The Nephilim

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick,
You may close the thread as you see fit. Nothing left to say on my behalf.

Thanks all for your counsel.
 
I don't want to sound overly simplistic, but I would encourage all subscribers to the angelic theory to read and think through two passages: Gen. 19:30-38 and Deuteronomy 2. Consider all the names, peoples, and places referenced in relation to giants. Look at preserving the seed. Review the genealogy and land distribution.
________________

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:26, 27)

1.And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. (Gen 4:1,2, 25, 26)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5:1-4)

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
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. (Gen 6:1-7)
______________

I think the readings are plain. God creates man and woman, they have sons and daughters, some of whom are godly, while others are not. Some of those born were taller and mightier than others and they are referenced in the Scriptures as part of the ungodly line. I don't find "sons of God" or "daughters of men" as overtly technical. In fact, Eve calls Cain "a man from the Lord." A very straightforward reading suggests that sons of God may refer to both the line of Seth and the line of Cain, though the two lines are helpful in understanding what's taking place. But I wouldn't confine myself to an idea that giants (men, that is) are the product a strange angelic relations.

A daughter of Seth may come unto a son of Cain, which may result in a "giant or Emims or Anakims or Zamzummims or Nephilims." Noah was born at a time when many from the line of Seth had existed. Yet God waited to bring the flood and only saved Noah and his his household because of the increase of wickedness. Giants were born after the flood. Angels did not supernaturally inhabit/possess only male bodies (which sounds like a sexist interpretation) in order to make men (and possibly women) taller in body height in the same way the angelic sexual relations was not necessary to extend life expectancy. This was life "in those days/in times past/old time." Deuteronomy and Joshua speak of a remnant of the giants. Goliath is recorded as a very tall person in Holy Writ.

Here is another thought that I think some don't always flesh out. We know angels are not given in marriage on the authority of God's Word. But some have drawn strange connections to possible procreative ability (outside of marriage). But our text restricts these relations to marital ones. It expressly states that "they took them wives of all which they chose." This reads rather plain.

Also, God explicitly is concerned with destroying man (and beast), not some superhuman mutation of the created order. God does this repeatedly everywhere giants and other wicked male and female sinners are mentioned in the OT.

Furthermore, if one is to attempt at using "sons of God" and "daughters of men" as a technical term that is employed differently in the OT and NT, an argument which Reverend Buchanan has already addressed, I would feebly add that the interpretation contradicts itself. For "sons of God" to be established by either Genesis 6 or Job, regardless of provenance, one would have to hold that "sons of God" are fallen angels in Genesis but heavenly beings in Job, suggesting that giants are the sons of God, not the sons of Anak, as Numbers 13:33 inarguably states. But maybe one suggests that the sons of Anak are actually just later descendants from the sons of God (fallen angels). That's possible. But the sons of God in Job are referenced apart from Satan in "the presence of the Lord" and would be in existence after the Fall. This "technical language," replete throughout Scripture, is first mentioned in Genesis 3 and 4. In both contexts, it refers to indisputably human men and women: Adam and Eve (chap 3) and Cain (chap 4) encountering God. I am not arguing for an interpretation of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 as humans (and angels), though I don't think it would cause much issue if I were. I just find it intellectually inconsistent to maintain the position from Job when other markers should then take one away from that conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Ryan J. Ross said:
I don't want to sound overly simplistic, but I would encourage all subscribers to the angelic theory to read and think through two passages: Gen. 19:30-38 and Deuteronomy 2. Consider all the names, peoples, and places referenced in relation to giants. Look at preserving the seed. Review the genealogy and land distribution.
________________

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:26, 27)

1.And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. (Gen 4:1,2, 25, 26)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5:1-4)

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
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. (Gen 6:1-7)
______________

I think the readings are plain. God creates man and woman, they have sons and daughters, some of whom are godly, while others are not. Some of those born were taller and mightier than others and they are referenced in the Scriptures as part of the ungodly line. I don't find "sons of God" or "daughters of men" as overtly technical. In fact, Eve calls Cain "a man from the Lord." A very straightforward reading suggests that sons of God may refer to both the line of Seth and the line of Cain, though the two lines are helpful in understanding what's taking place. But I wouldn't confine myself to an idea that giants (men, that is) are the product a strange angelic relations.

A daughter of Seth may come unto a son of Cain, which may result in a "giant or Emims or Anakims or Zamzummims or Nephilims." Noah was born at a time when many from the line of Seth had existed. Yet God waited to bring the flood and only saved Noah and his his household because of the increase of wickedness. Giants were born after the flood. Angels did not supernaturally inhabit/possess only male bodies (which sounds like a sexist interpretation) in order to make men (and possibly women) taller in body height in the same way the angelic sexual relations was not necessary to extend life expectancy. This was life "in those days/in times past/old time." Deuteronomy and Joshua speak of a remnant of the giants. Goliath is recorded as a very tall person in Holy Writ.

Here is another thought that I think some don't always flesh out. We know angels are not given in marriage on the authority of God's Word. But some have drawn strange connections to possible procreative ability (outside of marriage). But our text restricts these relations to marital ones. It expressly states that "they took them wives of all which they chose." This reads rather plain.

Also, God explicitly is concerned with destroying man (and beast), not some superhuman mutation of the created order. God does this repeatedly everywhere giants and other wicked male and female sinners are mentioned in the OT.

Furthermore, if one is to attempt at using "sons of God" and "daughters of men" as a technical term that is employed differently in the OT and NT, an argument which Reverend Buchanan has already addressed, I would feebly add that the interpretation contradicts itself. For "sons of God" to be established by either Genesis 6 or Job, regardless of provenance, one would have to hold that "sons of God" are fallen angels in Genesis but heavenly beings in Job, suggesting that giants are the sons of God, not the sons of Anak, as Numbers 13:33 inarguably states. But maybe one suggests that the sons of Anak are actually just later descendants from the sons of God (fallen angels). That's possible. But the sons of God in Job are referenced apart from Satan in "the presence of the Lord" and would be in existence after the Fall. This "technical language," replete throughout Scripture, is first mentioned in Genesis 3 and 4. In both contexts, it refers to indisputably human men and women: Adam and Eve (chap 3) and Cain (chap 4) encountering God. I am not arguing for an interpretation of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 as humans (and angels), though I don't think it would cause much issue if I were. I just find it intellectually inconsistent to maintain the position from Job when other markers should then take one away from that conclusion.
Click to expand...
You have to remember, though, that "sexism" is not a category or standard by which to judge whether something is biblical or not. It is very much a post-Enlightenment concept that is tied to "feminism" which is also a post-Enlightenment concept.

The Bible does not concern itself with whether we are sexist or not, but just that we treat men, women and children appropriately out of love for God and His image, mankind.

I see from Etymonline, the online etymological dictionary, that "feminism" as advocacy of "women's rights" only dates from 1895, and the word "sexist" only dates from 1965.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Peairtach said:
You have to remember, though, that "sexism" is not a category or standard by which to judge whether something is biblical or not. It is very much a post-Enlightenment concept that is tied to "feminism" which is also a post-Enlightenment concept.

The Bible does not concern itself with whether we are sexist or not, but just that we treat men, women and children appropriately out of love for God and His image, mankind.

I see from Etymonline, the online etymological dictionary, that "feminism" as advocacy of "women's rights" only dates from 1895, and the word "sexist" only dates from 1965.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you found one word in the entire post and decided to respond. It doesn't matter from whence the word originated. If the Bible says "all of mankind" or "men" and the text includes women, the interpretation for only men would be sexist. You know, because we have a word that describes favoring of one sex over another.

If the text is only speaking about men exclusively and someone says that the view is sexist, then so be it. It doesn't matter because that's what Scripture teaches. Examples are complementarianism, submission, "weaker vessel," etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Andrew P.C.
  • Locked
The few. The proud. The...
Replies
23
Views
4K
InevitablyReformed
InevitablyReformed
Blueridge Believer
  • Locked
The Christian And The Theater
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
kvanlaan
kvanlaan
A.Joseph
  • Locked
The liberalization of the PCA
2 3
Replies
85
Views
11K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
JS116
  • Locked
The "Tebow" Of The NBA
Replies
3
Views
1K
asc
asc
C
  • Locked
The Discipline of the Lord
Replies
0
Views
1K
cih1355
C
Back
Top