is not talking of fallen angels. Makes you wonder if there are fallen angels among us today.

 

[jaybird88]

the word "Giant" in gen 6 a bully or tyrant:
also the word "nĕphiyl which the word Nephilim comes from could be speaking of a area of land where these warriors came from.

The Hebrew translation does not say they were BIG aka Giant people. I do not know where Giants came from but what I do see in the bible is that Gen 6 does not says that angels had sex with women and made giants . I can tell you that the nephilim in Gen 6 were human because the context shows that.
as far as where Giants came from I cannot explain that not does the bible ; unless we form a presupposition which you could be right but cannot say it is absolute because in Gen 6 doesn't support that. Where the bible is silent we cannot or should not added to it.
I can tell you that Andre "the giant" has a picture of is very small mother who gave birth to him which he suffered the disease that caused him to not stop growing which I can tell you too I do not know why .

The Giants also known as nephilim in Gen 6 were men aka human beings

there was a change in the flesh. it had become physically corrupted.
you also have these things in Canaan. and i dont think they were just a bunch of tall guys, there was something different about them. and rememvber the grapes they carried back, one cluster and it took two men and a pole to carry them. not ordinary grapes for sure.

 

[jaybird88]

I do not understand why the big controversy. Scripture tells us certain angels can take on human form. That is how it is. It tells us that some angels took on human form and slept with human woman. What is to discuss? It also tells us that great wickedness resulted. Scripture didn't say to use your intelligence to figure these things out, it just tells us that is how it was.

It doesn't say if the children this union produces is human or angel, it would if it was important to us. If it follows how inheritance works with humans, the children unions produce are half and half. It does say it produced wickedness.

It is interesting to me that we are told there are still sometimes angels among us who take on human form although by the context of the verses it is not talking of fallen angels. Makes you wonder if there are fallen angels among us today.

a bigger question would be why do the leaders of both churches want to change this story? whats their motive? one thing i know is leaders at the very top are always corrupt.

 

[imfinallyfree]

Corruption owns the world.

As for nephillum? There are many accounts of history that were either destroyed or hidden from the world,maybe they are the reason for that.

I agree with someone that posted earlier saying that the cross breeding of fallen angels and humans was a bad thing,what would be the purpose if it was a good thing?

 

[shakinah]

​Great since you were taught that the sons of God were the sons of Adam and you further contextual study of the context of Genesis 4:11-6:1, 3, 5-7, 8 and you've come up with doctrines of demons, if I am understanding you right Will you please show us contextually how Genesis 6:2 , 4 are not the sons of Adam in these verse. My contextual exegete is above, please follow that line in your post and please don't take mine and answer it line buy line. Because it's hard to read like that, to many distractions around it. Thanks we can finally get this settled.

read again, in context, who i was answering.. i do not believe that the sons of god were anything other than those that lived extended years. to be clear, i do not believe that anywhere in the bible it suggests that angels can have babies..

[FONT=Arimo, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]communication skills can be as important as any exegesis [/FONT]

 

[John146]

there was a change in the flesh. it had become physically corrupted.
you also have these things in Canaan. and i dont think they were just a bunch of tall guys, there was something different about them. and rememvber the grapes they carried back, one cluster and it took two men and a pole to carry them. not ordinary grapes for sure.

They also show up in the end times as the anti-christ uses them to control the world.

Daniel 2
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

As Joshua conquered the giants in Canaan, the Lord will conquer giants to set up His kingdom on earth.

 

[valiant]

The context is quite clear, The daughters of men ('adam) have been outlined in ch 5. Thus they are mainly the daughters of Seth. (Cain is only described as having one daughter in passing).

This is confirmed by the fact that the people of ch 5 alone were called 'adam. Cain was spoken of as 'ish.

Thus 'the daughters of 'adam' in 6.1 have in mind the daughters of Seth.

The bene Elohim of ch 6.1 parallel the bene Elohim of Job 1 & 2 and the bene Elohim of 'the morning stars sang together and all the bene Elohim shouted for joy' later in Job. The children of men are never called bene Elohim.

So it is clear that both context and usage favour the daughters of 'adam being the daughters of Seth, and the bene Elohim as being angels.

 

[John146]

The context is quite clear, The daughters of men ('adam) have been outlined in ch 5. Thus they are mainly the daughters of Seth. (Cain is only described as having one daughter in passing).

This is confirmed by the fact that the people of ch 5 alone were called 'adam. Cain was spoken of as 'ish.

Thus 'the daughters of 'adam' in 6.1 have in mind the daughters of Seth.

The bene Elohim of ch 6.1 parallel the bene Elohim of Job 1 & 2 and the bene Elohim of 'the morning stars sang together and all the bene Elohim shouted for joy' later in Job. The children of men are never called bene Elohim.

So it is clear that both context and usage favour the daughters of 'adam being the daughters of Seth, and the bene Elohim as being angels.

Chapter 5 reveals the seed line that was kept from corruption from the relations of the sons of God (fallen angels) and the daughters of men that produced a race of giants all over the earth. God was not going to allow this corruption to continue. The only reason Noah and his family was spared is because Noah's was perfect in his generations.

 

[garee]

Chapter 5 reveals the seed line that was kept from corruption from the relations of the sons of God (fallen angels) and the daughters of men that produced a race of giants all over the earth. God was not going to allow this corruption to continue. The only reason Noah and his family was spared is because Noah's was perfect in his generations.

Angels that have no form are spirits used to bring the gospel, as messengers . They have no dna. They are not formed from the dust after the rudiments of this world.

They cannot multiply. Giants have dna and can obey the commandment to multiply. There is no qualifying limit as to how tall or how short a person isi n order to receive the gospel .

That portion of scripture is simply warning the Jews not to be unevenly yoked by mixing the seed in Christ that was passed from Abel and next Seth rght on down the line untill christ came No mixing the spiritul seed Chrsit with other nations. Nothing more and nothing less. They were to not mix the seed of Chrsit (not Seth after the flesh )
with other nations

There were men taller than usual and shorter even after the flood.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

The context is quite clear, The daughters of men ('adam) have been outlined in ch 5. Thus they are mainly the daughters of Seth. (Cain is only described as having one daughter in passing).

This is confirmed by the fact that the people of ch 5 alone were called 'adam. Cain was spoken of as 'ish.

Thus 'the daughters of 'adam' in 6.1 have in mind the daughters of Seth.

The bene Elohim of ch 6.1 parallel the bene Elohim of Job 1 & 2 and the bene Elohim of 'the morning stars sang together and all the bene Elohim shouted for joy' later in Job. The children of men are never called bene Elohim.

So it is clear that both context and usage favour the daughters of 'adam being the daughters of Seth, and the bene Elohim as being angels.

Chapter 5 reveals the seed line that was kept from corruption from the relations of the sons of God (fallen angels) and the daughters of men that produced a race of giants all over the earth. God was not going to allow this corruption to continue. The only reason Noah and his family was spared is because Noah's was perfect in his generations.

So the line of Seth as a whole could not be described as bene Elohim? They would be 'daughters of 'adam'. That was my point,

 

[CS1]

there was a change in the flesh. it had become physically corrupted.
you also have these things in Canaan. and i dont think they were just a bunch of tall guys, there was something different about them. and rememvber the grapes they carried back, one cluster and it took two men and a pole to carry them. not ordinary grapes for sure.

after the fall the flesh dies that was the change as God said it would

 

[CS1]

I do not understand why the big controversy. Scripture tells us certain angels can take on human form. That is how it is. It tells us that some angels took on human form and slept with human woman. What is to discuss? It also tells us that great wickedness resulted. Scripture didn't say to use your intelligence to figure these things out, it just tells us that is how it was.

It doesn't say if the children this union produces is human or angel, it would if it was important to us. If it follows how inheritance works with humans, the children unions produce are half and half. It does say it produced wickedness.

It is interesting to me that we are told there are still sometimes angels among us who take on human form although by the context of the verses it is not talking of fallen angels. Makes you wonder if there are fallen angels among us today.

the Bible does not say angel take on human form the Bible says like a man which is not the same as

 

[valiant]

Angels that have no form are spirits used to bring the gospel, as messengers . They have no dna. They are not formed from the dust after the rudiments of this world.

Are you suggesting that when they appeared in human form they had no DNA? I see no Scripture which suggests it.

They cannot multiply.

When they took the form of human beings? You are very dogmatic. Which of us can say what they could do?

Besides demon intercourse does not require that they do. Only that the children from the process are demonised.. I suspect you know nothing about demon intercourse? You are wise to keep it that way. But don't dogmatise about things of which you know nothing,

Giants have dna and can obey the commandment to multiply. There is no qualifying limit as to how tall or how short a person isi n order to receive the gospel .

'giants' is LXX. Rather they are Nephilim.

That portion of scripture is simply warning the Jews not to be unevenly yoked by mixing the seed in Christ that was passed from Abel and next Seth rght on down the line untill christ came No mixing the spiritul seed Chrsit with other nations. Nothing more and nothing less. They were to not mix the seed of Chrsit (not Seth after the flesh )
with other nations

How did Gen 6 refer to the Jews? Noah was not a Jew. Nor were the majority of his descendants. It had no message for the Jews. It rather showed the descent of the whole world. Its 'lesso'n was to warn against demon intercourse.

There were men taller than usual and shorter even after the flood.

Remarkable.