Who are the NEPHILIM in Genesis 6

[SophieT]

Sophie...I appreciate you comment but this is not about whether or not we have been visited by angels. It is about WHO were the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6.

The passages in Hebrews about entertainng angels unawares is a "comparative" Scripture and not a Doctrinal one.

Angels DID visit men. 3 came to Abrahma and Sari. One came to Joshua. Jacob foungt with one. Moses saw one in the burning bush.

However, which a little study we can see that those appearances were the "Angel of the Lord" which was a CHRISTOPHANY. A visual manifestation of diety which would make those appearances Jesus Christ pre-incarnation.

That being the case....the book of Hebrews compares those events and says that we should show love and hospitality to strangers because that stranger just might be an angel.

Now remember.....the word of ANGEL is actually "MESSANGER". We should not expect a vist from an angel but we just might meet some very wonderful people instead.

sigh

I KNOW that is not about the Nephs. My point actually being that angels can and do appear as flesh and blood

I am thinking I wish people would quit assuming everyone needs to be taught because once upon a time they studied something that sounded all educated and stuff

Next time an angel comes to my door I'll tell him you said he is not really there (sarcasm)

I can't even

 

[SophieT]

I understand. When faced with truth, the instinct in all of us is to fight or flee.

ahahahahahaha

Do you consider yourself a squirrel or a rabbit then? Christians are to stand...check it out in Ephesians

And, seems you missed it, but the truth sets you free. Also in the Bible.

 

[CS1]

Are people even able to block their own posts? How? I thought every post was pertinently on here

yes called ignore the person you see nothing

 

[CS1]

Thank you for repeating your conclusion (again), I am very aware of your position and do not need reminding of it. Now let's move on to examine the details that support/refute that conclusion.
One issue at a time... We have to find common ground before we can even talk about the conclusions.
So I ask again (for like the 4th time now)...its a yes or no question:

Do you deny that Peter's and Jude's reference of angelic sinful activity is the same event?

it seems that both 2Peter and Jude are speaking of sin angels did and they both do speak on the end result of judgment for those angels.

 

[Dino246]

yes called ignore the person you see nothing

So the problem is that you put me on Ignore, and then accused me of blocking my posts?

Wow. The hypocrisy is thick.

 

[Diakonos]

He did because without touching he wouldn't believe:

Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

It is an assumption that just because Thomas said something, means he did it. The sons of Israel also said, "We will do all that the Lord tells us to do" (Ex 19:8). But did they follow through with their statement? No. We know from the Bible that Thomas said he would only believe by touching him. But we are not told if he did. So it is likely that he did. but it cannot be said for sure.
Many people in Scripture say things they don't follow through with. Job's 3 unwise friends are a great example. The Bible accurately quotes their incorrect conclusions.

 

[Diakonos]

Are you speaking about 2 Pet 2:4? Jude 1:6?

Yes.
Is there any Biblical indication that they are separate events?

 

[CS1]

Yes.
Is there any Biblical indication that they are separate events?

there are similarities, in both but they can be about one or two events I'm not sure.

 

[Diakonos]

All of that is quite beside the point I made, the point being, it is not recorded in Scripture that Thomas actually stuck his hands in Jesus's wounds. Saying Thomas did it is an assumption.

I am not sure why you bring resurrected bodies into the discussion, either. Angels are not resurrected.

I was agreeing with you and brought in complementing Scripture. I meant to say "glorified body".

 

[CS1]

I was agreeing with you and brought in complementing Scripture. I meant to say "glorified body".

you mean " Glorified body "in context to Son of God or those spoken in 2pet and Jude?

 

[Diakonos]

you mean " Glorified body "in context to Son of God or those spoken in 2pet and Jude?

This was a response to another person and conversation. Did you mean to respond to this comment? You know what's funny, is that this I actually related to something I was about to bring up (the heavenly body).

there are similarities, in both but they can be about one or two events I'm not sure.

The grammatical and contextual details indicate that they are the same event:
{-the aorist tense used for "sinned" (2 Per 2:4) and 'abandoned their proper abode" (Jude 6) indicates a "snapshot event"; the angels' sin is not described as a process but as a single event. (this particular aspect is not proof of whether or not they are the same event; this is simply a clarifying observation that both Jude and Peter speak of a definite event. The question of whether or not they are the same event requires a closer look at the text...

-"committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment" (2 Per 2:4) and "kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6) are clear parallels.

-both passages indicate that the commitment/keeping/reserving of the angels were a result of their sin and that they would be kept in chains until they are judged (i.e. no parole/recess). This means they would not have the opportunity to participate in another event of sin if the first event put them in a prison until their time of judgment
(1 Cor 6:3). }

Is this sufficient to establish common ground between us that they (2 Per 2:4 and Jude 6) are the same event?
If so, then we can continue...

 

[Magenta]

It is an assumption that just because Thomas said something, means he did it. The sons of Israel also said, "We will do all that the Lord tells us to do" (Ex 19:8). But did they follow through with their statement? No. We know from the Bible that Thomas said he would only believe by touching him. But we are not told if he did. So it is likely that he did. but it cannot be said for sure.
Many people in Scripture say things they don't follow through with. Job's 3 unwise friends are a great example. The Bible accurately quotes their incorrect conclusions.

It is possible Thomas did as he said, but I think it is much more likely that he did not.

Jesus did say, after all, that Thomas believed because he saw.

And of course even that can be taken in more than one way.

However, I am of the mind that Thomas believed when he saw Jesus' wounds with his own eyes.

Would he really need to go that one step further and stick his hands/fingers in the holes?

I don't think so...

And thank you

 

[Major]

ahahahahahaha

Do you consider yourself a squirrel or a rabbit then? Christians are to stand...check it out in Ephesians

And, seems you missed it, but the truth sets you free. Also in the Bible.

Also found in the same Bible is James 4:7 ......
"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. "

 

[Major]

sigh

I KNOW that is not about the Nephs. My point actually being that angels can and do appear as flesh and blood

I am thinking I wish people would quit assuming everyone needs to be taught because once upon a time they studied something that sounded all educated and stuff

Next time an angel comes to my door I'll tell him you said he is not really there (sarcasm)

I can't even

I can not help but wonder why so many people on this particular "Christian" web site respond with so much sarcasm?

The next time a REAL angel comes to your door....take a picture and share it with all of us.

"appearing" as flesh and blood is a long, long way from actually being flesh and blood. BUT.....you go right ahead and blieve whatever you want to believe.

 

[Diakonos]

IF the Nephilim Giants are only the children of fallen angels, then how did Cush the son of Ham which is the son of Noah, have a giant for a son?????

The usage of "Giborim" is not exclusively used of Nephilim

 

[Diakonos]

It is possible Thomas did as he said, but I think it is much more likely that he did not.

Jesus did say, after all, that Thomas believed because he saw.

And of course even that can be taken in more than one way.

However, I am of the mind that Thomas believed when he saw Jesus' wounds with his own eyes.

Would he really need to go that one step further and stick his hands/fingers in the holes?

I don't think so...

And thank you

Your welcome. I think we are on the same page

 

[iamsoandso]

This was a response to another person and conversation. Did you mean to respond to this comment? You know what's funny, is that this I actually related to something I was about to bring up (the heavenly body).

The grammatical and contextual details indicate that they are the same event:
{-the aorist tense used for "sinned" (2 Per 2:4) and 'abandoned their proper abode" (Jude 6) indicates a "snapshot event"; the angels' sin is not described as a process but as a single event. (this particular aspect is not proof of whether or not they are the same event; this is simply a clarifying observation that both Jude and Peter speak of a definite event. The question of whether or not they are the same event requires a closer look at the text...

-"committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment" (2 Per 2:4) and "kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6) are clear parallels.

-both passages indicate that the commitment/keeping/reserving of the angels were a result of their sin and that they would be kept in chains until they are judged (i.e. no parole/recess). This means they would not have the opportunity to participate in another event of sin if the first event put them in a prison until their time of judgment
(1 Cor 6:3). }

Is this sufficient to establish common ground between us that they (2 Per 2:4 and Jude 6) are the same event?
If so, then we can continue...

Yep in Peter and Jude both it says they are "presently" bound in chains until the judgment,,so prior to the flood this is the "first group" that fell. Then there's Revelation and Satan,the devil,the serpent (Rev.20:2,Rev.12:9) he is in the garden(before the flood),,then in Job (after the flood) and on the mount tempting Jesus and is bound in chains prior to the mill. in https://biblehub.com/revelation/20-3.htm so he is not among those in Peter/Jude(first group) he and the others who follow him are in a "second group" who do the things described in Revelation.

 

[ewq1938]

It is an assumption that just because Thomas said something, means he did it.

Well, I believe the disciple. He without a doubt did touch Christ. Many people did in his time on the Earth. This is not a controversial thing.

We know from the Bible that Thomas said he would only believe by touching him. But we are not told if he did. So it is likely that he did. but it cannot be said for sure.

Given all that is written on this, we can say he did for sure.

Many people in Scripture say things they don't follow through with. Job's 3 unwise friends are a great example. The Bible accurately quotes their incorrect conclusions.

Conclusions are not things they didn't follow through on and they aren't a disciple of Christ like Thomas was.

 

[Diakonos]

Well, I believe the disciple. He without a doubt did touch Christ. Many people did in his time on the Earth. This is not a controversial thing.




Given all that is written on this, we can say he did for sure.




Conclusions are not things they didn't follow through on and they aren't a disciple of Christ like Thomas was.

And the Sons of Israel said "We will do all that the Lords tells us to do". That doesn't mean they did. It merely shows us what their intention was. People change their minds and break their word all the time. Statements and commentary made by God are the only ones we can bank on with complete certainty without empirical proof.

 

[Magenta]

Well, I believe the disciple. He without a doubt did touch Christ. Many people did in his time on the Earth. This is not a controversial thing.

Given all that is written on this, we can say he did for sure.

Conclusions are not things they didn't follow through on and they aren't a disciple of Christ like Thomas was.

It is dishonest to say you know for sure Thomas put his hands in Jesus' wounds as if Thomas said he did when no such thing is recorded. He did not without a doubt touch Jesus in that moment. You make assumptions but lack the truthfulness to admit to them. Did Jesus say to Thomas, you believe because you have felt my wounds? Nope! He said, you believe because you have seen. People make the same type of assumptions about the Nephilim. James was walking down the street and the sun was shining. Hey now! James walking down the street causes the sun to shine. Yep. Assuming James causes the sun to shine by walking down the street is the same type of assumption people make about Nephilim being the offspring of angels.