GIANTS
- Thread starter samuel23
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
W
PART1
Full study of Genesis 6 and the sons of God using a microscopic lens upon the whole council of God in a discovery of truth void of the wisdom and sensationalism of the world.
The passage in Genesis twice describes the fallen ones as being "men" by using two different Hebrew words. I don't often think the Hebrew is that important, because the English is quite clear as to whom these fallen ones are, however in this case, because this topic is so maligned I will also express that it does not use the same Hebrew words that are used to describe other angelic beings in the text, namely ("angels," "cherubim," and "seraphim"). It's more than obvious from the context in Gen. 6 that God was not pleased with the actions between the sons of God, ("the Nephilim"), although the correct Hebrew word is nephel, taking for wives the daughters of men. They had followed the ways of Lamech, the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] from Cain, who was the first polygamist.
Giants, as in Genesis 6:4 can also be found in Numbers 13:33 "nephel", which were sometimes called (Anakims "anaqui" Deut. 1:28
, (Emims "rapha" Deut 2:10-11; Rephaims Gen. 14:5; 15:20). (Zamzummims "zamzôm" Deut. 2:20), and (Rephaims Gen. 14:5; 15:20). However there is no mention in the King James Version of Nephilim. Modern day transliterations have created new words with no established meaning in the receiving language, and in this case, having little or confused meaning in the originating language. Out of these unstable translations have proceeded the mysterious and unbiblical term Nephilim. Men then allow their imaginations to run amuck by seeking out dopamine enhanced sensationalism rather than truth..
Let's go on to examine how other biblical passages use these terms. The term actually means "tyrants" being derived from the Hebrew word nephal, which means to "fall" from grace, referring to their gigantic rebellious nature; this word was first used in Gen 4-6 describing Cain's fallen countenance and his wrath.
From the Nephilim that were described in the book of Numbers we can find that they were the descendants of Anak, and keep in mind this is after the flood. These were also evil strongmen, tyrants, but not related to those pre-flood people, because they were all destroyed in the flood. Since the OT describes Nephilim both before and after the flood: if the Nephilim were a race then it would contradict the rest of scripture, beings that the text clearly states that there were only eight survivors during the flood. It is amazing how the modern day prophecy hunters have butchered this important scriptural account and warning to mankind concerning God's judgement in Gen. 6 by transforming it into the Angelic-Nephilim fairy tale. The lesson and warning in scripture was for the purpose that man might not fall again into the error of the wicked, not for the purpose of merchandizing fantasy story book tales about fallen angels landing on Mt. Hermes.
Genesis-6-5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The most revealing thing to me is that God places "all" of the blame on man in Genesis 6. This would be unjust if angels actually forced them for wives. It could not possibly have been man’s fault if that myth were true. This contrasts the unchanging principles of God's judgement in the text. Why did God not repent that he had made angels if they were really the ones to blame? But rather He said it repented Him that He made man.
This would be uncommon, and more of a temptation/tribulation than man could bear, therefore having left them with no way of escape. However the apostle Paul tells the exact opposite in 1 Cor. 10-13. 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Therefore, Angelic beings forcing women for wives would certainly be an unbearable and uncommon temptation of force, thus leaving no way of escape in Gen. 6. These imaginary Nephilim fables are for the purpose of beguiling unstable souls.
Some will very loosely use 1 Peter 1:12 as proof for the Nephilim myth. This passage in the bible speaks of angels desiring to look into things, but when read in proper context it is speaking about the eternal salvation of those that should believe, verse 10 also expresses the same inquiry with the prophets who could not see clearly as to how this power of grace would work.(I Peter 1:12; Hebrews 2:14-17; Eph. 3:10).
I Peter 3:9-18-20 teaches that the Holy Spirit assisted Noah’s preaching in harmony with God's long suffering towards sinful men. (Noah, a preacher of righteousness 2 Peter 2-5) to the wicked men of his generation that were in the prison of hell when Peter wrote this epistle comparing their fate to that of wicked angels who were cast into hell. This text has absolutely has nothing to do with angels, angel-human sex, or angel-human mongrels. Are people so foolish to believe that Noah, a preacher of righteousness, was preaching to fallen angelic half breeds, pleading with them to repent and forsake their sin, when the bible expressly teaches that there is no repentance for angels? And that angels, being spirits, have no procreation, neither do they desire for such.
Full study of Genesis 6 and the sons of God using a microscopic lens upon the whole council of God in a discovery of truth void of the wisdom and sensationalism of the world.
The passage in Genesis twice describes the fallen ones as being "men" by using two different Hebrew words. I don't often think the Hebrew is that important, because the English is quite clear as to whom these fallen ones are, however in this case, because this topic is so maligned I will also express that it does not use the same Hebrew words that are used to describe other angelic beings in the text, namely ("angels," "cherubim," and "seraphim"). It's more than obvious from the context in Gen. 6 that God was not pleased with the actions between the sons of God, ("the Nephilim"), although the correct Hebrew word is nephel, taking for wives the daughters of men. They had followed the ways of Lamech, the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] from Cain, who was the first polygamist.
Giants, as in Genesis 6:4 can also be found in Numbers 13:33 "nephel", which were sometimes called (Anakims "anaqui" Deut. 1:28
, (Emims "rapha" Deut 2:10-11; Rephaims Gen. 14:5; 15:20). (Zamzummims "zamzôm" Deut. 2:20), and (Rephaims Gen. 14:5; 15:20). However there is no mention in the King James Version of Nephilim. Modern day transliterations have created new words with no established meaning in the receiving language, and in this case, having little or confused meaning in the originating language. Out of these unstable translations have proceeded the mysterious and unbiblical term Nephilim. Men then allow their imaginations to run amuck by seeking out dopamine enhanced sensationalism rather than truth.. Let's go on to examine how other biblical passages use these terms. The term actually means "tyrants" being derived from the Hebrew word nephal, which means to "fall" from grace, referring to their gigantic rebellious nature; this word was first used in Gen 4-6 describing Cain's fallen countenance and his wrath.
From the Nephilim that were described in the book of Numbers we can find that they were the descendants of Anak, and keep in mind this is after the flood. These were also evil strongmen, tyrants, but not related to those pre-flood people, because they were all destroyed in the flood. Since the OT describes Nephilim both before and after the flood: if the Nephilim were a race then it would contradict the rest of scripture, beings that the text clearly states that there were only eight survivors during the flood. It is amazing how the modern day prophecy hunters have butchered this important scriptural account and warning to mankind concerning God's judgement in Gen. 6 by transforming it into the Angelic-Nephilim fairy tale. The lesson and warning in scripture was for the purpose that man might not fall again into the error of the wicked, not for the purpose of merchandizing fantasy story book tales about fallen angels landing on Mt. Hermes.
Genesis-6-5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The most revealing thing to me is that God places "all" of the blame on man in Genesis 6. This would be unjust if angels actually forced them for wives. It could not possibly have been man’s fault if that myth were true. This contrasts the unchanging principles of God's judgement in the text. Why did God not repent that he had made angels if they were really the ones to blame? But rather He said it repented Him that He made man.
This would be uncommon, and more of a temptation/tribulation than man could bear, therefore having left them with no way of escape. However the apostle Paul tells the exact opposite in 1 Cor. 10-13. 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Therefore, Angelic beings forcing women for wives would certainly be an unbearable and uncommon temptation of force, thus leaving no way of escape in Gen. 6. These imaginary Nephilim fables are for the purpose of beguiling unstable souls.
Some will very loosely use 1 Peter 1:12 as proof for the Nephilim myth. This passage in the bible speaks of angels desiring to look into things, but when read in proper context it is speaking about the eternal salvation of those that should believe, verse 10 also expresses the same inquiry with the prophets who could not see clearly as to how this power of grace would work.(I Peter 1:12; Hebrews 2:14-17; Eph. 3:10).
I Peter 3:9-18-20 teaches that the Holy Spirit assisted Noah’s preaching in harmony with God's long suffering towards sinful men. (Noah, a preacher of righteousness 2 Peter 2-5) to the wicked men of his generation that were in the prison of hell when Peter wrote this epistle comparing their fate to that of wicked angels who were cast into hell. This text has absolutely has nothing to do with angels, angel-human sex, or angel-human mongrels. Are people so foolish to believe that Noah, a preacher of righteousness, was preaching to fallen angelic half breeds, pleading with them to repent and forsake their sin, when the bible expressly teaches that there is no repentance for angels? And that angels, being spirits, have no procreation, neither do they desire for such.
W
PART 2
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. The angelic beings were never made to reproduce of their kind, but rather they were all created at the same time before God formed the earth, Job 38-7…They do not procreate. Marriage is for the purpose of procreating Gen 2 & 3.
Angels don’t marry, however the language in Genesis 6 is clearly that of marriage.
If the angelic nature of these spiritual beings is such that they do not marry one another neither do they procreate, then the loose assumption that they might be interested in taking to wives a completely different kind of creature is rather absurd and is not of sound biblical reasoning. Then the question begs to be asked; why non-physical spirits would find human women beautiful? Angels are spirits, whereas mankind is of a corporeal embodied spirit. Huge difference! For the book of Hebrews says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. A lower vibratory rate of 3d temporalism. Angels were made of a much higher order. It is also good to take notice that nowhere in the text have evil angelic beings been able to manifest with actual physical form or appear as visible to mankind. The key word in Gen. 6 “wives” debunks the faulty theory by itself. Wives can only come about by a marriage, and Jesus said angels don’t marry, nor are they given in marriage.
Marriage, as instituted in Genesis, has the effect of making the two members of “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), a concept which is meaningless if one of the partners has no flesh to begin with, such as angelic beings. For an angel to really marry a human woman, that angel would have to take on physical form in a permanent or at least semi-permanent way which raises all sorts of additional common sense biblical questions and stumbling blocks. The NT scriptures tell us that angels have not wives Mark 12-25. So if this Nephilim myth were true, why would these supposed fallen angels take them for wives, rather than just kidnapping them for reproductive genetic altering purposes? Even if this myth were true it makes no logical sense that they would take them for wives. Only people were meant to have husbands and wives, this was established by God in Gen. 2-24. How simple does it get?
This preposterous suggestion of angel-mankind reproduction contradicts everything that the bible teaches about angels, men, women, conception, and reproduction. Scripture expressly teaches that procreation can only be of its own kind, and nothing else. Therefore, every creature that God made to procreate or reproduce did so and does so after its own kind. Nothing in the bible even remotely suggest otherwise. If so, I should ask; how did angels reproduce men, since the text calls them “men” of renown that resulted from the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men.
(Gen 6:4)? These men of renown were nothing more than men of fame perverting Gods word like famous preachers today, such as Billy Graham, the Pope, John McCarther, T. D. Jakes, and 1000s more seeking mammon and fame to be flesh kings. Jesus said it was a curse to be a man of renown (famous) in Matthew 23, and Luke 6-26.
Even if it were possible for angelic beings an mankind to reproduce, which it is not, still God would not have allowed it, as it was contrary to creation and His stated laws for gendering with a diverse kind (Luke 19:19; Deut. 22:10), even expressed in Gen 1.
The men and daughters are worldly descendants of Cain and others. For in Genesis 6:1-2 they are distinguished from the sons of God and described as mere fleshly reproduction men seeking the desires of his own imagination continually, and not walking after the Spirit like Noah.
Clearly Genesis 4 states that Seth was an appointed son. This is in direct contrast to the lineage of Cain, which was referred to merely as men by God’s slight of them because of their worldly lusts described in Genesis 4:16-24. Therefore, having nothing honourable about themselves; they were distinct in there ways and separate from the sons of God in the line of Seth. The sin described here in Gen 6 that so caused God to repent that he ever made man is the sin of Balaam, the righteous marrying pagans (Numbers 25:1-3; 31:16; Revelation 2:14). Also the worldly men had most likely invented polygamy to noticeably multiply, seeking strength in numbers, as Lamech had done in (Genesis 4:19-24), thus violating the godly purpose of marriage (Genesis 2-24 Malachi 2:15).
The inspiration of the scriptures, by the Spirit, written through Moses, used the distinction sons of God in contrast to the daughters of men, for the express purpose of revealing the apostate nature of mingling, which is a core center teaching and warning to the righteous all throughout scripture. This was the same snare that King Solomon fell into; as he saw the daughters of the heathen as fair, and took them for wives; then following after in their ways, he began building monuments for their false gods, even in God's Temple did Solomon build these abominations. It is to be noted that very similar language is used in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 about God’s relationship to His people depending on separation. I cover this teaching of mingling in the Nephilim Hoax audios #1 .
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. The angelic beings were never made to reproduce of their kind, but rather they were all created at the same time before God formed the earth, Job 38-7…They do not procreate. Marriage is for the purpose of procreating Gen 2 & 3.
Angels don’t marry, however the language in Genesis 6 is clearly that of marriage.
If the angelic nature of these spiritual beings is such that they do not marry one another neither do they procreate, then the loose assumption that they might be interested in taking to wives a completely different kind of creature is rather absurd and is not of sound biblical reasoning. Then the question begs to be asked; why non-physical spirits would find human women beautiful? Angels are spirits, whereas mankind is of a corporeal embodied spirit. Huge difference! For the book of Hebrews says Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. A lower vibratory rate of 3d temporalism. Angels were made of a much higher order. It is also good to take notice that nowhere in the text have evil angelic beings been able to manifest with actual physical form or appear as visible to mankind. The key word in Gen. 6 “wives” debunks the faulty theory by itself. Wives can only come about by a marriage, and Jesus said angels don’t marry, nor are they given in marriage.
Marriage, as instituted in Genesis, has the effect of making the two members of “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), a concept which is meaningless if one of the partners has no flesh to begin with, such as angelic beings. For an angel to really marry a human woman, that angel would have to take on physical form in a permanent or at least semi-permanent way which raises all sorts of additional common sense biblical questions and stumbling blocks. The NT scriptures tell us that angels have not wives Mark 12-25. So if this Nephilim myth were true, why would these supposed fallen angels take them for wives, rather than just kidnapping them for reproductive genetic altering purposes? Even if this myth were true it makes no logical sense that they would take them for wives. Only people were meant to have husbands and wives, this was established by God in Gen. 2-24. How simple does it get?
This preposterous suggestion of angel-mankind reproduction contradicts everything that the bible teaches about angels, men, women, conception, and reproduction. Scripture expressly teaches that procreation can only be of its own kind, and nothing else. Therefore, every creature that God made to procreate or reproduce did so and does so after its own kind. Nothing in the bible even remotely suggest otherwise. If so, I should ask; how did angels reproduce men, since the text calls them “men” of renown that resulted from the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men.
(Gen 6:4)? These men of renown were nothing more than men of fame perverting Gods word like famous preachers today, such as Billy Graham, the Pope, John McCarther, T. D. Jakes, and 1000s more seeking mammon and fame to be flesh kings. Jesus said it was a curse to be a man of renown (famous) in Matthew 23, and Luke 6-26.
Even if it were possible for angelic beings an mankind to reproduce, which it is not, still God would not have allowed it, as it was contrary to creation and His stated laws for gendering with a diverse kind (Luke 19:19; Deut. 22:10), even expressed in Gen 1.
The men and daughters are worldly descendants of Cain and others. For in Genesis 6:1-2 they are distinguished from the sons of God and described as mere fleshly reproduction men seeking the desires of his own imagination continually, and not walking after the Spirit like Noah.
Clearly Genesis 4 states that Seth was an appointed son. This is in direct contrast to the lineage of Cain, which was referred to merely as men by God’s slight of them because of their worldly lusts described in Genesis 4:16-24. Therefore, having nothing honourable about themselves; they were distinct in there ways and separate from the sons of God in the line of Seth. The sin described here in Gen 6 that so caused God to repent that he ever made man is the sin of Balaam, the righteous marrying pagans (Numbers 25:1-3; 31:16; Revelation 2:14). Also the worldly men had most likely invented polygamy to noticeably multiply, seeking strength in numbers, as Lamech had done in (Genesis 4:19-24), thus violating the godly purpose of marriage (Genesis 2-24 Malachi 2:15).
The inspiration of the scriptures, by the Spirit, written through Moses, used the distinction sons of God in contrast to the daughters of men, for the express purpose of revealing the apostate nature of mingling, which is a core center teaching and warning to the righteous all throughout scripture. This was the same snare that King Solomon fell into; as he saw the daughters of the heathen as fair, and took them for wives; then following after in their ways, he began building monuments for their false gods, even in God's Temple did Solomon build these abominations. It is to be noted that very similar language is used in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 about God’s relationship to His people depending on separation. I cover this teaching of mingling in the Nephilim Hoax audios #1 .
W
PART 3
Jude 1:6-7 is two separate events and two judgments ending with fire upon the wicked. These events and are in no wise connected. They are for the purpose of warning against evil, and for instilling the fear of God’s judgement in the day of His wrath. 1)The angels left their first estate and habitation because pride cost them their intended divine appointments in heaven (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-14; 2 Peter 2:4). God’s judgement of fire was upon them, as the lake of fire is reserved for them Matt. 25-41. >2) The male sodomites of Sodom went after the strange flesh of the same sex instead of the natural use of the woman. Thus fire and brimstone rained upon them of those cities. (Romans 1:27). Keep in remembrance that Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah and Lot in Luke 17.
William Tyndale translated the word "nephal" in Gen. 6-4 to "tyrants" (the most extreme condition of having fallen away into wrath. Cain had fallen "nephal" into a condition of wrath against his brother Able.
Gen 4-6 And the LORD[SUP]3068[/SUP] said[SUP]559[/SUP] unto[SUP]413[/SUP] Cain,[SUP]7014[/SUP] Why[SUP]4100[/SUP] art thou wroth?[SUP]2734[/SUP] and why[SUP]4100[/SUP] is thy countenance[SUP]6440[/SUP] fallen?[SUP]5307[/SUP] [SUP]{naphal} Gen 6-4 [/SUP][SUP]was a multiple example of this abomination, twice speak example of 2 factions of evil (nephal, nephal) a signature of having produced a plethora of these fallen ones. And there were giants in the earth in those days. [/SUP]
Giants
(Tyrants) There were tyrants in the earth in those days, for the sons of God saw the daughters of men,. The sons of God were the prophets' children, which (though they succeeded their fathers) fell yet from the right way, and thorow falsehood of hypocrisy subdued the world under them, and became tyrants, as the successors of the apostles have played with us..... William Tyndale
Jesus described the wicked men of Noah’s day without any mention of angels. But rather using it for an example to us. Giving us a warning of the future sin and rebellion of mankind, and that we should mark and avoid them. As the apostle Peter said; "save yourselves from this untoward generation" Jesus also equated this with marriage, (Christian mingling) and their destruction by the flood, given as the same warning to us in (Matt. 24:37-42; Luke 17:26-27) not to mingle with the heathen and his ways who live for nothing but the cares of this life, of which the seed cannot take root.. This teaching is so simple that a child could learn. However prideful men with wild imaginations cannot.
The phrase son of God does not have to apply to angels only. To suggest it so, is being presumption without evidence. How many times must the Lord refer to His people under the O.T. as His sons or children to prove this truth (Exodus 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Psalms 82:6-7; Isaiah 1:2; 45:11; 43:6; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1)? Even in John 8, Jesus calls those of the OT Jews, that are living in sin, (servants of sin), and sons of the devil, this is a direct contrast to Gods own, who would be sons of God. One is either a child of Satan or a child of God.
Joshua 24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
Joshua 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Nothing changed; it was the same old gods the people served before the flood. Nothing to do with fallen angels’pro-creating with women. The whole bible is about mingling and serving other god’s and a warning to us not to follow in the ways of Cain, running greedily after the error of Balaam, and perishing in the gainsaying of Core, Jude 1-11.…..Nothing new under the sun.
The term sons of God in Genesis 6 is divine adoption or profession, those walking after the Spirit and not after the desirous lusts of the flesh. The story is always the same; in that God ended His striving with His people, just as He finished striving with the Hebrew children in the wilderness because of their iniquity. If a search is made, there can be found a spiritual godly line of men from Seth, to Enos, Cainan, Jared, Mahalaleel, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah.
Jude 1:6-7 is two separate events and two judgments ending with fire upon the wicked. These events and are in no wise connected. They are for the purpose of warning against evil, and for instilling the fear of God’s judgement in the day of His wrath. 1)The angels left their first estate and habitation because pride cost them their intended divine appointments in heaven (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-14; 2 Peter 2:4). God’s judgement of fire was upon them, as the lake of fire is reserved for them Matt. 25-41. >2) The male sodomites of Sodom went after the strange flesh of the same sex instead of the natural use of the woman. Thus fire and brimstone rained upon them of those cities. (Romans 1:27). Keep in remembrance that Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah and Lot in Luke 17.
William Tyndale translated the word "nephal" in Gen. 6-4 to "tyrants" (the most extreme condition of having fallen away into wrath. Cain had fallen "nephal" into a condition of wrath against his brother Able.
Gen 4-6 And the LORD[SUP]3068[/SUP] said[SUP]559[/SUP] unto[SUP]413[/SUP] Cain,[SUP]7014[/SUP] Why[SUP]4100[/SUP] art thou wroth?[SUP]2734[/SUP] and why[SUP]4100[/SUP] is thy countenance[SUP]6440[/SUP] fallen?[SUP]5307[/SUP] [SUP]{naphal} Gen 6-4 [/SUP][SUP]was a multiple example of this abomination, twice speak example of 2 factions of evil (nephal, nephal) a signature of having produced a plethora of these fallen ones. And there were giants in the earth in those days. [/SUP]
Giants
(Tyrants) There were tyrants in the earth in those days, for the sons of God saw the daughters of men,. The sons of God were the prophets' children, which (though they succeeded their fathers) fell yet from the right way, and thorow falsehood of hypocrisy subdued the world under them, and became tyrants, as the successors of the apostles have played with us..... William Tyndale
Jesus described the wicked men of Noah’s day without any mention of angels. But rather using it for an example to us. Giving us a warning of the future sin and rebellion of mankind, and that we should mark and avoid them. As the apostle Peter said; "save yourselves from this untoward generation" Jesus also equated this with marriage, (Christian mingling) and their destruction by the flood, given as the same warning to us in (Matt. 24:37-42; Luke 17:26-27) not to mingle with the heathen and his ways who live for nothing but the cares of this life, of which the seed cannot take root.. This teaching is so simple that a child could learn. However prideful men with wild imaginations cannot.
The phrase son of God does not have to apply to angels only. To suggest it so, is being presumption without evidence. How many times must the Lord refer to His people under the O.T. as His sons or children to prove this truth (Exodus 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Psalms 82:6-7; Isaiah 1:2; 45:11; 43:6; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1)? Even in John 8, Jesus calls those of the OT Jews, that are living in sin, (servants of sin), and sons of the devil, this is a direct contrast to Gods own, who would be sons of God. One is either a child of Satan or a child of God.
Joshua 24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
Joshua 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Nothing changed; it was the same old gods the people served before the flood. Nothing to do with fallen angels’pro-creating with women. The whole bible is about mingling and serving other god’s and a warning to us not to follow in the ways of Cain, running greedily after the error of Balaam, and perishing in the gainsaying of Core, Jude 1-11.…..Nothing new under the sun.
The term sons of God in Genesis 6 is divine adoption or profession, those walking after the Spirit and not after the desirous lusts of the flesh. The story is always the same; in that God ended His striving with His people, just as He finished striving with the Hebrew children in the wilderness because of their iniquity. If a search is made, there can be found a spiritual godly line of men from Seth, to Enos, Cainan, Jared, Mahalaleel, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah.
W
PART 4
The Lord's grief and His judgment by the flood in Genesis 6 are given as an example of admonition for His people, a warning against mingling with the pagans of the world, of which He has always hated. There are repeated warnings and a promise of judgment for such of those who do throughout the scripture (Gen. 24:3; 27:46; Exodus 34:16; Deut. 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12-13; Judges 3:4-8; I Kings 11:1-11; 2 Chron. 18:1; 19:2; Ezra 9:1-2; Nehemiah 13:24-27; Malachi 2:11,15; I Cor. 7:39; 11:11; 2 Cor. 6:14-16; James 4:4).
The sin in Gen. 6-2 included actual marriage (angels don't marry Mark 12-25), thus neither resulting in husbands and wives. However, the sons of God, those form the line of Seth, began to be polygamists like those of the Canites, as "they took them for wive"s" of all which they chose" Gen. 6-2
Both Abraham & Sarah were concerned with Isaac over the dangers of mingling Gen. 24-3. And also Isaac & Rebekah were displeased with Esau marrying a Hattie called the "daughters" of Canaan, Gen 28-6, therefore being greatly concerned that Jacob should not do the same, Gen. 28-1. Why? Because these were God's sons, His children, holy and separate from the heathens of the world. "IE" sons of God in the eyes of the Lord.
Knowing this first; the phrase sons of God does not have to apply to angels, to even suggest so is being presumptuous and lacking evidence in the text. The Lords people are His sons, children, etc. as described in (Exodus 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Psalms 82:6-7; Is 1:2; 45:11; 43:6; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1, John 1:12; Romans 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15; and I John 3:1-2)
Note: God has obedient angels that follow Him. There are also disobedient and rebellious angels that fell away 1500 years before the flood with Satan. Why would He call rebellious angelic beings of 1500 years past fallen His sons? It makes no logical sense.. The obedient to God are always called his sons/daughters/children...
Abram and his small band were separate from those serving other Gods in Joshua 24-2, therefore the Lord called him out to be His servant. This is also a consistent pattern within the text "God rewards those who diligently seek Him" Hebrews 11-6. Abram was seeking God, therefore God chose him to be the father of many nations that might be redeemed through the blood of His Son, Christ Jesus, the seed of Abraham, Galatians 3-16. Even Noah was seeking God, thus he found grace in the eyes of the Lord, Gen. 6-8, of whom God made His covenant with, Gen. 6-18, "IE" the power to live godly in his present age, forwarded to Titus 2:12-14, and also in this present age. God has always supplied the grace for those seeking to walk after His ways. Therefore the age of grace began with Abel. It has always been the gospel of grace, even from Abraham Galatians 3-8, but after the cross the grace has been dispensed in a much greater magnitude, in that Satan should no longer be able to deceive the nations.
At the conclusion of Gen. 4, 2 generations after Adam, men began to call upon the name of the Lord, thus Adam's generations outlined in Gen. 5 are opposed to those of the Canite world. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth who began to call upon the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:25-26, for God saw His children seeking Him. Remnant theology is consistent discourse seen throughout scripture. The contrast of Genesis chapters 4 & 5 are a continuous theme from beginning to the end of the bible. The holy people of God, in contrast to those of the house of Cain (the wheat & tares). Four generations later came the prophet Enoch Gen. 5:21-24; Jude 1:14-15 to first warn of apostasy, then then Noah Gen. 6:8-10 during the end times of great apostasy .
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
According to Genesis 6-4 b, the off spring resulting from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men were mighty men, and men of renown {men of fame, with the results being dominating tyrants}. They were not the first giants of Genesis 6:4 a but became like them after mixing with them. There is a clear distinction between them described as, and also after that. By copulating with those of evil influence the results became the same as the families of Cain and the inhabitants of the earth. Just as the apostle Paul warned us of in 1 Cor. 15-33 Evil communications corrupt good manners.
The Lord's grief and His judgment by the flood in Genesis 6 are given as an example of admonition for His people, a warning against mingling with the pagans of the world, of which He has always hated. There are repeated warnings and a promise of judgment for such of those who do throughout the scripture (Gen. 24:3; 27:46; Exodus 34:16; Deut. 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12-13; Judges 3:4-8; I Kings 11:1-11; 2 Chron. 18:1; 19:2; Ezra 9:1-2; Nehemiah 13:24-27; Malachi 2:11,15; I Cor. 7:39; 11:11; 2 Cor. 6:14-16; James 4:4).
The sin in Gen. 6-2 included actual marriage (angels don't marry Mark 12-25), thus neither resulting in husbands and wives. However, the sons of God, those form the line of Seth, began to be polygamists like those of the Canites, as "they took them for wive"s" of all which they chose" Gen. 6-2
Both Abraham & Sarah were concerned with Isaac over the dangers of mingling Gen. 24-3. And also Isaac & Rebekah were displeased with Esau marrying a Hattie called the "daughters" of Canaan, Gen 28-6, therefore being greatly concerned that Jacob should not do the same, Gen. 28-1. Why? Because these were God's sons, His children, holy and separate from the heathens of the world. "IE" sons of God in the eyes of the Lord.
Knowing this first; the phrase sons of God does not have to apply to angels, to even suggest so is being presumptuous and lacking evidence in the text. The Lords people are His sons, children, etc. as described in (Exodus 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Psalms 82:6-7; Is 1:2; 45:11; 43:6; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1, John 1:12; Romans 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15; and I John 3:1-2)
Note: God has obedient angels that follow Him. There are also disobedient and rebellious angels that fell away 1500 years before the flood with Satan. Why would He call rebellious angelic beings of 1500 years past fallen His sons? It makes no logical sense.. The obedient to God are always called his sons/daughters/children...
Abram and his small band were separate from those serving other Gods in Joshua 24-2, therefore the Lord called him out to be His servant. This is also a consistent pattern within the text "God rewards those who diligently seek Him" Hebrews 11-6. Abram was seeking God, therefore God chose him to be the father of many nations that might be redeemed through the blood of His Son, Christ Jesus, the seed of Abraham, Galatians 3-16. Even Noah was seeking God, thus he found grace in the eyes of the Lord, Gen. 6-8, of whom God made His covenant with, Gen. 6-18, "IE" the power to live godly in his present age, forwarded to Titus 2:12-14, and also in this present age. God has always supplied the grace for those seeking to walk after His ways. Therefore the age of grace began with Abel. It has always been the gospel of grace, even from Abraham Galatians 3-8, but after the cross the grace has been dispensed in a much greater magnitude, in that Satan should no longer be able to deceive the nations.
At the conclusion of Gen. 4, 2 generations after Adam, men began to call upon the name of the Lord, thus Adam's generations outlined in Gen. 5 are opposed to those of the Canite world. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth who began to call upon the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:25-26, for God saw His children seeking Him. Remnant theology is consistent discourse seen throughout scripture. The contrast of Genesis chapters 4 & 5 are a continuous theme from beginning to the end of the bible. The holy people of God, in contrast to those of the house of Cain (the wheat & tares). Four generations later came the prophet Enoch Gen. 5:21-24; Jude 1:14-15 to first warn of apostasy, then then Noah Gen. 6:8-10 during the end times of great apostasy .
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
According to Genesis 6-4 b, the off spring resulting from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men were mighty men, and men of renown {men of fame, with the results being dominating tyrants}. They were not the first giants of Genesis 6:4 a but became like them after mixing with them. There is a clear distinction between them described as, and also after that. By copulating with those of evil influence the results became the same as the families of Cain and the inhabitants of the earth. Just as the apostle Paul warned us of in 1 Cor. 15-33 Evil communications corrupt good manners.
W
PART 5
Connecting invisible dots by trying to force-connect 2 verses in the book of Job to Gen 6-4, even ignoring the fact that Satan was contrasted against the sons of God in Job 1-6, and then still make an attempt to link that to Genesis 6-4 is not built upon the sound study of scripture. Seeking to make illogical connections in the text can created all kinds of heresies. For instance; angels are termed saints in (Deut. 33:2; Acts 7:53; Psalms 68:17), therefore, can we make a leaping assumption that the Roman believers of the gospel were actually angels, since they were called saints (Romans 1:7; and elsewhere in the text)? Such connections are not based on the sound study, nor rightly dividing the word, thus not concluding from the whole council of God. Also, angels are said to be watchers Daniel 4:17. By using the same faulty assessments we could then make the claim that the Chaldeans were angels, because they were called watchers Jeremiah 4:16?
One of the most common imaginary fables contends that Gen. 6 teaches that fallen angels had sex with human women. Taking them for wives, giving rise to some kind of human/angel hybrid called the Nephilim. As I already mentioned in prior studies; the word Nephilim is a made up
Sensationalism the mantra of the day
This warped Satanic view has been popularized in books, Hollywierd movies, TV shows and, most heart wrenching of all, in teachings by irresponsible preachers in churches, the internet, and UTUBE supposed Christian websites. This fantasy certainly feeds our appetites for sensationalism, like as do ghost stories, aliens, and Lepricon tales, even the likes of séances and soul travel heresies. In Daniel 12-4 it’s said this so called earthly knowledge would drive men to madness in the last days. More importantly this madness ends up causing people to miss the very point God was making when He inspired Moses to scribe the warning for our admonition in Geneses 6.
Man, from the beginning in Gen.3, has by nature, sought to place the blame of his own sin on someone or something else. This is also a reoccurring theme throughout the bible and very prevalent within the confines of the church institutions today, mainly the lie of original sin, inability, and total depravity, dual-nature etc.. The fallen angel’s myth is just another way to place the blame of his sin upon another entity.
The scriptures never reference “sons of God.” as rebellious angels
Now, let us examine this very closely under the microscopic lens of scripture with a single eye, focused on the truth and harmonization of Gods' word. If these “sons of God” were in-fact angels, then they would have been disobeying God by committing this abomination, this along with their disobedience would seem to constitute an angelic rebellion. Keep in remembrance that there is no mention of Satan in this account found in Gen. 6, nor any mention elsewhere in the scriptures of Satan leading the rebellion by marrying human/woman. If true; this would have almost most certainly have had to have been a different angelic rebellion than the one and only rebellion mentioned in various other places within the text. However, there is no mention anywhere in bible of a 2nd angelic rebellion. It would be very intriguing and beg for question why there would be no other mention made about such a rebellion elsewhere in the text. Therefore, if this is not a 2nd account of loyal angels of God abandoning heaven and leaving their first estate, falling away from His throne of righteousness, then the only other option would be to understand these “sons of God” as being the already-fallen angels, of the onetime rebellion against God, otherwise known as devils or evil seducing spirits in the bible. But if these are indeed devils or demonic spirits, then calling them “sons of God” would be a very strange and out of character in the scriptures. They by no means could have been sons of God. Even in Job chapters 1 & 2 God refers to His angles as "sons of God", then He describes Satan separately, and of a different virtue. The Hebrew word (gam) translated here as “also” (as in “Satan also came”) is typically used to describe a contrast and distinction. God never calls rebellious angels His sons in scripture. NEVER..
Of those readers who study themselves approved in the council of God would think to themselves that this so-called Nephilim account is so obviously riddled with errors that it has no need of an explanation from the imaginary of men to be sought after. The Nephilim myth should immediately set of an alarm in their spiritual discernment, a check in the Spirit, knowing that this is a false doctrine, and not of harmonization with the full weight of scripture. Therefore, how could devils be called “sons of God”? This term in the New Testament is most certainly used to mark those who are faithful and obedient to the Lord and nothing else. We see this even in so near a context as Job 38:7 where the “sons of God” are indeed angels, who rejoiced at God’s work from day one, thus were first eye witnesses to the 6 days of creation. Even Lucifer himself was among these angles giving praise to God with his pipes and taberts, Ezekiel 28. In the New Testament, we see the same positive expressions of those who belong to God (Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19 and Galatians 3:26). God would not, and never has, called demonic spirits "sons of God". But these men were sons of God lusting after the daughters of Cain, and possibly other heathens, and then falling away, however the angels had already fallen from God during the one time rebellion 1500 years prior. Therefore they would have never been referred to as sons of God.
Angles having ability to plant without seed? How absurd.
The angels are by nature non-corporeal beings, having been created all at one time, thus have no need for seed because they procreate not. They do not naturally possess sperm ( a seed of which they can plant) to impregnate women. Even if we assume that angelic spirits can take physical form for a while, which is completely contrary to the scriptures, it is a great stretch of the imagination to assume that their temporary bodies would possess DNA. Only God created DNA existing in the 3d realm. Angles have no power whatsoever to compose themselves with something as complexed as DNA, and then formed into reproductive cells which can be introduced into a mankind. How absurd does it have to get before people stop and think rationally about this grandiose myth of satanic false doctrine? Stop and think, they are actually suggesting the process of sexual reproduction and maintaining cellular meiosis even after the angelic spirit has returned to its natural, non-physical state. They must surmise that everyone to be completely naïve and stupid of reason in order to believe such preposterous lies. Notwithstanding, any child born from an angel/woman union would not be of Adam’s seed line, yet as we will see the flood narrative seems to include the Nephilim in with the other sinful descendants of Adam, along with all of mankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, of which the blame is placed only on man, not angelic beings. There are so many holes in this myth that you can dispel it in several different ways from several different scriptural approaches.
God brought judgment on mankind for their sin, not on angels the lake of fire was already reserved for them said Jesus..
Like I covered in previous articles and audios, the context of Gen. 6 teaches us that this abomination between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” was part of God’s motivation in bringing the flood upon the earth and his judgement upon MANKIND, of the which HE could no longer strive with. Thus, these few verses in the beginning of Gen. 6, including the remarks about the “sons of God” coming into the “daughters of men”, along with the brief statement about the giants "nephal", the fallen ones, and men of fame, are indeed all part of Gods' declaration of mankind's wickedness in the earth.. An interesting notation found in Gen 6:12, which states that the Lord saw how evil things had become, in the corporeal, “all flesh” had become corrupt, a term closely associated with mankind all throughout the text. It is most certainly mankind who is the focus of God’s judgment, not angelic beings. Therefore keeping with the focus on human sinfulness, punishment, and the flood upon the earth, and not a purging of the heavens, yet maintaining the theme of the sinfulness and punishment of mankind, however, once again, making no mention at all of the sin or punishment of angelic spirits. If the Nephilim and their very existence is so great an abomination, then why is only man held responsible for the wickedness and continually imaginations of his evil doings? When the fable clearly declares that the supposed angelic “sons of God” are in-fact the very ones who initiated these unholy deeds of abomination to begin with. Think back to Geneses 3, who was the initiator? It was the serpent, and that is who God cursed. We don’t see this in Gen 6, however we see man being judged and the earth being cursed for a second time.,
Connecting invisible dots by trying to force-connect 2 verses in the book of Job to Gen 6-4, even ignoring the fact that Satan was contrasted against the sons of God in Job 1-6, and then still make an attempt to link that to Genesis 6-4 is not built upon the sound study of scripture. Seeking to make illogical connections in the text can created all kinds of heresies. For instance; angels are termed saints in (Deut. 33:2; Acts 7:53; Psalms 68:17), therefore, can we make a leaping assumption that the Roman believers of the gospel were actually angels, since they were called saints (Romans 1:7; and elsewhere in the text)? Such connections are not based on the sound study, nor rightly dividing the word, thus not concluding from the whole council of God. Also, angels are said to be watchers Daniel 4:17. By using the same faulty assessments we could then make the claim that the Chaldeans were angels, because they were called watchers Jeremiah 4:16?
One of the most common imaginary fables contends that Gen. 6 teaches that fallen angels had sex with human women. Taking them for wives, giving rise to some kind of human/angel hybrid called the Nephilim. As I already mentioned in prior studies; the word Nephilim is a made up
Sensationalism the mantra of the day
This warped Satanic view has been popularized in books, Hollywierd movies, TV shows and, most heart wrenching of all, in teachings by irresponsible preachers in churches, the internet, and UTUBE supposed Christian websites. This fantasy certainly feeds our appetites for sensationalism, like as do ghost stories, aliens, and Lepricon tales, even the likes of séances and soul travel heresies. In Daniel 12-4 it’s said this so called earthly knowledge would drive men to madness in the last days. More importantly this madness ends up causing people to miss the very point God was making when He inspired Moses to scribe the warning for our admonition in Geneses 6.
Man, from the beginning in Gen.3, has by nature, sought to place the blame of his own sin on someone or something else. This is also a reoccurring theme throughout the bible and very prevalent within the confines of the church institutions today, mainly the lie of original sin, inability, and total depravity, dual-nature etc.. The fallen angel’s myth is just another way to place the blame of his sin upon another entity.
The scriptures never reference “sons of God.” as rebellious angels
Now, let us examine this very closely under the microscopic lens of scripture with a single eye, focused on the truth and harmonization of Gods' word. If these “sons of God” were in-fact angels, then they would have been disobeying God by committing this abomination, this along with their disobedience would seem to constitute an angelic rebellion. Keep in remembrance that there is no mention of Satan in this account found in Gen. 6, nor any mention elsewhere in the scriptures of Satan leading the rebellion by marrying human/woman. If true; this would have almost most certainly have had to have been a different angelic rebellion than the one and only rebellion mentioned in various other places within the text. However, there is no mention anywhere in bible of a 2nd angelic rebellion. It would be very intriguing and beg for question why there would be no other mention made about such a rebellion elsewhere in the text. Therefore, if this is not a 2nd account of loyal angels of God abandoning heaven and leaving their first estate, falling away from His throne of righteousness, then the only other option would be to understand these “sons of God” as being the already-fallen angels, of the onetime rebellion against God, otherwise known as devils or evil seducing spirits in the bible. But if these are indeed devils or demonic spirits, then calling them “sons of God” would be a very strange and out of character in the scriptures. They by no means could have been sons of God. Even in Job chapters 1 & 2 God refers to His angles as "sons of God", then He describes Satan separately, and of a different virtue. The Hebrew word (gam) translated here as “also” (as in “Satan also came”) is typically used to describe a contrast and distinction. God never calls rebellious angels His sons in scripture. NEVER..
Of those readers who study themselves approved in the council of God would think to themselves that this so-called Nephilim account is so obviously riddled with errors that it has no need of an explanation from the imaginary of men to be sought after. The Nephilim myth should immediately set of an alarm in their spiritual discernment, a check in the Spirit, knowing that this is a false doctrine, and not of harmonization with the full weight of scripture. Therefore, how could devils be called “sons of God”? This term in the New Testament is most certainly used to mark those who are faithful and obedient to the Lord and nothing else. We see this even in so near a context as Job 38:7 where the “sons of God” are indeed angels, who rejoiced at God’s work from day one, thus were first eye witnesses to the 6 days of creation. Even Lucifer himself was among these angles giving praise to God with his pipes and taberts, Ezekiel 28. In the New Testament, we see the same positive expressions of those who belong to God (Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19 and Galatians 3:26). God would not, and never has, called demonic spirits "sons of God". But these men were sons of God lusting after the daughters of Cain, and possibly other heathens, and then falling away, however the angels had already fallen from God during the one time rebellion 1500 years prior. Therefore they would have never been referred to as sons of God.
Angles having ability to plant without seed? How absurd.
The angels are by nature non-corporeal beings, having been created all at one time, thus have no need for seed because they procreate not. They do not naturally possess sperm ( a seed of which they can plant) to impregnate women. Even if we assume that angelic spirits can take physical form for a while, which is completely contrary to the scriptures, it is a great stretch of the imagination to assume that their temporary bodies would possess DNA. Only God created DNA existing in the 3d realm. Angles have no power whatsoever to compose themselves with something as complexed as DNA, and then formed into reproductive cells which can be introduced into a mankind. How absurd does it have to get before people stop and think rationally about this grandiose myth of satanic false doctrine? Stop and think, they are actually suggesting the process of sexual reproduction and maintaining cellular meiosis even after the angelic spirit has returned to its natural, non-physical state. They must surmise that everyone to be completely naïve and stupid of reason in order to believe such preposterous lies. Notwithstanding, any child born from an angel/woman union would not be of Adam’s seed line, yet as we will see the flood narrative seems to include the Nephilim in with the other sinful descendants of Adam, along with all of mankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, of which the blame is placed only on man, not angelic beings. There are so many holes in this myth that you can dispel it in several different ways from several different scriptural approaches.
God brought judgment on mankind for their sin, not on angels the lake of fire was already reserved for them said Jesus..
Like I covered in previous articles and audios, the context of Gen. 6 teaches us that this abomination between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” was part of God’s motivation in bringing the flood upon the earth and his judgement upon MANKIND, of the which HE could no longer strive with. Thus, these few verses in the beginning of Gen. 6, including the remarks about the “sons of God” coming into the “daughters of men”, along with the brief statement about the giants "nephal", the fallen ones, and men of fame, are indeed all part of Gods' declaration of mankind's wickedness in the earth.. An interesting notation found in Gen 6:12, which states that the Lord saw how evil things had become, in the corporeal, “all flesh” had become corrupt, a term closely associated with mankind all throughout the text. It is most certainly mankind who is the focus of God’s judgment, not angelic beings. Therefore keeping with the focus on human sinfulness, punishment, and the flood upon the earth, and not a purging of the heavens, yet maintaining the theme of the sinfulness and punishment of mankind, however, once again, making no mention at all of the sin or punishment of angelic spirits. If the Nephilim and their very existence is so great an abomination, then why is only man held responsible for the wickedness and continually imaginations of his evil doings? When the fable clearly declares that the supposed angelic “sons of God” are in-fact the very ones who initiated these unholy deeds of abomination to begin with. Think back to Geneses 3, who was the initiator? It was the serpent, and that is who God cursed. We don’t see this in Gen 6, however we see man being judged and the earth being cursed for a second time.,
W
PART 6
In conclusion
There are many well-intent and sincere Christians, however sincerely deceived about this subject matter. They have a hard time with the obvious meaning of Genesis 6 for a variety of reasons. Notwithstanding, in seeking to clear the minds of these people and remove the confusion, we use scripture only, and not unreliable sources of information, legends, etc. Why? Ancient myths are full of stories of gods descending to earth to mate with humans, found in many sources, such as the Norse and Greek mythology. Some of these myths have Adams children living to be 43,000 years old. Therefore these accounts DIRECTLEY CONTRADICT THE SCRIPTURES, and are unreliable. Why? Answer; men are LIARS and they LOVE LIES. So much so, that the history of the Nephilim, of which the actual roots are Luciferian, were transferred into the World FANTASY Tabloid Book of Enoch around the 14th century. Another red flag of warning is that most of the world believes this ridiculous myth.
The correct approach is to show thy self approved is to begin with the bible, study in the scriptures, and end with the bible, and listen for confirmation form the Holy Spirit of Truth, thus proving all things.
Why the lust for such fascination and George Noory Coast to Coast midnight ghost stories, UHOs and Nephilim Reptilian creatures. If the world is into it; can it be of God? One has to ask; why Christians are so curious and interested in them? Answer; there is no sobriety within Christianity today, they will drink any of the world’s ilk and say, "that's good stuff". Thinking it is a fine wine of doctrine, even an aged merlot. All the while not knowing that it is a cheap Muscatel or Ripple. Or as Fred Sanford said “Champipple”… They are drunk on the cheap wine of false doctrine and traditions of men and their pagan philosophy’s. Jesus said; once they drink straightway {gulp it down without discernment} of the old wine {traditions of men} they say the old is better. {They prefer the fascination of false doctrine}. However, the word of God has the power to destroy the imaginary mythology of drunken men. Yes the truth is stranger than fiction, and much more filling too.
The earth and all that inhabitants therein were not all destroyed in the flood because of a cohabitation of angels and men, hybrids. Scripture says it was destroyed because the "wickedness of MAN was great". That declaration alone should put to rest the myth of any angelic Nephilim beings as the cause.
The genealogies in the text have different abridgements, such as the terms son of and begotten. The genealogies are often used to trace the ancestry of an individual back to some important person in past history. Such as Jesus Christ the son of David the son of Abraham, in Matthew ch. 1. It reveals the kingship line of Jesus earthly step father Joseph, which entitled Jesus to lawfully be the king of Israel, even though He was not a descendant of all those listed after King David within that genealogy of Matt 1. However, Luke 3 gives Jesus direct genealogy all the way back to Adam the son of God. The Genealogy of Jesus | Learn The Bible
The OT genealogies often omit some generations. Example: the genealogy of Aaron in Ezra 7:1-5 omits 6 names that are given in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. Ezra uses the word son to mean grandson or descendant. In the account given in Genesis, it brings together a group of somewhat nonrelated occurrences however if examined closely through the genealogy it links the transition from Adam to the story of Noah and is very much so all tied together and related in both genealogy and purpose.
These are direct descendants, in that they are begat, and also Luke 3 teaches us they were spiritual descendants as well, in terms of "son of" in verse 36-38. In other words; all of the first 10 patriarchs were begotten physically in their genealogies and chosen by God spiritually because of their righteous ways and obedience to God. "IE" sons of God. Therefore genealogies in many cases in the text are a registration of names forming either a spiritual or physical connection, or in some cases both. The genealogies in the OT are not necessarily used in the same sense of a modern family tree genealogy where each person in a line is listed, although at times it can be. But it was in some cases a method of the ancient genealogies to list memorable people and omits others in the family line. We need not think that the genealogy's purpose is to represent every generation, as our modern day family trees attempt to do., however these modern family trees can only go back a few hundred years at best.
Luke 3-38 tells us Adam was a son of God. Yet people say there were no sons of God in the OT. It is simply one of several ways that God references His people in the text. These genealogies also support the truth that God intended for them to be fruitful in spirit such that His people should continue to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 1.28). There is an insertion at the end of Gen 4 whereas Seth's family concludes with the righteous attribute: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord," which demonstrates the spirituality of their seed line. Thus having seen the murderous ways of Cain, it may have heightened their awareness of the need for total dependence on the Lord.
At the conclusion of chapter 5 there is a spiritual thread of hope in the birth of Noah. He becomes the dominant spiritual force (a preacher of righteousness) in the next part of the story. As Noah walked with God, he found grace in the Lords eyes. God did not begin the flood until Noah's grandfather Methuselah (longsuffering) had died. Also Noah’s father had already passed away some years before Methuselah. Therefore leaving Noah, the only remnant. Adam actually lived to see 9 of the 10 generations born. The narrow way of righteousness had dwindled down to only Noah who was perfect in his physical genealogies as well as his spiritual appointment. "And Noah walked with God" (sons of God). Only Gods children walk with Him, nothing else, and His children are sons and daughters. How easy is that to reason? That is much more logical than calling rebel angels who had already fallen some 1500 years prior, sons of God.
Therefore the phrase son of God does not have to apply to angels only. To suggest it so, is being presumption without evidence. How many times must the Lord refer to His people under the O.T. as His sons or children to prove this truth (Exodus 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Psalms 82:6-7; Isaiah 1:2; 45:11; 43:6; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1)?
The separation between Cain and the Generations of Adam (Gen 4 & 5)
Nephal Gen 4-6, & 6-4 “to fall,” one who "has fallen". Do to the apostate character of these people; their fallen condition progressed into a violent sort of men who assaulted others. Gen. 6-4 speaks of this fallen condition in the plural "nephel", a plethora's of heathens upon the earth killing each other. The warning in Gen. 9:4-6 bears record of this murderous pre-flood condition that existed in Gen 6.
Now what did Jesus himself say about this historic flood event? In Luke 17 & 21, they were "marrying and giving in marriage", Oh, and angels don't marry (Matt. 22-30).
Simply meaning, that they were proceeding on with the foolish cares of this world, being overcharged with drunkenness, and parties. "Surfeiting" etc.>thus they knew not and the flood came and took them away. Jesus mentioned NOTHING about the cause being any angelic beings. But rather the cause was the foolishness of man’s endeavors. How could Jesus have possibly overlooked the Nephilim account? Answer, He didn't, because it is a made up fairy-tale.
Matthew 24:38-39 For as in the days before the flood, they did eat and drink, marry, and give in marriage, unto the day that Noah entered into the Ark, and knew nothing, till the flood came, and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. {Here Jesus clearly states, and warns us, that the same type of foolishness and sinful living will be the demise of this earth and all that exists therein, 2 Peter 3, just as it was in the example given in Genesis 6}
Cain, who was not included in the generations of Adam, had curses visited upon the 3rd & 4th generations etc. He gave rise to a line of people both in the flesh and in the spirit that was even more murderous than Cain himself. Lamech seemingly threatened his wives by telling them that he murdered a man and an adolescent, along with the possibility of another 10 persons. Lamech said to his wives, Genesis 4- 23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech. For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold. Lamech was a man of colossal anger (a giant) and revenge in addition to his polygamous lifestyle.
Important note; Gen 6-2 says they "took them WIVES". This wording in the text highly implies they began practicing polygamy with unbelievers, liken to Cain's great, great grandson, Lamech.
One might ask the question of this fable. If the “sons of God” were in fact angels, how did the world wide flood serve as a judgment upon them? Can angels drown?
In conclusion
There are many well-intent and sincere Christians, however sincerely deceived about this subject matter. They have a hard time with the obvious meaning of Genesis 6 for a variety of reasons. Notwithstanding, in seeking to clear the minds of these people and remove the confusion, we use scripture only, and not unreliable sources of information, legends, etc. Why? Ancient myths are full of stories of gods descending to earth to mate with humans, found in many sources, such as the Norse and Greek mythology. Some of these myths have Adams children living to be 43,000 years old. Therefore these accounts DIRECTLEY CONTRADICT THE SCRIPTURES, and are unreliable. Why? Answer; men are LIARS and they LOVE LIES. So much so, that the history of the Nephilim, of which the actual roots are Luciferian, were transferred into the World FANTASY Tabloid Book of Enoch around the 14th century. Another red flag of warning is that most of the world believes this ridiculous myth.
The correct approach is to show thy self approved is to begin with the bible, study in the scriptures, and end with the bible, and listen for confirmation form the Holy Spirit of Truth, thus proving all things.
Why the lust for such fascination and George Noory Coast to Coast midnight ghost stories, UHOs and Nephilim Reptilian creatures. If the world is into it; can it be of God? One has to ask; why Christians are so curious and interested in them? Answer; there is no sobriety within Christianity today, they will drink any of the world’s ilk and say, "that's good stuff". Thinking it is a fine wine of doctrine, even an aged merlot. All the while not knowing that it is a cheap Muscatel or Ripple. Or as Fred Sanford said “Champipple”… They are drunk on the cheap wine of false doctrine and traditions of men and their pagan philosophy’s. Jesus said; once they drink straightway {gulp it down without discernment} of the old wine {traditions of men} they say the old is better. {They prefer the fascination of false doctrine}. However, the word of God has the power to destroy the imaginary mythology of drunken men. Yes the truth is stranger than fiction, and much more filling too.
The earth and all that inhabitants therein were not all destroyed in the flood because of a cohabitation of angels and men, hybrids. Scripture says it was destroyed because the "wickedness of MAN was great". That declaration alone should put to rest the myth of any angelic Nephilim beings as the cause.
The genealogies in the text have different abridgements, such as the terms son of and begotten. The genealogies are often used to trace the ancestry of an individual back to some important person in past history. Such as Jesus Christ the son of David the son of Abraham, in Matthew ch. 1. It reveals the kingship line of Jesus earthly step father Joseph, which entitled Jesus to lawfully be the king of Israel, even though He was not a descendant of all those listed after King David within that genealogy of Matt 1. However, Luke 3 gives Jesus direct genealogy all the way back to Adam the son of God. The Genealogy of Jesus | Learn The Bible
The OT genealogies often omit some generations. Example: the genealogy of Aaron in Ezra 7:1-5 omits 6 names that are given in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14. Ezra uses the word son to mean grandson or descendant. In the account given in Genesis, it brings together a group of somewhat nonrelated occurrences however if examined closely through the genealogy it links the transition from Adam to the story of Noah and is very much so all tied together and related in both genealogy and purpose.
These are direct descendants, in that they are begat, and also Luke 3 teaches us they were spiritual descendants as well, in terms of "son of" in verse 36-38. In other words; all of the first 10 patriarchs were begotten physically in their genealogies and chosen by God spiritually because of their righteous ways and obedience to God. "IE" sons of God. Therefore genealogies in many cases in the text are a registration of names forming either a spiritual or physical connection, or in some cases both. The genealogies in the OT are not necessarily used in the same sense of a modern family tree genealogy where each person in a line is listed, although at times it can be. But it was in some cases a method of the ancient genealogies to list memorable people and omits others in the family line. We need not think that the genealogy's purpose is to represent every generation, as our modern day family trees attempt to do., however these modern family trees can only go back a few hundred years at best.
Luke 3-38 tells us Adam was a son of God. Yet people say there were no sons of God in the OT. It is simply one of several ways that God references His people in the text. These genealogies also support the truth that God intended for them to be fruitful in spirit such that His people should continue to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 1.28). There is an insertion at the end of Gen 4 whereas Seth's family concludes with the righteous attribute: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord," which demonstrates the spirituality of their seed line. Thus having seen the murderous ways of Cain, it may have heightened their awareness of the need for total dependence on the Lord.
At the conclusion of chapter 5 there is a spiritual thread of hope in the birth of Noah. He becomes the dominant spiritual force (a preacher of righteousness) in the next part of the story. As Noah walked with God, he found grace in the Lords eyes. God did not begin the flood until Noah's grandfather Methuselah (longsuffering) had died. Also Noah’s father had already passed away some years before Methuselah. Therefore leaving Noah, the only remnant. Adam actually lived to see 9 of the 10 generations born. The narrow way of righteousness had dwindled down to only Noah who was perfect in his physical genealogies as well as his spiritual appointment. "And Noah walked with God" (sons of God). Only Gods children walk with Him, nothing else, and His children are sons and daughters. How easy is that to reason? That is much more logical than calling rebel angels who had already fallen some 1500 years prior, sons of God.
Therefore the phrase son of God does not have to apply to angels only. To suggest it so, is being presumption without evidence. How many times must the Lord refer to His people under the O.T. as His sons or children to prove this truth (Exodus 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Psalms 82:6-7; Isaiah 1:2; 45:11; 43:6; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1)?
The separation between Cain and the Generations of Adam (Gen 4 & 5)
Nephal Gen 4-6, & 6-4 “to fall,” one who "has fallen". Do to the apostate character of these people; their fallen condition progressed into a violent sort of men who assaulted others. Gen. 6-4 speaks of this fallen condition in the plural "nephel", a plethora's of heathens upon the earth killing each other. The warning in Gen. 9:4-6 bears record of this murderous pre-flood condition that existed in Gen 6.
Now what did Jesus himself say about this historic flood event? In Luke 17 & 21, they were "marrying and giving in marriage", Oh, and angels don't marry (Matt. 22-30).
Simply meaning, that they were proceeding on with the foolish cares of this world, being overcharged with drunkenness, and parties. "Surfeiting" etc.>thus they knew not and the flood came and took them away. Jesus mentioned NOTHING about the cause being any angelic beings. But rather the cause was the foolishness of man’s endeavors. How could Jesus have possibly overlooked the Nephilim account? Answer, He didn't, because it is a made up fairy-tale.
Matthew 24:38-39 For as in the days before the flood, they did eat and drink, marry, and give in marriage, unto the day that Noah entered into the Ark, and knew nothing, till the flood came, and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. {Here Jesus clearly states, and warns us, that the same type of foolishness and sinful living will be the demise of this earth and all that exists therein, 2 Peter 3, just as it was in the example given in Genesis 6}
Cain, who was not included in the generations of Adam, had curses visited upon the 3rd & 4th generations etc. He gave rise to a line of people both in the flesh and in the spirit that was even more murderous than Cain himself. Lamech seemingly threatened his wives by telling them that he murdered a man and an adolescent, along with the possibility of another 10 persons. Lamech said to his wives, Genesis 4- 23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech. For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold. Lamech was a man of colossal anger (a giant) and revenge in addition to his polygamous lifestyle.
Important note; Gen 6-2 says they "took them WIVES". This wording in the text highly implies they began practicing polygamy with unbelievers, liken to Cain's great, great grandson, Lamech.
One might ask the question of this fable. If the “sons of God” were in fact angels, how did the world wide flood serve as a judgment upon them? Can angels drown?
Well my brother, you did a ton of work here and I have a lot of respect for you. It is well written and researched, assuming you wrote it?
As I stated in a previous post here, my days of doing what you just did in the BDF are over.
I can counterpoint most, if not all, of your objections to their being giants, but really, whats the point?
Let me ak you just a few simple questions though?
What about the references in the bible to giants?
What about the literally tons of bones found?
What about the folk stories and written stories about them from dozens of cultures?
What about certain structures built thousands of years ago that are so massive that no normal sized persons could have built them?
What about the actual modern day giant sightings?
What about the bible implies that God had many of the races utterly destroyed by Israel because they had strains of giants in them?
Why was the time of Noah regarded as being uniquely evil to the point God had to kill everyone and start over?
Why was the book of Enoch originally included in cannon if it is so bad?
Why was it referenced in the bible if it is so untrue?
How did giants come to be if not by fallen angels? Did people just start eating more Wheaties?
Why do they seem to have distinctive and grotesque features? Maybe because they are un-natural?
If we believe in evil angels, (fully one third of them BTW) and fallen angels, then why is it a leap to believe that these angels who hate God and his crowning creation would not seek to corrupt them? Is this not satans goal?
As I stated in a previous post here, my days of doing what you just did in the BDF are over.
I can counterpoint most, if not all, of your objections to their being giants, but really, whats the point?
Let me ak you just a few simple questions though?
What about the references in the bible to giants?
What about the literally tons of bones found?
What about the folk stories and written stories about them from dozens of cultures?
What about certain structures built thousands of years ago that are so massive that no normal sized persons could have built them?
What about the actual modern day giant sightings?
What about the bible implies that God had many of the races utterly destroyed by Israel because they had strains of giants in them?
Why was the time of Noah regarded as being uniquely evil to the point God had to kill everyone and start over?
Why was the book of Enoch originally included in cannon if it is so bad?
Why was it referenced in the bible if it is so untrue?
How did giants come to be if not by fallen angels? Did people just start eating more Wheaties?
Why do they seem to have distinctive and grotesque features? Maybe because they are un-natural?
If we believe in evil angels, (fully one third of them BTW) and fallen angels, then why is it a leap to believe that these angels who hate God and his crowning creation would not seek to corrupt them? Is this not satans goal?
Human males in the bible are identified by the name of their earthly father, the author of Genesis made the point to call these particular males the sons of God, meaning that they had no earthly father, meaning they did not come from Adam, so that would leave some kind of angels. We need to keep in mind that we know very little about the world of angels. The bibles says that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were functional(translated beautiful). In other words the angels knew that they could have sex with the earth women. About what Jesus said, he said that the children of the resurrection would no longer have a physical relationship with a wife but would be equal to the angels. Jesus did not say that no angels ever at any time could have sex. So the resurrected humans will not have sex, one statement. And are equal to the angels, is another statement. Also Jude tells us plainly that some angels sinned in a sexual way and because of it were imprisoned. Again, we are told almost nothing about the world of angels.
W
Greetings SAMUEL123, Oh please spare me the rhetoric...Let’s examine Jude and Peter with the whole council of God
Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, (they departed from the household of God) but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Likewise did Cain when he went to the land of Nod he separated himself from God..To suggest this implies promiscuity WITH A DIOFFERWNT KIND is really a great attempt at bending the test..Scripture says only of its own kind can anything reproduce..Does anyone really believe that God would allow angels to take people by force and then judge them for it? That's ludacris, Paul said there is no temptation that is not common to all men from the beginning, and that God always provides a way of escape...What way of escape could there be if the Nephilim Myth were actually true..Then God would judge mankind for it? That's not the justice of the God in the scriptures...No, He said that man CORRUPTED HIMSELF upon the face of the earth, and all of his thoughts were continually evil....
2 Peter 2-4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Jude, like Peter is warning the congregations of the common salvation about past apostasy and that God will again judge the world in righteousness...This ONE TIME falling away occurred 1500 years before Noah even started building the Ark....They would have NEVER have been called sons of God in Noah's day...This is quite clear in the book of Job because the sons of God are contrasted against Satan, so there is no misunderstanding in the text.......Evil angels are the sons of God is a biblical oxymoron...
The whole Nephilim Myth defies biblical common sense and reasoning if examined closely with the text AT LARGE....
Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, (they departed from the household of God) but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Likewise did Cain when he went to the land of Nod he separated himself from God..To suggest this implies promiscuity WITH A DIOFFERWNT KIND is really a great attempt at bending the test..Scripture says only of its own kind can anything reproduce..Does anyone really believe that God would allow angels to take people by force and then judge them for it? That's ludacris, Paul said there is no temptation that is not common to all men from the beginning, and that God always provides a way of escape...What way of escape could there be if the Nephilim Myth were actually true..Then God would judge mankind for it? That's not the justice of the God in the scriptures...No, He said that man CORRUPTED HIMSELF upon the face of the earth, and all of his thoughts were continually evil....
2 Peter 2-4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Jude, like Peter is warning the congregations of the common salvation about past apostasy and that God will again judge the world in righteousness...This ONE TIME falling away occurred 1500 years before Noah even started building the Ark....They would have NEVER have been called sons of God in Noah's day...This is quite clear in the book of Job because the sons of God are contrasted against Satan, so there is no misunderstanding in the text.......Evil angels are the sons of God is a biblical oxymoron...
The whole Nephilim Myth defies biblical common sense and reasoning if examined closely with the text AT LARGE....
Last edited by a moderator:
Things to consider... seriously!
Nephilim existed before the sons of God took daughters of men as wives.
They were said to be heroes, men of renown.
KJV identifies them as giants while other texts merely say Nephilim.
God destroyed all flesh with the breath of life upon Earth except for Noah and
his family and the animals on the ark, because of the wickedness of human beings.
The earth was destroyed due to the wickedness of mankind, not angel hybrids.
Anakites were also very tall, as were Anakim, Emim, Rapha, and Rephaim.
Sons of God are those Who belong to Him by faith and allegiance.
Why would anyone call demonic angels such?
Those who are corrupt are explicitly said not to be His children.
Sons of God are identified in OT Scriptures as men, as well as NT Scriptures.
Angels are specifically said not to be given in marriage.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest angels have gender.
Do you seriously think men could rape angels? Those very same angels caused
men to go blind and rained down fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Angels are only ever depicted as manifesting in the likeness of men to do the will of God. There is not one single instance in the whole of Scripture where an angel is depicted manifesting as a human of its own free will to carry out its own perverted desires. Entertaining angels unawares cannot be taken to mean having coitus with them.
There are no commandments against having any dealings with angels.
If sexual relations with angels were possible then you might think there would be some commandment forbidding it, unless God thinks it is a okay. Does anyone really think God would condone such? Give your head a shake if you do. Scripture is silent, because it is not possible for humans and angels to have sex with each other.
Scripture is not silent on humans having sexual relations with animals.
There are at least four specific commandments concerning beastiality.
Procreation of species happens after each kind.
1st Corinthians 15:39
Nephilim existed before the sons of God took daughters of men as wives.
They were said to be heroes, men of renown.
KJV identifies them as giants while other texts merely say Nephilim.
God destroyed all flesh with the breath of life upon Earth except for Noah and
his family and the animals on the ark, because of the wickedness of human beings.
The earth was destroyed due to the wickedness of mankind, not angel hybrids.
Anakites were also very tall, as were Anakim, Emim, Rapha, and Rephaim.
Sons of God are those Who belong to Him by faith and allegiance.
Why would anyone call demonic angels such?
Those who are corrupt are explicitly said not to be His children.
Sons of God are identified in OT Scriptures as men, as well as NT Scriptures.
Angels are specifically said not to be given in marriage.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest angels have gender.
Do you seriously think men could rape angels? Those very same angels caused
men to go blind and rained down fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Angels are only ever depicted as manifesting in the likeness of men to do the will of God. There is not one single instance in the whole of Scripture where an angel is depicted manifesting as a human of its own free will to carry out its own perverted desires. Entertaining angels unawares cannot be taken to mean having coitus with them.
There are no commandments against having any dealings with angels.
If sexual relations with angels were possible then you might think there would be some commandment forbidding it, unless God thinks it is a okay. Does anyone really think God would condone such? Give your head a shake if you do. Scripture is silent, because it is not possible for humans and angels to have sex with each other.
Scripture is not silent on humans having sexual relations with animals.
There are at least four specific commandments concerning beastiality.
Procreation of species happens after each kind.
1st Corinthians 15:39
"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
What about it? Giants existing does not mean they are the offspring of angels.
What do you mean by this? The evil of mankind is currently being restrained, you know. Do you really want to know how bad it can be? Do you think men are any better today? With the 32 billion dollar yearly sex slave industry with all its kidnapping and prostitution and pornography and pedophilia ad nauseum, would you really want to put forth the position that men are better now than they were a few thousand years ago? Do you overlook the fact that God promised not to drown the world again? Do you not see the foreshadowing of Christ's second coming, with the end of the age, herein? The end will come and the door will close and then the judgement. Evil shall be no more someday. Such a glorious day to look forward to!
Enoch was not originally included in canon. Nor is it considered canonical by most groups. Do your homework.
I could quote Frodo, but doing so does not mean he really existed.
Joseph, this is a ridiculous question, and you should know it.
LOL you are too funny. Get up close and personal with a bug to see how grotesque it is. Here:
Is that the spawn of Satan? Some people would say yes! Is it unnatural simply
because it has distinctive features that could be said to be grotesque? Absolutely not.
Your line of reasoning does not hold up under scrutiny to be very rational or reasonable.
Just because some of us say angels cannot have sex with human beings, and we hold to the fact that Scripture explicitly states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, etc etc etc, does not mean we do not believe in the power of God, or miracles, or that demons wish to corrupt humanity. If you want to make a leap and go against what Scripture explicitly teaches, that is your choice.
The most important verse where the word “Nephilim” appears (Genesis 6:1-4),
is obscure and has produced numerous often contradictory interpretations.
What do you mean by this? The evil of mankind is currently being restrained, you know. Do you really want to know how bad it can be? Do you think men are any better today? With the 32 billion dollar yearly sex slave industry with all its kidnapping and prostitution and pornography and pedophilia ad nauseum, would you really want to put forth the position that men are better now than they were a few thousand years ago? Do you overlook the fact that God promised not to drown the world again? Do you not see the foreshadowing of Christ's second coming, with the end of the age, herein? The end will come and the door will close and then the judgement. Evil shall be no more someday. Such a glorious day to look forward to!
Enoch was not originally included in canon. Nor is it considered canonical by most groups. Do your homework.
I could quote Frodo, but doing so does not mean he really existed.
Joseph, this is a ridiculous question, and you should know it.
LOL you are too funny. Get up close and personal with a bug to see how grotesque it is. Here:
Is that the spawn of Satan? Some people would say yes! Is it unnatural simply
because it has distinctive features that could be said to be grotesque? Absolutely not.
Your line of reasoning does not hold up under scrutiny to be very rational or reasonable.
Just because some of us say angels cannot have sex with human beings, and we hold to the fact that Scripture explicitly states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, etc etc etc, does not mean we do not believe in the power of God, or miracles, or that demons wish to corrupt humanity. If you want to make a leap and go against what Scripture explicitly teaches, that is your choice.
The most important verse where the word “Nephilim” appears (Genesis 6:1-4),
is obscure and has produced numerous often contradictory interpretations.
Emphatic arguments about things that we have absolutely no way to be certain is intellectual dishonesty. All any of us can do is gather facts and guess. If you have determined that there is no validity to any hybrid species between human and non-human, you have ignored many historical discoveries and translation errors in the Bible. As well, huge assumptions have been fabricated about non-human beings.
All you have to do is change the understanding of one word and it completely rewrites human history. Elohim does not necessarily mean God the Father every time it was written in the Old Testament. We make it say that so scripture fits our logic. If you actually interpret it correctly it says gods, plural. In order to fit it to our belief we say it means God of gods. Either way, it implies that our Heavenly Father is not alone. In no way am I saying He is not unique and our Master but to determine that people all over the world bowed down to their imaginations is a stretch. There is a war in the heavens, but it is not spiritual alone. Sons of the gods are what the Bible claims took the daughters of men as wives. There may be actual flesh and blood non-humans that walk among us referred to in the Bible. Whether you choose to believe it or not is your decision. All we should do is bring possibilities to the table to discuss because none of us really know.
All you have to do is change the understanding of one word and it completely rewrites human history. Elohim does not necessarily mean God the Father every time it was written in the Old Testament. We make it say that so scripture fits our logic. If you actually interpret it correctly it says gods, plural. In order to fit it to our belief we say it means God of gods. Either way, it implies that our Heavenly Father is not alone. In no way am I saying He is not unique and our Master but to determine that people all over the world bowed down to their imaginations is a stretch. There is a war in the heavens, but it is not spiritual alone. Sons of the gods are what the Bible claims took the daughters of men as wives. There may be actual flesh and blood non-humans that walk among us referred to in the Bible. Whether you choose to believe it or not is your decision. All we should do is bring possibilities to the table to discuss because none of us really know.