Bloodlines of the Nephilim - A biblical study

[RachelBibleStudent]

Nice try. You're just trying to break your own rule. YOU are the one who should never use the word BIBLE. After all, it's not in the Bible! lol. Now you are just trying to evade your own flawed logic.

no i'm not...

the concept of God's written word...whatever you call it...is taught in the bible...

the concept of 'nephilim bloodlines' is found nowhere in the bible under any name...

[A-Omega]

no i'm not...

the concept of God's written word...whatever you call it...is taught in the bible...

the concept of 'nephilim bloodlines' is found nowhere in the bible under any name...

Before it was the actual word itself was required to be in the Bible for a Biblical discussion.

Now it's just the concept. Hence you are breaking your own rules and your flawed logic.

Now I am sure you will come back and try to say this is not the case but I just wanted to get it out for the forum to see. This again is all just non-argument. If you have a Biblical point to make that actually deals with the Scriptures in the article posted, please do. I am much more interested in looking at Scripture than arguing irrelevant issues. So what scriptures were misinterpreted? Just list them and rightly divide them so the body can be edified.

[Elizabeth619]

FINALLY. I would love to. if you have a Biblical argument to make, please do so, by all means. I would love to hear it.

I will admit that right now it is way too early for my brain to function properly to discuss this in depth. I did however find a link discussing 3 different arguments on the Nephilim. I tend to lean toward Argument 2. I seriously cannot see anywhere in the bible where it supports that angel(good or bad one) had sexual relations with humans. I do firmly believe that Sons of God refers to Godly men.

Here it is...

Who are the sons of God and the Nephilim?

[serpentslayer]

I do believe in gen 1-3 I just dont believe your interpretation of it. I am on a phone so my responses will lack depth but your interpretation is the one that adds to the doctrine, not mine. If Adam was satan and convinced eve to eat of the fruit than why would the bible say eve brought the prospect to Adam? I dont really want an answer btw I just wanted to give you something to chew on.

You are not only deadtosin, you are deadtoreason. Where does my interpretation depart from the written word? Yours does from the Beginning because you believe angels were beings created distinct from man, yet you cannot prove it by Gen 1-3!!. Wherefore then do you believe in something God never spoke about? Even more, you cannot 'see' that what Eve spoke as being the TRUTH (Gen3:2-3), is quite different (perverted) from what the LORD GOD spoke to Adam; and therefore, you cannot understand how it is that she spoke untruth (don't touch), but was not lying (Hint: a liar must know the TRUTH in order to willfully change it into a lie). And finally, you must not believe the principle that 'one who knows the TRUTH can NEVER be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the deceiver (the basis of the WORD of GOD)', else you would understand that since EVE was deceive, then it is proof she never knew the TRUTH (absolute or verbatim).

Chew on that if you can or dare for it is seemingly meat hard to chew.

Concerning the Nephilim, this thread is doing nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Bubba30]

Yours does from the Beginning because you believe angels were beings created distinct from man, yet you cannot prove it by Gen 1-3!!. .

They were distinct from man. Did man exist before the foundations of the earth was laid?

Job 38:4-7
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[Elizabeth619]

Adam was the first 'angelic' looking being, for he was created in the image of the LORD, which is that of a man, and the Likeness of the Lord, which is Light (see GEN1:26-28;Ez1:26-28; 1Jn1:5): and Eve was the second, who is the Mother of ALL LIVING and is elevated above the 'angels' because she is their mother (1Cor). Therefore, all born of them and their children before they 'fell' (sinned) are the host of angels; and all born after the Fall are the sons and daughters of man.

Realize that Adam is the Devil, and the Serpent (not a snake), and Satan, and others in scripture, because he is the first liar (Jn8:44), since he deceived Eve from the very Beginning by telling her a perverted commandment, one which he added to, and diminished from, and being the very one she regurgitated back to him (the serpent- Gen3:2-3) on the day she first ate the 'forbidden' fruit. Therefore, Adam is the father of both the good angels (the cherubim) and the bad angels (the seraphim), and also all mortals, being those born in sin: and Eve is their Mother.

Yet there is absolutely NO reference to any type of "female" angel in the bible.

[Elizabeth619]

You are not only deadtosin, you are deadtoreason. Where does my interpretation depart from the written word? Yours does from the Beginning because you believe angels were beings created distinct from man, yet you cannot prove it by Gen 1-3!!. Wherefore then do you believe in something God never spoke about? Even more, you cannot 'see' that what Eve spoke as being the TRUTH (Gen3:2-3), is quite different (perverted) from what the LORD GOD spoke to Adam; and therefore, you cannot understand how it is that she spoke untruth (don't touch), but was not lying (Hint: a liar must know the TRUTH in order to willfully change it into a lie). And finally, you must not believe the principle that 'one who knows the TRUTH can NEVER be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the deceiver (the basis of the WORD of GOD)', else you would understand that since EVE was deceive, then it is proof she never knew the TRUTH (absolute or verbatim).

Chew on that if you can or dare for it is seemingly meat hard to chew.

Concerning the Nephilim, this thread is doing nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill.

The Bible nowhere states that angels are created in the image and likeness of God, as humans are (Genesis 1:26). Angels are spiritual beings that can, to a certain degree, take on physical form. Humans are primarily physical beings, but with a spiritual aspect. The greatest thing we can learn from the holy angels is their instant, unquestioning obedience to God’s commands.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

[Deadtosin]

You are not only deadtosin, you are deadtoreason. Where does my interpretation depart from the written word? Yours does from the Beginning because you believe angels were beings created distinct from man, yet you cannot prove it by Gen 1-3!!. Wherefore then do you believe in something God never spoke about? Even more, you cannot 'see' that what Eve spoke as being the TRUTH (Gen3:2-3), is quite different (perverted) from what the LORD GOD spoke to Adam; and therefore, you cannot understand how it is that she spoke untruth (don't touch), but was not lying (Hint: a liar must know the TRUTH in order to willfully change it into a lie). And finally, you must not believe the principle that 'one who knows the TRUTH can NEVER be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the deceiver (the basis of the WORD of GOD)', else you would understand that since EVE was deceive, then it is proof she never knew the TRUTH (absolute or verbatim).

Chew on that if you can or dare for it is seemingly meat hard to chew.

Concerning the Nephilim, this thread is doing nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill.

I would never chew on something that smells so bad. Again, im on phone, every 6 letters I hit the wrong button so I wont go further into this. Thankfully others have. Take care

[RachelBibleStudent]

Before it was the actual word itself was required to be in the Bible for a Biblical discussion.

Now it's just the concept. Hence you are breaking your own rules and your flawed logic.

Now I am sure you will come back and try to say this is not the case but I just wanted to get it out for the forum to see. This again is all just non-argument. If you have a Biblical point to make that actually deals with the Scriptures in the article posted, please do. I am much more interested in looking at Scripture than arguing irrelevant issues. So what scriptures were misinterpreted? Just list them and rightly divide them so the body can be edified.

i never said that an exact word had to be present in the bible in order for it to be biblical...

but neither the words nor the concept of 'nephilim bloodlines' are present in the bible...it is a completely unscriptural notion that originates from pagan mythology...

it would take a really long time to go through the errors that were made in that article...there are so many...and there are so many assertions being made that simply are not supported in scripture...

for the sake of example...the article claims that the purpose of the flood was to preserve an uncorrupted human bloodline...but the bible -tells- us why God flooded the earth and these are -not- the reasons given in scripture...

you also find this quotation in that article..."As it will be in the end times, much of the conflict centers around human DNA."...but there is nothing in the bible to support the claim that human genetics has anything to do with salvation history...

the article is absolutely overflowing with unscriptural assertions like these...the author is reading his own theory into the bible...instead of letting the bible dictate what he believes...

[A-Omega]

I will admit that right now it is way too early for my brain to function properly to discuss this in depth. I did however find a link discussing 3 different arguments on the Nephilim. I tend to lean toward Argument 2. I seriously cannot see anywhere in the bible where it supports that angel(good or bad one) had sexual relations with humans. I do firmly believe that Sons of God refers to Godly men.

Here it is...

Who are the sons of God and the Nephilim?

So what is your Scriptural argument? Again, if you have something you want to present with Bible scripture, I'm all ears.

[A-Omega]

i never said that an exact word had to be present in the bible in order for it to be biblical...

but neither the words nor the concept of 'nephilim bloodlines' are present in the bible...it is a completely unscriptural notion that originates from pagan mythology...

And yet the article lists the lineage of the Nephilim right back to Noah's family from Scripture. So if the Bible felt it was important to note the lineage of Nephilim giants, it's not mythology.

it would take a really long time to go through the errors that were made in that article...there are so many...and there are so many assertions being made that simply are not supported in scripture...

Ok, but this is not an argument.

for the sake of example...the article claims that the purpose of the flood was to preserve an uncorrupted human bloodline...but the bible -tells- us why God flooded the earth and these are -not- the reasons given in scripture...

Scripture says Noah was perfect in His generations as the second reason for why he found grace with the Lord. The first being that he was just. So his lack of corruption was indeed a reason for his family being the only one saved from the flood.

And not to mention time and time and time again the Israelites are commanded not to marry certain peoples and to wipe out certain nations of people completely. All this because God was trying to preserve the lineage of the Messiah. I mean the battle of Satan against the Messianic bloodline runs from Cain and Abel up to Herod and Jesus.

you also find this quotation in that article..."As it will be in the end times, much of the conflict centers around human DNA."...but there is nothing in the bible to support the claim that human genetics has anything to do with salvation history...

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.

This is the final kingdom before the return of Christ. So how do you interpret verse 43?

the article is absolutely overflowing with unscriptural assertions like these...the author is reading his own theory into the bible...instead of letting the bible dictate what he believes...

And yet you have not looked at any verses from the article (and there are a ton) and shown how they were interpreted or explained incorrectly. Which is why I keep asking, if you're so Biblical then it should be no problem to just present some verses and rightly divided them rather than just offering ur opinions.

[Elizabeth619]

So what is your Scriptural argument? Again, if you have something you want to present with Bible scripture, I'm all ears.

did you not read the article?

[RachelBibleStudent]

And yet the article lists the lineage of the Nephilim right back to Noah's family from Scripture. So if the Bible felt it was important to note the lineage of Nephilim giants, it's not mythology.



Ok, but this is not an argument.



Scripture says Noah was perfect in His generations as the second reason for why he found grace with the Lord. The first being that he was just. So his lack of corruption was indeed a reason for his family being the only one saved from the flood.

And not to mention time and time and time again the Israelites are commanded not to marry certain peoples and to wipe out certain nations of people completely. All this because God was trying to preserve the lineage of the Messiah. I mean the battle of Satan against the Messianic bloodline runs from Cain and Abel up to Herod and Jesus.



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.

This is the final kingdom before the return of Christ. So how do you interpret verse 43?




And yet you have not looked at any verses from the article (and there are a ton) and shown how they were interpreted or explained incorrectly. Which is why I keep asking, if you're so Biblical then it should be no problem to just present some verses and rightly divided them rather than just offering ur opinions.

the 'nephilim lineage' in the article exists only in the author's imagination...-nowhere- in the bible is any specific person identified as one of the nephilim...let alone any 'nephilim genealogy'

genesis 6:9 is -not- giving the reasons noah found favor in God's eyes...the reason noah found grace is given in hebrews 11:6-7...the reason was noah's -faith-...not his lineage... all genesis 6:9 is doing is giving a description of noah's character...

furthermore the hebrew phrase 'perfect in his generations' has -nothing- to do with his lineage at all...which is why most modern english bible translations have done away with the misleading term 'generations' entirely... what the hebrew for 'perfect in his generations' means is basically that he was the most upright person of his time...in modern terms we might say he was 'the best of his generation'

the reason God commanded the israelites not to marry certain peoples and to wipe them out instead also had -nothing- to do with lineage... in fact God -gives- the reason for this command in exodus 23:32-33 and exodus 34:12-16...it was because they would be a snare to the israelites by leading them into idolatry...not because they would corrupt the messianic bloodline...

in fact the messianic bloodline -did- contain bits from other nations...in jesus' genealogy given in matthew 1 we find tamar the canaanite...rahab the canaanite...ruth the moabite...and bathsheba who may have been a hittite... each of these women in jesus' ancestry came from a nation that the israelites were not supposed to intermarry with...the reason they were incorporated into jesus' ancestry anyway was because they had faith in the true God...meaning there was no danger that those particular women would be a snare of idolatry to their husbands and children...

daniel 2:43 once again has nothing to do with 'nephilim bloodline' corruption...other bible translations make this verse clearer than the king james version... but in any case this verse obviously cannot refer to corruption of the gene pool since it says that these peoples will not remain adhered to one another...meaning their union is not lasting...while your genes on the other hand are permanent...

what daniel 2:43 is talking about is that the people of this kingdom will be a mixture of many different nations...a lot of effort will be spent on holding the kingdom together but those efforts will not produce lasting results... this was the case in the roman empire at the time of the ministry of jesus...the stone not cut by human hands...

the thesis of that article is -entirely- the author's opinions...he doesn't use the scriptures as a basis for his views...instead he just uses a few scripture passages as a starting point for wild and unbiblical speculation...

[Bubba30]

The Sons of God in Gen. 6:2, 4. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

The Nephilim, or Giants of Gen. 6, &c. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

Noah Perfect. (Gen. 6:9). - Appendix to the Companion Bible