# Gimme all your info on giants!



## Pergamum (Jan 25, 2015)

I'd love to have books, links and sermons, as well as any ancient myths or archeological finds about giants and any ancient giant kings or warriors.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 25, 2015)

You may be interested in this History Channel show: Search for the Lost Giants - Episodes, Video & Schedule - HISTORY.com.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 25, 2015)

We all know how reliable the History Channel is when it comes to the bible.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 27, 2015)

Anyone else? 

Anything on the "Nephilim"? They occur both before and after the Flood it seems.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 27, 2015)

I have actually been reading a good bit about the Nephilim, in the course of gaining some apologetics skills concerning the Canaan commands. Here are a few links I came across that I found helpful. I'm sure that Lambert Dolphin (and for sure Chuck Missler!) are not go-to guys for much of reformed theology. But I do tend to agree that the Nephilim were of demonic/angelic origin. Apparently the pre-Nicene fathers, and historians of the time, interpreted "sons of God" as angels. The Sethite view was promoted by Augustine. 

http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html

http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm

Will be interested to hear any thoughts on this.


----------



## Edward (Jan 27, 2015)

My pet theory, untroubled by any real basis, is that the giants were the Neanderthals.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 27, 2015)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I have actually been reading a good bit about the Nephilim, in the course of gaining some apologetics skills concerning the Canaan commands. Here are a few links I came across that I found helpful. I'm sure that Lambert Dolphin (and for sure Chuck Missler!) are not go-to guys for much of reformed theology. But I do tend to agree that the Nephilim were of demonic/angelic origin. Apparently the pre-Nicene fathers, and historians of the time, interpreted "sons of God" as angels. The Sethite view was promoted by Augustine.
> 
> Notes on the Nephilim: The Giants of Old
> 
> ...



Jeri:

Yes, that is where I am encountering problems. I agree with the Sethite view, but all the traditional and early literature speaks of angels breeding with men (which sounds CRAZY...but would explain all the giants).... Also, there is quite a bit of condemnation in non-canonical writings as well as some biblical writings against "going after strange flesh" (the angels and the sodomites seem both lumped into the same category for this sin).


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 27, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> > I have actually been reading a good bit about the Nephilim, in the course of gaining some apologetics skills concerning the Canaan commands. Here are a few links I came across that I found helpful. I'm sure that Lambert Dolphin (and for sure Chuck Missler!) are not go-to guys for much of reformed theology. But I do tend to agree that the Nephilim were of demonic/angelic origin. Apparently the pre-Nicene fathers, and historians of the time, interpreted "sons of God" as angels. The Sethite view was promoted by Augustine.
> ...



Yes, the angel view is strange to our ears, but the arguments provided in the articles linked help to clear away some of the protest against it, at least. Did you read Boice on the angel view, and on the passages in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude?

In the Reformed camp we can often go a little too far in our fear that the Bible will be seen as a book of crazy mythical happenings. But it is a book that describes plenty of crazy true happenings. The angel view provides a helpful continuity between the judgments of the Flood, on Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the conquest of Canaan.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 27, 2015)

No, I haven't read Boice. Can you link him or tell me what to read?


----------



## johnny (Jan 28, 2015)

I just had a look at Boice on "Sons of God daughters of men" and he is backing the angel view.



Strange Flesh

The third reason for preferring the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6 is the way in which both 2 Peter and Jude connect the judgment of God on the angels with the judgment of God on Sodom and Gomorrah, particularly the way in which Jude refers to the second incident. Apart from the language of Jude the connection could simply be that of two obvious examples of great judgment. But Jude seems to say more when, after having spoken of the judgment on the angels for their sin, he goes on to say, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” (v. 7). In this verse the comparison is not in the matter of judgment itself. Jude does not say, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged.” The comparison is rather in the area of the sin that occasioned the judgment, and this, as Jude shows, was a sexual sin of a particular kind. In some modern versions this is hidden by such translations as “sexual immorality and perversion” (NIV, PHILLIPS) or “unnatural lusts” (RSV, NEB). But the Authorized Version is closer to the Greek text when it speaks of the Sodomites as “giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh [sarkos heteras].” The men of Sodom did this in desiring sexual relations with the angels who had come to visit Abraham and Lot (Genesis 18–19). The implication would be that in doing so they recapitulated the sin of the angels of Genesis 6, who “in a similar way” had desired relationships with women.
The objection to this supposed union of angel flesh and human flesh is that the angels are supposed to be sexless, since Jesus said, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). But this is not the equivalent of saying that the angels are sexless or that they could not have had sexual relations with women if they had chosen to do so. In heaven human beings will not marry but will nevertheless retain their identity, which includes their being either male or female. In the same way, the angels could also have sexual identities. It is significant perhaps that when the angels are referred to in Scripture it is always with the masculine pronoun “he,” and they are always described as men. So, as Henry M. Morris says, “When Jesus said that the angels in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who have been cast out of heaven were incapable of doing so.”
The final point of evidence for the angel view of Genesis 6 is the reference to the giants or Nephilim in verse 4: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
Since we have no information about the results of an angel/human union, except what is found here, it is impossible to argue how such a union might produce giants. It is enough to say that it is conceivable that this could happen and that this is the probable meaning of verse 4. The New International Version has hedged its translation by refusing to translate, simply transliterating the Hebrew word Nephilim. But in Numbers 13:33 the word clearly means giants (though not necessarily those produced by an intermarriage of angels and human beings). What would be more natural than that this union would produce the “mighty men” of antiquity? Since this verse specifically refers to the “heroes of old,” what would be more probable than that this is the origin of those stories of half-human-half-divine figures present in virtually all ancient mythologies? The stories of Homer and other writers would be embellished, of course, but they probably reflect memories of these ancient outstanding figures of the pre-flood period.


Boice, J. M. (1998). Genesis: an expositional commentary (pp. 309–310). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 28, 2015)

Right and thanks Johnny; Pergamum, the first article I provided the link to begins with Boice's view (expanded a bit from the quote above) and then includes a few more quotes from other men who hold the view.


----------



## Jake (Jan 28, 2015)

When I listened to Beeke on Genesis 6 a couple of years ago I found him helpful:

Days of Noah Before the Flood: Part 1 - Genesis 6 | SermonAudio.com


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2015)

So how many people here believe in the "Angelic view" of Gen 6? 

Does this account for the Greek and Roman myths of the Gods raping human women? And the tales of giants? 

Does 2nd Peter and Jude truly draw material from 1 Enoch and Jasher?


----------

