# Nephilim?



## openairboy

In Gen. 6 we read, "The Nephilim were on teh earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

I believe Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, at least its final editor, and he says, "The Nephilim were on the earh in those days [the days described in 1-3], and ALSO AFTERWARD..." What are the "also afterward"? Were they not destroyed in the flood?

If they were, who are the Nephilim in Numbers 13? It reads, "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who came from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

We may be able to run with "Nephilim" simply being "giants", but there seems a particular reason Moses mentions them in Gen. 6 and Nu. 13 and why he mentions "they came from the Nephilim".

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

openairboy


----------



## Bladestunner316

The Nephilim - which means to fall?? Were offspring from angels(sons of god) and dauhters of men(human) {This is my view as it is also of many others but Im nto going to get into that now} They are also beleived by many christians that they are the offspring of the line of seth(godly) and Daughters of men(ungodly) now these men were of enormous stature and perfomed ungodly acts such as flesh eating they were also knonw to terrorize others. Alot of mythologies take from the Biblical account with their own twist. It is beleived that the gene was passed on through Ham's wife?

There are two groups I know off hand the rephaim and anikim(sp?)
which descendts include the 13-15 foot King Og of Bashan - Golaith of Gath 9feet or so. And many others who were killed of by Joshua and David. 

Their traces though are not limited to the middle east but accross the world. Though it snot mentioned in the bible since the bible in OT times is dealing with the ME predominantly. 

The average giant size was around 8-10 feet but there are remaisn that have been found of up wards to 15-36 feet in length I ahve not been able to verify the carthigian giant who was 36 feet in length but when I actually spend more time in research I will be bale to know more.

I hope this helps.

In Christ
Blade


----------



## SmokingFlax

Quote:

"there are remaisn that have been found of up wards to 15-36 feet in length"

Blade,
WHere did you get this from?


----------



## openairboy

Thanks for the info, Blade, but I'm more curious to find out if Moses is talking about the same "Nephilim" in the two passages, the only two with Nephilim. To my knowledge Nephilim is a transliteration and is translated in the KJV (others?) as "giants". Whey does he make it a point to say they were "on the earth in those days, and also afterwards", then point them out in Numbers 13 and refer to their geneological record with Anak going back to the Nephilim?

If they are the same Nephilim, I am wondering about the flood's destruction of everyone but Noah. If they are not the same, I am trying to figure out their significance in both passages.

Thanks,
openairboy



> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> The Nephilim - which means to fall?? Were offspring from angels(sons of god) and dauhters of men(human) {This is my view as it is also of many others but Im nto going to get into that now} They are also beleived by many christians that they are the offspring of the line of seth(godly) and Daughters of men(ungodly) now these men were of enormous stature and perfomed ungodly acts such as flesh eating they were also knonw to terrorize others. Alot of mythologies take from the Biblical account with their own twist. It is beleived that the gene was passed on through Ham's wife?
> 
> There are two groups I know off hand the rephaim and anikim(sp?)
> which descendts include the 13-15 foot King Og of Bashan - Golaith of Gath 9feet or so. And many others who were killed of by Joshua and David.
> 
> Their traces though are not limited to the middle east but accross the world. Though it snot mentioned in the bible since the bible in OT times is dealing with the ME predominantly.
> 
> The average giant size was around 8-10 feet but there are remaisn that have been found of up wards to 15-36 feet in length I ahve not been able to verify the carthigian giant who was 36 feet in length but when I actually spend more time in research I will be bale to know more.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> In Christ
> Blade


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Read Genesis 1-6 again, the whole thing. It should be clear to you then. If not, e-mail me and we'll walk through it together. This is not some reference to mystical giants or weird creatures ...


----------



## Bladestunner316

Keith,
Well we still had a line of adam to Christ through Noah so likewise we have a line of evil through One of noahs sons. Also remember its a certain gene that is passed on that produces these men. It has tappered off ALOT since then and only every rare time we see it pop up. It is mentioned to show as an example one of the things that caused men to be punished by God the angels who were complicit with this are chained in prison as mention by Jude and Peter.

Chris, 
here is a link to Steve Quayle he did some excellent research into the area of Giants(my favourite topic) allthough his theology is off his research in this area is some of the best. It should help explain my answer Im way to tired and need to finish my job here at work to discuss this. But this link should help. 

Blade

p.s. Steve Quayle is pentecostal-arminian I believe but his 30 years of research on giants is better.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Gabriel,
Where does the idea of mystical giants or weird creatures come from? 

blade


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Read Genesis 1-6 again, the whole thing. It should be clear to you then. If not, e-mail me and we'll walk through it together. This is not some reference to mystical giants or weird creatures ...



I don't believe there is any reference to mythology in the passage, but I'm curious about the relation between the two Nephilim. Are they the same? Rereading the first 6 chapters doesn't make the connection clear to me.

Are the Nephilim in Gen. 6 the same as Nu. 13?

openairboy


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Read Genesis 1-6 again, the whole thing. It should be clear to you then. If not, e-mail me and we'll walk through it together. This is not some reference to mystical giants or weird creatures ...



I don't believe there is any reference to mythology in the passage, but I'm curious about the relation between the two Nephilim. Are they the same? Rereading the first 6 chapters doesn't make the connection clear to me.

Are the Nephilim in Gen. 6 the same as Nu. 13?

openairboy


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Keith,
> Well we still had a line of adam to Christ through Noah so likewise we have a line of evil through One of noahs sons.



The Nephilim and others, although related to Adam, seem to be separated genealogically at this point in history (Gen. 6), so I don't think there is a geneological link with Noah's children. It may be there, but the other nations seem to be genealogically distinct throughout the OT. The genealogical link from the Nephilim in Nu. 13, assuming they are the same as Gen. 6, doesn't seem to be through the Noahic line.

openairboy


----------



## fredtgreco

Keith,

Are you referring to Numbers 13:33?

I think the reference is simply to other men of giant stature, rather than to a specific race of men.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Possible but we would need supporting evidence of either 1.) Nephilim surviving the flood which is not accounted for 2.) more angels cohabitated after the flood(if you hold to that view) or Noahs family interbreed with unbeleivers somehow and produced Nephilim 3.) We Just dont know. 

Blade


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Keith,
> 
> Are you referring to Numbers 13:33?
> 
> I think the reference is simply to other men of giant stature, rather than to a specific race of men.



Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. I wasn't sure if it was another race or other men of giant stature. I lean to the later, but some of the language seems to suggest a link. 

Thanks Fred.

openairboy


----------



## Bladestunner316

Numbers 13:33

So there from the line of Anak Link

Anak means : long necked

wikipedia

Should help

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316

I would say there their own race of giants but distant relatives of the original nephilim.

blade


----------



## Scot

> The Nephilim - which means to fall?? Were offspring from angels(sons of god) and dauhters of men(human) {This is my view as it is also of many others but Im nto going to get into that now} They are also beleived by many christians that they are the offspring of the line of seth(godly) and Daughters of men(ungodly)



"The sons of God" is used in the Bible to describe believers, never angels (that I'm aware of). What was happening in Genesis 6 was that the believers were marrying the unbelievers. Angels are spirit being that neither marry nor are given in marriage. How could they reproduce with a human?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Keith,
> 
> Are you referring to Numbers 13:33?
> 
> I think the reference is simply to other men of giant stature, rather than to a specific race of men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. I wasn't sure if it was another race or other men of giant stature. I lean to the later, but some of the language seems to suggest a link.
> 
> Thanks Fred.
> 
> openairboy
Click to expand...


Yes. My thought is that the first Nephilim were large in stature and therefore Nephilim (which actually comes from the Hebrew verb "to fall" or "fallen ones" ) became associated with men of large stature. So it is the same sort of thing with the word giant - it actually comes from the Greek gigantes which is derived from Gaia. The gigantes were sons of Gaia, and they were large, hence gigantes became an adjective for large.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

It's really clear in context of Genesis 4-6 that the 'sons of God' were the believers in God and their descendants and families after them. They were in covenant with God. When they married daughters of men, or the ungodly (those not in covenant with God), they sinned and polluted God's gracious covenant community. Thus, the flood, as Noah was seen to be the last of God's elect left on the earth at this time as a result of so much covenant breaking and inter-marriage with the pagans.


----------



## Bladestunner316

actually its really clear they were angels they same exact wording is used in Job to describe who? Angels. 

Job 1:6

Job 2:1

So you see its angels I know I know it says the same thing in the NT and its used for human believers. But Joshua also is the same as Jesus but yet Joshua the man was not Jesus. 

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316

Im done discussing this for now please u2u me if you want me to clear something up Id rather study this more but from what I know I really dont see the conflict. So yes Im done. 

Blade


----------



## Scot

Blade,

You don't have to respond to this but I would have you consider that in the Job passages, it was the believers that were already in heaven being spoken of as "the sons of God" that came to present themselves before the throne. This would harmonize better with the rest of the scripture references using that phrase "sons of God". 

I don't agree with the NIV throwing the word "angels" in there. Although, the word "angel" doesn't always mean the spiritual heavenly beings. It means "messenger." In any case, I don't think the word "angel" is in the text.


----------



## fredtgreco

Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. We have not one bit of evidence that angels procreate. We don't have any evidence that angels even have sexual distinctions (male/female). And we have no evidence of any form of inter-species procreation. Bottom line, you have to assume a whole bunch of stuff that is completely unwarranted.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The problem is in your misunderstanding of Hebrew wording and translation into English, leading you to assume a great deal of information that is not warranted or supported in any way in the rest of teh Bible.. We interpret the Bible using the analogy of faith, do we not? We don't make assumptions about hard-to-understand passages without paying a lot of attention to context, and if you follow the argument of Genesis 1-6, it is *clear* who the 'sons of God' are. Just read it over and over again, trust me. Even 4-6 makes it very clear.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> actually its really clear they were angels they same exact wording is used in Job to describe who? Angels.
> 
> Job 1:6
> 
> Job 2:1
> 
> So you see its angels I know I know it says the same thing in the NT and its used for human believers. But Joshua also is the same as Jesus but yet Joshua the man was not Jesus.
> 
> blade



Blade,
(1) The references in Job to "sons of God" do not necessarily refer to Angels. I just read Henry's commentary on this and he presents two options (i) God had some sort of regular meeting with His angels to give an account of their doings (ii) this was some kind of religious practice during the time of the patriarchs and Satan was there in his usual capacity as a tempter. (2) As you said, the phrase is used repeatedly in the NT to refer to human believers, so even if Job does refer to Angels its likely its being used differently. (3) As Paul stated, the non-corporeal cannot have corpreal relations.


----------



## Charismatic Calvinist

Not a whole lot of info on them (Nephilim) in our Bible but check out the Book of Enoch for an interesting...story?


----------



## Bladestunner316

I would believe this except for one thing how do you explain that "giants" were born to normal woman by normal men ?? and Im not talking goliath here these men were also much larger? Where is there a mention of a curse placed on the children of believing men who mated with unbelieving woman? You would think there would have to be in order for such an odd thing happening like this. 

The way I see it( I know a stretch but you are also stretching it by making the 'sons of god' men in Gen and in Job since it doesnt say they were men allthough tradition holds to them being angels) I dont want to make this out to more than it is it snot so important that I would die over it. 

I honestly appreciate the comments. But even in the context of matthew when Jesus says angels neither marry or are given over to marriage it is talking about the ah shoot I dont know the right word forgive me here ritual(sorry) but not the actual sexual act. because were married to Christ this is not a sexual thing but a spiritual thing. There would be no need for marriage. 

Also the angels that visited Lot before sodom and gomorah was destroyed were very physical I believe they ate with Lot as well. 

Man well I told patrick when discussing this that I wouldnt go any futher since I need to spend more time on the subject and I really dont want to break what I said Ive allready gone to far. 

So please Im done for now its nothing to worry about I understand where your coming from and I really appreciate your comments allthough I diagree - you disagree with me. Etc....

So Im respectfully bowing out before I jump back in I have plenty of study to like wise on Baptism which I hold to paedo but I want to be able to hammer out a paper on why I do if that makes sense. I get really anxious over feeling the need to constantly check back and respond it show I got into trouble in the politicking. 

Well Im done for quit awhile on this. 

In Christ
Blade


----------



## turmeric

I thought the children of Seth were marrying the daughters of Cain. His line dies out after the Flood, I think.


----------



## Ranger

The sons of God discussion is hard to understand since it seems like both 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2 are referring to them by joining those angels who left their heavenly abode to the story of Noah. It would seem that Peter is referring to these sons of God, but maybe not.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Nowhere does it say "giants" were born or walking on the earth. The meaning of that word is simply "men of renown" or "great men".


----------



## panta dokimazete

They were the Pre-Fall remnants of Adam and Eve's line marrying post-Fall humans.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> They were the Pre-Fall remnants of Adam and Eve's line marrying post-Fall humans.


Huh? Where do you get this?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> They were the Pre-Fall remnants of Adam and Eve's line marrying post-Fall humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Where do you get this?
Click to expand...




> Genesis calls these supernatural beings "Nephilim" (translated "giants" in some Bibles), an obscure Hebrew word that may have the nuance of "fallen" beings - http://www.beliefnet.com/story/33/story_3389_1.html



They would be the epitome of "fallen" ones...

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> They were the Pre-Fall remnants of Adam and Eve's line marrying post-Fall humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Where do you get this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis calls these supernatural beings "Nephilim" (translated "giants" in some Bibles), an obscure Hebrew word that may have the nuance of "fallen" beings - http://www.beliefnet.com/story/33/story_3389_1.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They would be the epitome of "fallen" ones...
> 
> [Edited on 2-5-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...



And how would you reconcile this view with the clear teaching of Scrpture that all men fell in Adam, and have Adams sin imputed to them (Romans 5)?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> And how would you reconcile this view with the clear teaching of Scrpture that all men fell in Adam, and have Adams sin imputed to them (Romans 5)?



? - I am not sure what you think I am implying...Adam's pre-Fall children would be differentiated from the next generation of children born post-Fall only by whatever external differentation pre-Fall genetics would have been and from whatever benefits eating of the Tree of Life would have given...I agree that ALL humankind fell under the curse of the Fall...it just seems that "fallen ones" could be a good appelation for the old pre-Fall Adamic generation to have been called. Particularly by the lesser post-Fall generations.

Anyway, it makes more sense to me than angels mating with humans...

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Augusta

I have looked into this a little. Especially since reading a little of the book of Enoch. I know that it is not scripture but it is very specific that angels did as Genesis 6 says saw the daughters of men were fair and took them. In Enoch he actually gives the names of these angels and actually petitioned to God on their behalf not to punish them but of course God did and they are the ones chained in darkness mentioned in Jude. The words used to says sons of god in Genesis 6 are the same as in Job 1:6 which is when the angels (called sons of god) including satan come before God to discuss Job. Obviously these are not human men coming before God.

Job 1:6-7
6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 

7And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 

I am still trying to figure out how much credence for historicity should be given to books like Enoch and Jasher that are alluded to in the bible and from what I have read so far of both have yet to contradict it or warp it in any sense. I can see no reason for either of them to be forged to do anything but embellish which is hardly possible because incredible things happen in the bible already. I know that people are taking a second look at these extra biblical history books because of recent archeological evidence that puts them in the era's they claim to be from, like the dead sea scrolls, abd the Ethiopian churchs have always included Enoch in their canon and thus have accurate transcripts that were brought out and translated into english in the 18th century I believe. It does add up also when in 1 Cor 11 it says for women to cover their heads because of the angels. This may be because the angels can be tempted by human women as it seems to be saying in Gen 6 which the book of Enoch backs up and Jude states that those angels left there own estate which is almost the same wording as in Enoch as if the author is quoting it. I haven't yet seen anything in Jasher about the angels taking women and having offspring. I am unsure of all of this just thought I would throw out what I have learned lately. As of right now I am treating them as historical fiction but they do have some interesting things to say that do nothing more than add some detail to biblical stories. One interesting one from Jasher was how Noah knew what animals to take. According to Jasher, which is not a man but it means The Book Of The Righteous, Noah was to sit next to the ark and the animals that came and crouched in front of him he was to take into the ark. So who knows really but it is interesting how alot of the language is the same which would mean written around the same time as the pentateuch thus in the same style. It doesn't contain any commands or anything just historical incidents so far. I have not read the whole thing. Anyway I would welcome anyone's comments on these books who have read them and know how seminaries etc. treat these books if at all. 

Read the book of Enoch here.


Book of Enoch

Read the Book of Jasher here.

Book of Jasher


----------



## Contra_Mundum

JD,
The idea of pre-fall children for Adam and Eve is pretty far-fetched. I'm not calling you personally any names here, but I don't think that's a common view outside of some cults, etc. The biblical testimony on its face teaches that our first parents ate the forbidden fruit, and that they were the only persons in the world at that time. All humanity is thus fallen in connection to them, both generationally and federally. Only after the fall do they procreate. Eve seems to lay great hope in Cain as the answer to her need for the Savior promised in Gen 3:15.

I agree that reproduction with angels is lacking foundation, especially in light of Jesus' testimony regarding the angelic nature. So, what were these Nephilim? We probably can't say much with clarity, but we can be sure that they were human beings.

My own _opinion_ is that (like other giant things, like some dinosaurs for example) man before the flood may have been _ordinarily_ great of stature, might, etc. It was common or normal to be giant (compared to now, and after the flood). The language "and also afterward" seems proleptic to me, perhaps even a Mosaic editorialism, meaning that after the events of the flood that he is about to relate, men of giant stature (hearkening back to days of yore) were still to be found in the earth. They were vestiges, reminders of what had been before, prior to the immense catastrophe that had altered both humanity and the environment. That Moses has to say this is due to: 1) giants are far rarer, and most Israelites have never seen them, yet 2) they will encounter them in Canaan when they go to conquer the land.

Anyway, that's more consonant, I think, to the biblical testimony than a pre-fall humanity that didn't share our death-born nature.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Genesis 6:3-5 (English Standard Version)

3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 

The sons of God *in this context* were the Nephilim, mighty men of old. Differentiated from the angelic sons of God in Job.

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> JD,
> The idea of pre-fall children for Adam and Eve is pretty far-fetched.



Bruce, no offense taken - especially as this is a non-salvific issue - whether there were children pre-Fall would not have made any difference...the "act" was federally representative and affected all humankind throughout "temporality".

However, I do not think it is a contextually far fetched as you may think...

Genesis 3:20
The man called his wife's name Eve, [Eve sounds like the Hebrew for life-giver and resembles the word for living] because she was the mother of *all living*.

not *all to live*, but *all living* - looks like she did not have, or need a name until after the Fall...probably something to do with the capacity endowed from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

"fallen ones" would also more aptly fit the pre-Fall children in contrast to the "death-born" children...

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Augusta

Here is a catholic encyclopedia "New Advent" that mentions what those in the early church thought of the book of Enoch and those after. 

The Book of Henoch (Ethiopic)
The antediluvian patriarch Henoch according to Genesis "walked with God and was seen no more, because God took him". This walking with God was naturally understood to refer to special revelations made to the patriarch, and this, together with the mystery surrounding his departure from the world, made Henoch's name an apt one for the purposes of apocalyptic writers. In consequence there arose a literature attributed to him. 

It influenced not only later Jewish apocrypha, but has left its imprint on the New Testament and the works of the early Fathers. The canonical Epistle of St. Jude, in verses 14, 15, explicitly quotes from the Book of Henoch; the citation is found in the Ethiopic version in verses 9 and 4 of the first chapter. There are probable traces of the Henoch literature in other portions of the New Testament. 

Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Jude. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Henoch as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view. 

So great was the oblivion into which they fell that only scanty fragments of Greek and Latin versions were preserved in the West. The complete text was thought to have perished when it was discovered in two Ethiopic manuscripts in Abyssinia, by the traveler Bruce in 1773. Since, several more copies in the same language have been brought to light. Recently a large Greek fragment comprising chapters i-xxxii was unearthed at Akhmîn in Egypt. 

Scholars agree that the Book of Henoch was originally composed either in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that the Ethiopic version was derived from a Greek one. A comparison of the Ethiopic text with the Akhmîn Greek fragment proves that the former is in general a trustworthy translation. The work is a compilation, and its component parts were written in Palestine by Jews of the orthodox Hasidic or Pharisaic schools. Its composite character appears clearly from the palpable differences in eschatology, in the views of the origin of sin and of the character and importance of the Messias found in portions otherwise marked off from each other by diversities of subject. Critics agree that the oldest portions are those included in chapters i-xxxvi and (broadly speaking) lxxi-civ. 

It will be seen that the work is a voluminous one. But the most recent research, led by the Rev. R.H. Charles, an English specialist, breaks up this part into at least two distinct constituents. Charles's analysis and dating are: i-xxxvi, the oldest part, composed before 170 B.C.; xxxvii-lxx, lxxxiii-xc, written between 166-161 B.C.; chapters xci-civ between the years 134-95 B.C.; the Book of Parables between 94-64 B.C.; the Book of Celestial Physics, lxxii-lxxviii, lxxxii, lxxix, date undetermined. Criticism recognizes, scattered here and there, interpolations from a lost apocalypse, the Book of Noah. Expert opinion is not united on the date of the composite older portion, i.e. i-xxxvi, lxxi-civ. The preponderant authority represented by Charles and Schürer assigns it to the latter part of the second century before Christ, but Baldensperger would bring it down to a half century before our Era. 

Here is an outline of what the book is about. Its interesting how it talks about the coming messiah and the elect alot. 


Book I, chapters i-xxxvi 

Its body contains an account of the fall of the angelic "Watchers", their punishment, and the patriarch's intervention in their history. It is based upon Gen., vi, 2: "The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all they chose." The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents. This portion is remarkable for the entire absence of a Messias. 

Book II, lxxxiii-xc 

This book contains two visions. In the first, lxxxiii-lxxxiv, is portrayed the dreadful visitation of the flood, about to fall upon the earth. Henoch supplicates God not to annihilate the human race. The remaining section, under the symbolism of cattle, beasts, and birds, sketches the entire history of Israel down to the Messianic reign. 

Book III, xci-civ, cviii 

It professes to give a prophetic vision of the events of the world-weeks, centering about Israel. This part is distinguished by insistence upon a sharp conflict between the righteous of the nation and their wicked opponents both within and without Israel. They triumph and slay their oppressors in a Messianic kingdom without a personal Messias. At its close occurs the final judgment, which inaugurates a blessed immortality in heaven for the righteous. For this purpose all the departed just will rise from a mysterious abode, though apparently not in the body (ciii, 3, 4). The wicked will go into the Sheol of darkness and fire and dwell there forever. This is one of the earliest mentions of Sheol as a hell of torment, preceding portions of the book having described the place of retribution for the wicked as Tartarus and Geennom. 

Book IV, xxxvii-lxx 

This book consists of three "Parables". The first describes the secrets of heaven, giving prominence to the angelic hosts and their princes. The second parable (xliv-lvii) deals with the Messias, and is the most striking of this remarkable book. The influence of Daniel is easily traceable here, but the figure of the Messias is sketched much more fully, and the idea developed to a degree unparalleled in pre-Christian literature. The Elect One, or Son of Man, existed before the sun and stars were created, and is to execute justice upon all sinners who oppress the good. For this end there will be a resurrection of all Israel and a judgment in which the Son of Man will render to everyone according to his deeds. Iniquity will be banished from the earth and the reign of the Messias will be everlasting. The third parable (lviii-lxx) describes again the happiness reserved for the just, the great Judgment and the secrets of nature. Here and there throughout the Book of Parables the author gives piecemeal his theory of the origin of sin. Going a step further back than the fault of the Watchers of the first book, he attributes their fall to certain mysterious Satans. 

Book V, lxxii-lxxviii, lxxxix, lxxix (transposed) 

This book may be called the Book of Celestial Physics, or Astronomy. It presents a bewildering mass of revelations concerning the movements of the heavenly bodies, given to Henoch by the angel Uriel. The final chapters of the entire work, cv-cvii, are drawn from the lost Book of Noah.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Here is a catholic encyclopedia "New Advent" that mentions what those in the early church thought of the book of Enoch and those after.



Interesting, but I still prefer SIS to harmonize...


----------



## Augusta

SIS? Here is where Enoch is quoted in Jude.

Jude 1:14-15 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, {15} To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

This is a direct quote of 1 Enoch 1:9: 

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly: 
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> SIS? Here is where Enoch is quoted in Jude.
> 
> Jude 1:14-15 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, {15} To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
> 
> This is a direct quote of 1 Enoch 1:9:
> 
> And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
> To execute judgment upon all,
> And to destroy all the ungodly:
> And to convict all flesh
> Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
> And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.



uhhh, when you say "SIS?" Are you saying that the canon should include Enoch?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Traci,
The phrase "sons of God" has got to be contextually determined. After all the NT uses the same phrase, and uses it to refer to Christians, and not to angels. So, just because we find the phrase used in Job of angels (we think), we cannot thereby say that it has to mean just that in any other occasion of its use.

The book of Jashar referenced above is almost certainly "one of the last compositions of the haggadic lit.[erature] of Judaism... It is believed by some scholars that this attempt to reconstruct the OT Book of Jashar originated in southern Italy. The author was familiar with Italian place names. The Arab.[ic] names in the book are due to the strong influence of Arab.[ic] culture on southern Italy." (Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible, #3, p.407). This would place it's composition sometime in the early church age. Even if it draws on ancient traditions (a mere guess) there is no way to separate the fact from the fiction. So, the book is basically useless to us as far as reliable information goes.

The book of Enoch is without question Jewish apocalyptic (time period of bracketting our Lord's days on the earth, 200BC-100AD), and it seems that the biblical writer Jude was familiar with it. It is not outside therealm of possibility that it even contained some reliable tradition, including prophecy (which is now preserved in Scripture making Enoch's leftovers irrelevant). However, making use of the book and treating it as an authoritative source are two different things. After all, biblical writers from Moses to Paul referred to extrabiblical literature of their day. More germane to the touchy issue of inspiration is that words Jude actually puts into the mouths of his speakers, Michael and Enoch, are _actual Old Testament verses,_ Zech. 3:2 and Deut. 33:2. In other words, the words he attributes to them are already inspired words.

Bottom line is, even if the books had impeccable credentials (and the *don't*) they would be of little more use to us than, say, the Apocrypha, the Egyptian _Book of the Dead,_ or other ancient literature. Their reliability would have to rest on the faith we had in the Scriptures, and their conformity to the facts it records. As it stands, what they give us is connectivity at three or four biblical verse references, and (in the case of Jashar) a lot of "fill in the gaps" mythology and legend.

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> JD,
> The idea of pre-fall children for Adam and Eve is pretty far-fetched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, no offense taken - especially as this is a non-salvific issue - whether there were children pre-Fall would not have made any difference...the "act" was federally representative and affected all humankind throughout "temporality".
> 
> However, I do not think it is a contextually far fetched as you may think...
> 
> Genesis 3:20
> The man called his wife's name Eve, [Eve sounds like the Hebrew for life-giver and resembles the word for living] because she was the mother of *all living*.
> 
> not *all to live*, but *all living* - looks like she did not have, or need a name until after the Fall...probably something to do with the capacity endowed from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
> 
> "fallen ones" would also more aptly fit the pre-Fall children in contrast to the "death-born" children...
> 
> [Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


This does have salvific implications. If you're going to argue that "pre-fallen" descendents of Adam also had Adam's sin imputed to them, then you have some serious issues here. The Bible states that only Adam and Eve fell, and that Adam's sin is imputed to all his descendents. If their were pre-fallen descendents of Adam, then that means they were already living righteous lives for God on their own. For God to impute Adam's sin to those whom were otherwise living unfallen and righteously before Him, and then corrupt their natures toward sin, completely compromises the uniqueness of Adam as federal head and the justice of God, because He is imputing sin to righteous men unto damnation who were already living holy lives to God.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> This does have salvific implications. If you're going to argue that "pre-fallen" descendents of Adam also had Adam's sin imputed to them, then you have some serious issues here. The Bible states that only Adam and Eve fell, and that Adam's sin is imputed to all his descendents. If their were pre-fallen descendents of Adam, then that means they were already living righteous lives for God on their own. For God to impute Adam's sin to those whom were otherwise living unfallen and righteously before Him, and then corrupt their natures toward sin, completely compromises the uniqueness of Adam as federal head and the justice of God, because He is imputing sin to righteous men unto damnation who were already living holy lives to God.



??? 

Exodus 34:7
keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, *visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."*

--I am having difficulty understanding how this could diminish Adam's federal headship? Some of Adam's descendants were alive at the time, that's all. The Fall was like the Atonement, sufficient for the living, dead (well, obviously no dead, pre-Fall) and lives to come. 

(What's the Greek verb tense describing this type phenomenon?)

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Puritanhead

Nine foot tall! They ought to have the Nephilim Basketball Association (NBA)!


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Bottom line is, even if the books had impeccable credentials (and the don't) they would be of little more use to us than, say, the Apocrypha, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or other ancient literature. Their reliability would have to rest on the faith we had in the Scriptures, and their conformity to the facts it records. As it stands, what they give us is connectivity at three or four biblical verse references, and (in the case of Jashar) a lot of "fill in the gaps" mythology and legend.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Here's a principle of justice: if your "federal head" is guilty of a crime, but you are not implicated in that crime, you have redress to the superior agent--You get to say "I plead your justice, O King; I repudiate my allegiance which I formerly duly owed to my lord, because of his rebellion, and I pledge it again to you; my life is yours."

If we had no sins of our own to answer for (and all of us do), we would have to make a choice--stick with Adam in rebellion, in which case we would now have our own sin to answer for, or plead the mercy of God not to judge us for our association with Adam, and to request a faithful head. We would not want to remain rebels-by-association. It appears to me consistent with biblical principles reflective of God's character that he would certainly let anyone in such a situation out from under the condemnation.

So, JD, in light of this principle of justice, how can we make sense of a pre-fall race of Adamites, living in obedience to God, but condemned. I just think such thinking is doomed to wander farther into unfounded speculations...


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Here's a principle of justice: if your "federal head" is guilty of a crime, but you are not implicated in that crime, you have redress to the superior agent--You get to say "I plead your justice, O King; I repudiate my allegiance which I formerly duly owed to my lord, because of his rebellion, and I pledge it again to you; my life is yours."
> 
> If we had no sins of our own to answer for (and all of us do), we would have to make a choice--stick with Adam in rebellion, in which case we would now have our own sin to answer for, or plead the mercy of God not to judge us for our association with Adam, and to request a faithful head. We would not want to remain rebels-by-association. It appears to me consistent with biblical principles reflective of God's character that he would certainly let anyone in such a situation out from under the condemnation.
> 
> So, JD, in light of this principle of justice, how can we make sense of a pre-fall race of Adamites, living in obedience to God, but condemned. I just think such thinking is doomed to wander farther into unfounded speculations...



How do you reconcile the Scripture I quoted as support with your reasoning?

Exodus 34:7
keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, *visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.*"

How does that fit your principles of Justice? Does this not support my position? Does this not align itself with God's revealed character?

The Fall was Universal - God's Justice demanded that Adam and Eve, as well as their descendants, realized or potential, should have been destroyed instantly. God's mercy and will allowed for them to continue, so the Curse was placed on them as temporal punishment. The result of the Tree of Knowledge would have also been Universal. These are all Universally efficacious events.

So then, ALL would have Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Curse would have gone into effect, and ALL mankind would begin sinning.

...unfounded speculations?

1 Thessalonians 5
21Test everything. Hold on to the good.

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Traci,
> The phrase "sons of God" has got to be contextually determined. After all the NT uses the same phrase, and uses it to refer to Christians, and not to angels. So, just because we find the phrase used in Job of angels (we think), we cannot thereby say that it has to mean just that in any other occasion of its use.
> 
> The book of Jashar referenced above is almost certainly "one of the last compositions of the haggadic lit.[erature] of Judaism... It is believed by some scholars that this attempt to reconstruct the OT Book of Jashar originated in southern Italy. The author was familiar with Italian place names. The Arab.[ic] names in the book are due to the strong influence of Arab.[ic] culture on southern Italy." (Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible, #3, p.407). This would place it's composition sometime in the early church age. Even if it draws on ancient traditions (a mere guess) there is no way to separate the fact from the fiction. So, the book is basically useless to us as far as reliable information goes.
> 
> The book of Enoch is without question Jewish apocalyptic (time period of bracketting our Lord's days on the earth, 200BC-100AD), and it seems that the biblical writer Jude was familiar with it. It is not outside therealm of possibility that it even contained some reliable tradition, including prophecy (which is now preserved in Scripture making Enoch's leftovers irrelevant). However, making use of the book and treating it as an authoritative source are two different things. After all, biblical writers from Moses to Paul referred to extrabiblical literature of their day. More germane to the touchy issue of inspiration is that words Jude actually puts into the mouths of his speakers, Michael and Enoch, are _actual Old Testament verses,_ Zech. 3:2 and Deut. 33:2. In other words, the words he attributes to them are already inspired words.
> 
> Bottom line is, even if the books had impeccable credentials (and the *don't*) they would be of little more use to us than, say, the Apocrypha, the Egyptian _Book of the Dead,_ or other ancient literature. Their reliability would have to rest on the faith we had in the Scriptures, and their conformity to the facts it records. As it stands, what they give us is connectivity at three or four biblical verse references, and (in the case of Jashar) a lot of "fill in the gaps" mythology and legend.
> 
> [Edited on 2-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]



Thanks for your response Bruce. As I said earlier I currently think of them as historical fiction especially the book of Jasher. Enoch is another story, I do still think it is interesting how much Enoch talks about the messiah and his coming and the elect etc. 

The term Son of Man is used 18 times in Enoch. It is only used in the old testament once in regard to THE Son of Man Jesus that I can find and that is Daniel 7:9-22 and it is used 3 times there I will just put one of them. These are also the only references to the ancient of days also who is with this "Son of Man".

13 I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him. 
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed. 

Enoch 46:1-3

1 "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 

2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that 

3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever."

The other thing that puzzles me is that it only fell out of favor at the end of the 3rd century. Why? What caused this shift. Was it because of Rome? I would also submit that it is because of the record of the dealings recorded there of the angels and human women. Even though we know there are angels chained in darkness in Jude who is the one who quotes Enoch as a prophet no less and the allusion in 1 Cor 11 that it is because of the angels that women should cover. 

I see "sons of God" in the old testament a total of 8 times. Gen. 6:2, Gen 6:4, Deut 32:8, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, Psalm 29:1, and Psalm 89:6. All of them excepting the Deuteronomy one speak of either these beings going before God with satan or the mighty men or heavenly beings in the ones from Psalms ESV. 

One way you have these unexplainable giants and mighty men that were an abomination to God. And angels chained in darkness for some abominable thing different from all the other fallen angels. The other explanation sounds weird and unpalatable but flows with scripture. No one wants to believe the answer given in Enoch now-a- days but they sure didn't mind it in the Apostles days. I think its a knee jerk reaction to just say that can't be it lets exegete around that and then discredit Enoch in the process even though OT authors respected him and called him a prophet and he was taken up by God mysteriously. Respectfully, I just differ here.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a principle of justice: if your "federal head" is guilty of a crime, but you are not implicated in that crime, you have redress to the superior agent--You get to say "I plead your justice, O King; I repudiate my allegiance which I formerly duly owed to my lord, because of his rebellion, and I pledge it again to you; my life is yours."
> 
> If we had no sins of our own to answer for (and all of us do), we would have to make a choice--stick with Adam in rebellion, in which case we would now have our own sin to answer for, or plead the mercy of God not to judge us for our association with Adam, and to request a faithful head. We would not want to remain rebels-by-association. It appears to me consistent with biblical principles reflective of God's character that he would certainly let anyone in such a situation out from under the condemnation.
> 
> So, JD, in light of this principle of justice, how can we make sense of a pre-fall race of Adamites, living in obedience to God, but condemned. I just think such thinking is doomed to wander farther into unfounded speculations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile the Scripture I quoted as support with your reasoning?
> 
> Exodus 34:7
> keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, *visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.*"
> 
> How does that fit your principles of Justice? Does this not support my position? Does this not align itself with God's revealed character?
> 
> The Fall was Universal - God's Justice demanded that Adam and Eve, as well as their descendants, realized or potential, should have been destroyed instantly. God's mercy and will allowed for them to continue, so the Curse was placed on them as temporal punishment. The result of the Tree of Knowledge would have also been Universal. These are all Universally efficacious events.
> 
> So then, ALL would have Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Curse would have gone into effect, and ALL mankind would begin sinning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...doomed to wander farther into unfounded speculations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...ouch...is that a "nice" way of saying I am dabbling in heresy?
> 
> 1 Thessalonians 5
> 21Test everything. Hold on to the good.
> 
> [Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

JD, 
As I'm sure you fully support, we are trying to harmonize passages of Scripture with others. The way you are reading Ex. 34:7 would contradict Ezekiel 18:20 as it sets forth God's justice: "he soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Ex. 34:7, and others, such as 20:5 (the 2nd commandment), are not addressing imputation. Rather they are addressing the extended impact of sin. One of Satan's big lies is to say that what I do in private, or what I do for myself only affects me. Not so, says the Lord. Our sins have ripple effects every time we do them. Sin-soaked families and societies will inevitably--naturally and _judicially_--have consequenses that accrue like inertia or compounding interest. In Ex. 20:5 is also the opposite principle--that 1000 generations can experience the accumulated capital of a covenant keeping people. It is more than passing interest to note the difference in _scope,_ 3 or 4 versus 1000 that God incorporates in that passage. God's blessings "outweigh" his cursings.

Actually, the principle of justice I mentioned is built into the plan of salvation. God gives us a new heart to have faith and believe. Once this happens, we don't want to be under the headship of Adam anymore. We want out of that condemnation--we cry out for a savior, we want a new head. And God has of course provided that very thing for us--Christ.

As far as those universal effects--what you are positing is only a necessary conclusion of what you've already asserted, namely that there were living offspring of Adam and Eve that have to be placed under this judgment. Since I reject that notion, what you say makes no sense at all to me. Adam and Eve both ate the forbidden fruit. They and their posterity (of natural generation) are all placed under sentence of death. This is the doctrine of original sin: the want (lack) of original righteousness and the corruption of the whole nature; together with all actual transgressions that flow from this condition, every man is therefore guilty before God.

That's how I'd deal with those points...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Bruce, I do substantially agree with you. 

Conversely, it is, of course, your, or anyone else's, prerogative to reject my harmonization attempts. I can still argue that this does not impact savific orthodoxy, and perhaps I will. 

For now, though, I am going to bed. 

God bless you and yours,

JD


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> ...ouch...is that a "nice" way of saying I am dabbling in heresy?


No, as I said above when I mentioned cults, I don't want you feel like I'm laying it down on ya. "Dabbling in heresy" is a strong brew. I don't believe you are doing that, although I do think you are wrong about this, and error is the handmaid to heresy (ultimately). You are asking questions and trying to get a grip on God's truth. That's a process and we all tend to "adjust our grip" over time, sometimes completely turning the thing around or ourselves around before we get it right. Patrick is right too, when he points out there is a genuine tie-in to salvation, although what you've said so far only touches on "hypothetical" people who aren't around anymore anyway.

I actually just meant here that I thought the farther you go with the interpretative suggestions you made, the more (In my humble opinion) you are going to have to posit additional items which have even less support to answer the questions raised. Which will in turn raise more new questions than were answered... Rather than getting to definitive answers, we'd be getting to more questions.

Traci,
My wife grew up wearing head-cover. I only came to that conviction myself shortly before we started courting.

But I don't think that Paul really has that issue in mind when he says "because of the angels" in 1 Cor 11. The angels being confirmed in righteousness (as the demons are in wickedness) I don't see how they can be tempted to any sort of evil. That seems to be a conclusion upon the text based on the presumed allusion, rather than a conclusion from the text that the supposed allusion would support.

As for "sons of God," its a bit arbitrary to exclude New Testament references as well, just because of the language shift. All the authors of the NT except maybe for Luke are Hebrew speaking Jews. That expands the range of meaning of the _definite,_ unquestioned texts, and proves that context is the final determiner, not a fixed meaning of the term.

Anyway, its a nice dialog we're all having...


----------



## Areopagus

Scroll down to where it talks about the angels:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh001.htm

A very good piece.

Dustin...


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

This question comes up so often on the boards that i tried to gather together most references i could find online. it is at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/nephilim.html

it certainly shows a diversity of opinion as to what the verses mean, but the general consensus seems to be that bene elohim means either rulers (men) or angels. But just a few minutes online reading the links is fun.....


----------



## Bladestunner316

Sorry but the biblical horizons says that its myth but yet its used in the same context of other biblical passages?? Why would Jude mix legend with truth?

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316

Jude(excerpt)

5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home"“these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 

8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "œThe Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals"“these are the very things that destroy them. 

11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion. 

12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm"“shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted"“twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. 

14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "œSee, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.


----------



## Bladestunner316

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=jude&version=31;&version=31; (source)

How can that author mistake legend with history?

ridiculous.

blade


----------



## Augusta

Also if you read Jude 1:6-7 in the NASB which is, I believe, a direct translation it reads:

6 And (U)angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has (V)kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 


7 just as (W)Sodom and Gomorrah and the (X)cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and (Y)went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an (Z)example in undergoing the (AA)punishment of eternal fire.


Notice that after it mentions the angels there is a comma and it goes on to say "just as Sodom and Gomorrah....in the same way as *these  * indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh... 

I think it is just the abhorrence of the whole idea of angels raping women that causes people to interpret differently what appears to me to be plainly stated in Genesis 6 and in Jude. Not to mention the book of Enoch which goes into great detail, even naming every single angel who participated in this abomination. Enoch who is given the title of Prophet by Jude. I know Enoch is not in the canon but he is quoted in the canonnical books and considered a prophet. All the other explanations seem to me to be as absurd as the plain reading is abhorrent.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Bladestunner316




----------



## Consistent

Hey all-

I am a moderator on Theology Cafe and had a user ask me about this. I am very encouraged by this discussion, thank you.

I asked a friend of mine at Westminster about this and he said that it is significant to understand that Genesis 1-4 is a prologue to Torah and Torah is a prologue to the historicals and the prophets. He also believes that Genesis was written during a time that Israel needed to be reminded of who they are, and the author has this intent in mind.

Is it at all significant that Israel given to gentile women, fell into idolatry and fell into judgment, and God in Gen.6 looks upon the acts of the Nephilim and condemns the earth? Is their a parallel here?

What are your thoughts...I am seeking advice.

In Christ-

John


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> It's really clear in context of Genesis 4-6 that the 'sons of God' were the believers in God and their descendants and families after them. They were in covenant with God. When they married daughters of men, or the ungodly (those not in covenant with God), they sinned and polluted God's gracious covenant community. Thus, the flood, as Noah was seen to be the last of God's elect left on the earth at this time as a result of so much covenant breaking and inter-marriage with the pagans.



Not very titillating, Gabe....boring....uninteresting...uncontroversial....but Biblical and considers the context of the whole of the Text!

I hope your post won't be overlooked.....even though, it's boring...

Robin


----------



## Bladestunner316

Its not a matter of fancy Robin its a matter of truth though it may be shunned for whatever reason angels did cohabitate with woman and they gave birth to the nephilim which are the descendnts of Goliath.

If the above you qouted is true then prove why men grew to such extroidinary heights? If I had sex with an unbeleiver and had child would that kid be 15 feet tall?

Blade


----------



## fredtgreco

It is not angels. Gabriel is right. It is ridiculous and fanciful Jewish fables to believe in some kind of interspecies (really more than that) procreation, especially when one of the species is non-material.

Kevin Carroll did some excellent woirk on this passage last year. Perhaps he will share it with us.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Those same jewish fables are the ones that tell of creation? should we ignore that too? Still didnt answer my question.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Sorry Fred-Robin,
Im going to spend time on this when availbale and write on it ante-dilluvian is my favorite subject. Basically both me and augusta vs fred-gabriel-robin are much like the early church in respect to this we agree to disagree. The early church divided on this passage on whether it was seth's line or angels. The outcome in general was the same a Flood. So Im going to refrain from this discussion respectfully.

Blade


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Those same jewish fables are the ones that tell of creation? should we ignore that too? Still didnt answer my question.



Blade, with all due respect....can you spell "Kabbalah"?

R.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Please dont start with me. Do some research. You would be suprised here I will help you LINK. 

You disrespect yourself by not providing any material to back your claim. 

So should I toss out the bible because pagans have distorted its truth? I guess the flood is to much to grasp because there are SO many references to it from non-jewish-christian sources? 

What about the virgin birth? because its 'allegedly' borrowed from paganism? 

Man we sure can except so many xfilish type things from the bible but this man sure is pushing it even though church fathers and historians believed it? 

I guess we should de-canonized Jude while were at it since he quotes enoch seven as a Prophet and his words as Scripture(allthough that is debated amongst the church). 

In Christ,
Blade

P.S. Please when I say Im respectfully bowing out dont tempt me to get back into this. I hope this is enough to appease you. For now Im through. And if you mean no disrespect then respect my request. Im done discussing for now I will let the board know when I want to talk about this. I felt your candid remark need a response.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Bladestunner316]


----------

