nephilim

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.

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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).

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

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.