nephilim

[cv5]

also

bene Elohim = angels, gods, and men you need to read as you said: " If you can at all". Gen 6 Bene is = son of Gods are men.

Actually B'nai HaElohim. The original uncorrupted understanding was certainly fallen angels

The epistle of Jude draws extensively upon 1 Enoch; with that textual transmission in mind, it is clear Jude is referring to the episode in Genesis 6.1-4. Jude 6-7 is further repeated in 2 Peter 2.4.

1 Enoch's Book of Watchers (3rd century BC)
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' ... And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon. (R.H. Charles translation)

LXX Genesis 6.2-5 (2nd-1st century BC)
Some copies of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.1 (1st century AD)
For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. (William Whiston translation)

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

 

[CS1]

Actually B'nai HaElohim. The original uncorrupted understanding was certainly fallen angels

The epistle of Jude draws extensively upon 1 Enoch; with that textual transmission in mind, it is clear Jude is referring to the episode in Genesis 6.1-4. Jude 6-7 is further repeated in 2 Peter 2.4.

1 Enoch's Book of Watchers (3rd century BC)
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' ... And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon. (R.H. Charles translation)

LXX Genesis 6.2-5 (2nd-1st century BC)
Some copies of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew 'sons of God' into the Greek 'angels of God'.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.1 (1st century AD)
For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. (William Whiston translation)

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

none of those are authoritative writings nor do they change what God said Contextually in the book of Genesis

 

[cv5]

I care less about any theory I am not lashing out you were if you are honest. Your opinion has been noted and to you, it cannot be refuted. And not it was not confirmed if what assumed to be. many of the so-called church fathers you allude to were in disagreement with the idea of " Mischievous Angels". as stated by

"These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others." (Chuck Missler Aug 1, 1997).

However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)

Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.

It was in the 5th-century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5

The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

That is a cut and paste of Chuck Missler's work. I happen to agree with most if not all of it. Here is the link if anyone is interested.

https://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

 

[cv5]

none of those are authoritative writings nor do they change what God said Contextually in the book of Genesis

I think you are missing the point entirely. Jude is unquestionably drawing on Enoch. And there are acre-feet of writings testifying to the fact that Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels. I mean it is just simply a fact of history beyond all reputation. And the fact that this view changed is easily proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[cv5]

none of those are authoritative writings nor do they change what God said Contextually in the book of Genesis

I think I need to drive home my point. These ancillary writings do not change what the Scriptures say....they AGREE with them!

 

[oldethennew]

here's where a personal relationship with Jesus Christ must come into our lives by The Holy Spirit... -
for we know for sure that what we are reading 'today' is but a 'watered-down version',
interpreted and re-interpreted, etc., until 'right now, TODAY!!!'...

let's get real here, how many know that 'king james was a 'boy-lover' and no telling what else!
this is simple 'history', written down by many who knew him...
we digress...,

yes, hub and I prefer the 'Kjv', but our 'rose-colored-glasses' are a thing of our old/past...

 

[Mii]

Wrong. Bene Elohim refer to angels at every single application in scripture, without exception.

Dude. I just wrecked you buddy. Admit it. And you have nothing in the way of a cogent rebuttal, because there isn't one to be offered.

I have just quashed the Sethite theory once and for all and you are all witnesses to it.
I will accept your silence and denial as your admission of defeat.

That doesn't sound like a humble response to a discussion regardless of your content. As an observer who bumped into this thread...strikes me that way.


When I feel like " I stomped, destroyed, wrecked" someone in an argument...I sort of begin to wonder from what I am drawing from...the flesh or the spirit.

How it seems to work for me, perhaps you are different...


Said from a neutral position. I hold both views simultaneously. I cannot tell if the sci-fi version and the context of my dreams is the flesh or not...it seems a bit "too" fantastical for it to be present in the physical world. Spiritually in the unseen realm it "could" look like this. I've had some rather "dark" dreams and it does lend credence to these things taking place today. I've lived and died in them...which produces some powerful convictions that some of these things probably do still happen. Fortunately awake, it is pretty far from me.

I typed a lot more but I don't want to jump too deep into the esoteric, but suffice it to say since demons can inhabit an individual this could transition into breeding, and corruption of bloodlines through a sort of experimental process. Clearly the Lord was not a fan though either way. The interpretation of these verses could easily be non-physical and would it not have the same gravity?

Consider the section in Numbers referring to Balaam and the Lord's response to harlotry and "adulterating" his people's purity from idols (gods) via their women who were aligned with them.

 

[cv5]

That doesn't sound like a humble response to a discussion regardless of your content. As an observer who bumped into this thread...strikes me that way.


When I feel like " I stomped, destroyed, wrecked" someone in an argument...I sort of begin to wonder from what I am drawing from...the flesh or the spirit.

How it seems to work for me, perhaps you are different...


Said from a neutral position. I hold both views simultaneously. I cannot tell if the sci-fi version and the context of my dreams is the flesh or not...it seems a bit "too" fantastical for it to be present in the physical world. Spiritually in the unseen realm it "could" look like this. I've had some rather "dark" dreams and it does lend credence to these things taking place today. I've lived and died in them...which produces some powerful convictions that some of these things probably do still happen. Fortunately awake, it is pretty far from me.

I typed a lot more but I don't want to jump too deep into the esoteric, but suffice it to say since demons can inhabit an individual this could transition into breeding, and corruption of bloodlines through a sort of experimental process. Clearly the Lord was not a fan though either way.

Okay. I suggest therefore that you look at the relevant facts posted, and simply ignore the irrelevant bluster. I for one am not the least bit squeamish, and to me what I posted in terms of tone and style is perfectly fine, and really quite useful in driving home my point.

But you might want to consider this one simple truth: Both views are not correct.
And any objective referee would have to say that my case is infinitely stronger than my honorable opponent.

You might also want to consider that certain statements that you find questionable or objectionable are also correct, thought possibly mildly impolite.

Good day you Sir/Madame

 

[cv5]

Okay. I suggest therefore that you look at the relevant facts posted, and simply ignore the irrelevant bluster. I for one am not the least bit squeamish, and to me what I posted in terms of tone and style is perfectly fine, and really quite useful in driving home my point.

But you might want to consider this one simple truth: Both views are not correct.
And any objective referee would have to say that my case is infinitely stronger than my honorable opponent.

You might also want to consider that certain statements that you find questionable or objectionable are also correct, thought possibly mildly impolite.

Good day you Sir/Madame

What I meant to say is that both views cannot be simultaneously correct. Needed to do to make this point perfectly clear. Thank you.

 

[Scribe]

The interpretation of the sons of god being fallen angels and having relations with human women and producing heroes of old started around 200 BC (as far as we can tell from the rabbinical writings arguing over this interpretation) It was presented by Jewish Greek syncretic sects and was rejected by Jewish orthodox teachers. These Jewish cult teachers had mixed Judaism with Greek Mythology and philosophy and were attempting to find scriptural authority for their fables. It was never accepted by the majoirty orthodox Jewish rabbis who held to the more traditional sons of Seth in Adams camp vs daughters from the ungodly Cain camp. It is a fact that this fallen angel fable was being taught at the time of Christ but not by orthodox Jews, it was being taught by minor sects and Jesus reference to the people marrying in the days of Noah give us strong evidence that Jesus was also supporting the more traditional view that these sons of god were men. It does not take all that long to google and search out the rabbinical teachings at the time of Christ over this controversy. If one does not consider these writings and the discussion among the rabbis over this subject, and also their writings about the legitimacy of the book of Enoch they will not understand what people were saying about this teaching at the time of Christ. And understanding the mindset of the religious Jew and what people were saying about this interpretation at the time of Christ is important. If Jesus wanted to confirm the minority view that these were fallen angels we would be able to find evidence of it in something that he said. However by making the statement that he did in Matt 24:37-39 we are left with strong evidence that he was confirming the more popular view of orthodox Jewish Rabbis, that these were people marrying (taking wives of all which they choose) from the daughters of men until the flood came and took them all away. If we discover that there are Jewish Rabbinical writings arguing against the angel fable before and at the time of Christ, and this was the prevailing view of the Pharisees for example, would we then need to include that information in our discussion? If we instead make a false statement that all the Jews, and apostles believe in the angel theory, (knowing full well that the rabbinical writings reveal a controversy and for the most part the majority Jewish rulers in power having rejected the angel theory) Then our motives for hiding these historical facts would be suspect. We might be accused of being intellectually dishonest (and rightfully so) and of having some sort of agenda, whether it be sensationalism, desire to write a fictional sifi novel, or some other motive I cannot tell, but it would not be intellectual honesty.

 

[Mii]

What I meant to say is that both views cannot be simultaneously correct. Needed to do to make this point perfectly clear. Thank you.

Well I don't think they can but it's "knowing" 100% unequivocally that I find dubious. In general though, I think there is a clear message not to unify yourself with demons or those that associate/commune with them and that there is indeed some sort of "trade" that takes place with these unions.

That's the message I find relevant, which either interpretation seems to strongly imply the same thing. It is also reasonably clear that the Lord only revealed enough to be sufficient instead of being incredibly specific concerning this manifestation of evil which follows along with Romans 16: 19-20 and any time I hear someone going into depth too much I shy away. I see enough with dreams over the years and am careful what I watch/listen to at this point.

but I'll read back through the info, could be I find an extra tidbit that is of utility.



I suppose it's a different way of discussing things. If you hold a view opposite to mine and hold knowledge intellectually, what does it translate into spiritually and if I hold the opposite view and my spiritual conclusions are the same as yours, then I don't think the starting place much matters. Does that make sense?

Kind of like old earth/young earth...which I started to post on, but didn't for something of the same reason. I'm not a big fan of human debate with scripture as a weapon unless the goal is stated clearly...which in both of these threads there is no reason given for their pursuit.

So what's the takeaway and what "can" we agree on if intellectually we may be diametrically opposed as is the case with more than a few arguments...do our spiritual conclusions agree? The takeaway if you will.

You can see this even today. If I am sitting on one side of the stadium and doing a commentary on a sporting event, what I see will be different than the guy in the other endzone (presuming both have a fair view of the whole field). Our specific observations will probably differ but overall takeaway?

Note: this isn't about you per se, just when I clicked I noticed some disagreement going on and this is where I ended up.

So either it's the Lord or just random. I like to think the Lord has led me to particular threads, even ones I don't want to post on, but it continues to be on my mind. Not sure, but if you find this mindset useful (if only to be exposed to it) awesome

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Nephillim are simply men of renown . Giants of faith .Never used to support evil .

You claim the nephilim were "giants of faith".


Read Gen 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.


Who is God talking about in Gen 6:5? "giants of faith" or those who are of the wicked one?


God's judgment fell on those who God "saw" that their "wickedness" was "great in the earth", whose "thoughts ... only evil continually".

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;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


The angels that sinned were cast into hell, delivered into chains of darkness, reserved unto judgment (still future).

The old world was not spared ... only Noah and his family was spared.

All else, including nephilim, was judged by flood (which God brought upon the world of the ungodly).

 

[CS1]

That is a cut and paste of Chuck Missler's work. I happen to agree with most if not all of it. Here is the link if anyone is interested.

https://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

I know that that is why I placed a citation giving him the credit for it.

 

[CS1]

I think I need to drive home my point. These ancillary writings do not change what the Scriptures say....they AGREE with them!

I was giving your position there are others who do not agree I was just providing the argument you are using. Phase Two was the later post you did not respond to that. were done. I will place you back on ignore.

 

[cv5]

I think you are missing the point entirely. Jude is unquestionably drawing on Enoch. And there are acre-feet of writings testifying to the fact that Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels. I mean it is just simply a fact of history beyond all reputation. And the fact that this view changed is easily proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Here you go buddy. Noncanonical books are quoted in Scripture all over the place.

In Jude as well of course (as we have discussed at length) but many many other places to boot.
(Book of Enoch: (Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:13, 1:14–15, 2 Peter 2:4; 3:13, and John 7:38).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

These ancillary books may not be canonical, but any of the portions thereof or excerpts from them added to the Scripture makes those statement automatically and unequivocally factual.
And there are quite frankly a boatload of them.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that Scripture itself makes it absolutely crystal-clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that fallen angels were engaging sexually with human females before the flood.

It is highly likely that the Greek legends and myths are echoes of the preceding fact that fallen angels were mating with women and giving birth to monstrous offspring, NOT vice versa as many would have you believe.

It also seems highly plausible that the spirits of the dead Nephilim are the demons noted in the New Testament.

 

[BibleStudent60]

Although not mentioned in the original question, how many believe that the stories of the nephilim (children of the demons who left heaven and materialized into human form to cohabit with earthly women--See Jude 6) were later used as the literary fodder for all the myths of Greek mythology?

 

[cv5]

You claim the nephilim were "giants of faith".


Read Gen 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.


Who is God talking about in Gen 6:5? "giants of faith" or those who are of the wicked one?


God's judgment fell on those who God "saw" that their "wickedness" was "great in the earth", whose "thoughts ... only evil continually".

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;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


The angels that sinned were cast into hell, delivered into chains of darkness, reserved unto judgment (still future).

The old world was not spared ... only Noah and his family was spared.

All else, including nephilim, was judged by flood (which God brought upon the world of the ungodly).

Tartarus, used once only, and connected only to the very specific group fallen angels who sinned during the pre-flood days of Noah. The one and only very specific abode for the one and only very specific group of fallen angels.

https://biblehub.com/greek/tartaro_sas_5020.htm

I cannot for the life of me understand all of this confusion and debate. This is a done deal folks.

 

[cv5]

Although not mentioned in the original question, how many believe that the stories of the nephilim (children of the demons who left heaven and materialized into human form to cohabit with earthly women--See Jude 6) were later used as the literary fodder for all the myths of Greek mythology?

As I have earlier stated it is entirely likely that these Greek myths and legends had as their basis the fact of fallen angels mating with women and giving birth to monstrous offspring.

For some strange reason certain posters here have twisted the facts so that they postulate a precident that is vice versa vice versa. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[jaybird88]

Most people I've heard who take that view ^ , also say "because, see here in Job..." (and I already mentioned briefly why I do not believe Job 1 & 2 took place in heaven, but on the earth, based on the study I did in those chpts/in that Book).

are you trying to make an argument that the Most High lives here on earth? i think you have the Most High confused with Zeus from mt mt olympus. if He holds court on earth, where is it, i wan to drive there.

The bene ha elohim were “sons of the gods”, a term used of kings in extra-biblical sources

this is misleading information, babylonians are the only ones i am aware of that use the term "sons of" the Most High, the term always refers to heavenly beings.

people get confused with the term "son of" the Most High. angels or humans? the problem is the connection between angels and humans. scripture says Adam was a man, and also a son of the Most High. thats because he was both, created a son of the Most High, he walked with the Father, spoke to the Father, didnt die. then Adam fell and became a mortal man like the rest of us. Sons of the Most High are not like the rest of us, Jesus says they are equal to angels, and they do not die.
son of the Most High was always understood as a heavenly being until 400 years after Jesus when imperial rome came along, took over the faith and started making changes, this idea was one of their changes. another mistake of man.

 

[jaybird88]

As I have earlier stated it is entirely likely that these Greek myths and legends had as their basis the fact of fallen angels mating with women and giving birth to monstrous offspring.

For some strange reason certain posters here have twisted the facts so that they postulate a precident that is vice versa vice versa. Absolutely ridiculous.

Josephus said the same thing about the Greek titans.
doesnt the bible refer to these guys as "heros of old" "men of renown" which means they would have been known throughout the world. however those that cling on to the sethite view would have to admit these guys are long forgotten. forgotten would mean not very renown at all.