nephilim

Has nothing to do whatsoever with the peculiar group referred to in Jude 1:7. Obviously.

Did He?

That passage fully supports the Nephillim.

Here is all the places the word "eat" ( trógó: to gnaw, munch, crunch) in Matthew 24:38 is:
Usage:
This word is used 6 times:

Matthew 24:38: "the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and"
John 6:54: " Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath"
John 6:56: " He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth"
John 6:57: "the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by"
John 6:58: "manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever."
John 13:18: "the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up"


Notice, this is not the usual word, for normal eating. This is used for eating HUMAN flesh.

The "they" in the verse refers to something OTHER than completely human men. It is irrefutable.

Wow. Checking into this now, The term definitely seems to be an anomaly compared to other terms used for eating. New for me that's for sure!

I'm not a QANON guy, but it gives a tiny smidgen of creedence to those that believe there is a cabal of pedophile elite that abuse and "eat" (tro'go') children.

Yes there are a lot of disturbing rumors going around about that. The evidence is mounting.

no, they are not you have assume they are. the sexual sin has and always has been that done of men.

" Strange flesh " means another like the same with bone and body. Notice the word Homosexual is not in the Bible
"going after strange flesh" means seeking the desire to have sexual relations with the same kind, that is the same as oneself, a man with man. "strange" in the Greek is heteros another of the same king other kinds.

FYI Jude doesn't support the genesis 6 angel having sex making Big men. You would have had something IF Jude said something about Noah, it does not.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Again. For pity sake give it up man.

2087 héteros – another (of a different kind). 2087 /héteros("another but distinct in kind") stands in contrast to 243 /állos ("another of the same kind"). 2087 /héteros ("another of a different quality") emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).

And to finalize this argument, see the term "domain".
https://biblehub.com/greek/oike_te_rion_3613.htm

The two occurrences of oikētērion unequivocally support fact of the fallen angels.

In Jude 1:6, the fallen angels leave their former domain, their spiritual body, and come down to earth for a different domain an earthly body.
In second Corinthians 5:2, Christians are to recieve their new domain, a new body, fit for heaven,
and cast off their former domain their earthly body.

2 Cor 5:2
"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven"

And so dies the Sethite theory and good riddance!

It is used in reference to going after women that the Hebrews were forbidden to marry such as women of other nations. Going after forbidden relationships in general. Going outside of the covenant rules God had given them. Just search all references to strange flesh not just one, you will see the pattern.

But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! Ezek 16:32
And also ....
15Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.

16Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.

17Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee.

18Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

Proverbs 5. As you see from just these examples, and there are more in the prophets specifically, that strange flesh would be going after a sexual relationship with someone you are not married to, in covenant with, (obviously man and woman is the only authorized, covenant marriage allowed) If a man or woman seeks sexual relations with anyone outside of marraige they are goind after strange flesh whether that is homosexual or heterosexual it is strange, (not in covenant) not allowed, forbidden. Or if they were Hebrew and went after the Moabite women they were going after strange flesh. Solomon taking in exotic women from other nations into his harrem, also would be guilty of going after strange flesh.

Please read what I have posted, if you are inclined to do so, or if indeed you can at all.
Anybody can wreck the Sethite theory in half a dozen posts or less.
Which of course I have just demonstrated.

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

By simply looking as the suffixes it determine the two different progenitors. The temporal of daughters of men or sons of man. and the born again eternal as sons of God or daughters of God seeing as new creature we are reconciled as the bride of Christ.

Of God or of corrupted dead men?. No serving two masters.

You are destroying the signified understanding of drinking blood in respect to men. That a parable must be compared to others so that we then can discover the spiritual understanding hid in that parable. Comparing the spiritual unseen understanding to the same faith to faith.

If not it remains a unsolved mystery or riddle.

Hi Scribe,
I think they're mixing two different contexts one of Sodom & G. and the other of Gen 6.
I was speaking about the post from
you are arrogant and rude to many in here. You need to give it up. If you think you can take a Greek or Hebrew word and make your own interpretation you are wrong. Yes, héteros – another (of a different kind) also depends on how the word is used in context.
They were not having sex with the angels at Sodom They desired to when they saw them. Stretch away, guy. Also in GEN 6, the context is men, not angels sinning. you can continue with your SIFI Biblical approach, next is Big Foot was born of an angel.

It does in context to Noah Jesus said they were marrying and giving into marriage Context is MEN. You can dismiss the words of Jesus all you want. HE is the authority on the topic guy. not Us or you.

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.

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.

NOPE. Not in gen 6 read it again dude. You could not wreck a crashed car LOL.


This is why I find you post funny Those who gave you Biblical perspective you attacked and called names. Now you are not showing anything Biblically but making calls for us to give it up, " I just wrecked you admit it", and more insults.

Grow up! Be mature. Learn to be disagreeable yet hold your position. That is great you think you are right I could be wrong but I am not . no one here is name-calling you are, as a child. And those who see you are laughing at you, because you are not convincing anyone, you are attacking those who disagree with you. Making their point more valid than your position. You have been warned, sir,

Lashing out in desperation with "warnings" is hardly useful either. But at any rate, I rest my case. Clearly what I have set forth for your approbation is quite frankly beyond refutation. And how it was and who it was that conjured up the Sethite theory is quite well known. And FYI, the Apostles and EARLY Church fathers understood that fallen angels were a fact of Gen 6 and Jude and Peter. This you can confirm very easily.

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.)

The Bible teaches that every creature, from man to beast reproduces after HIS KIND …

We this is in verses like Genesis 1:21, 24:
21 And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

& God said the same thing to mankind:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[We were made in the image of God, and we produce offspring in our own image, which is in the image of God].

& so men can’t mate with angels any more than they can mate with animals.

& God said the same thing to mankind:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[We were made in the image of God, and we produce offspring in our own image, which is in the image of God].

& so men can’t mate with angels any more than they can mate with animals.

We don’t have compatible seed.

It’s not biologically possible.

But the NEPHILIM position is that God brought about Noah’s flood …

… in order to destroy the HYBRID, DEMI-GOD OFFSPRING of FALLEN ANGELS & MEN.

But this is completely contrary to the CORE STORY of GENESIS & the Bible.