Nephilim in most cases is translated as "giants" some times strong ones or mighty ones.. but the word likely derives from the hebrew root naphal, meaning "fallen, perished, dead, cut off", Or Nephal meaning "to fall". It is interesting that Nephilim in the hebrew manuscripts is spelled two different ways (very very slight difference) and the difference indicates that both the meanings "giants" and "those who fell" are correct (not as in you could choose either or... but rather both are meant).
The other names used for various tribes all have ineresting meanings too such as Emim which apperently means "terrors" and Rephaim which means something like "phantoms" or "shades" and is used a number of times in scripture to refrence the shades of the dead who reside in Sheol.

There are a couple of major theories.. the more common protestant christian theory is that these terms just describe normal humans who were ungodly (the "sons of God" meaning the Godly line of Seth's descendants)

The more historical theory, accepted by Jewish scholars as well as many christians is that the "sons of God" were angels who fell through their desire to produce offspring with human women.

Alternately one theory I recently ran across theorized from an evolutionary stand point that the nephilim were semi human ferocious animals that evolved along side God's divinly created true humans and that eventually there was intermarriage. (personaly i don't think this one makes alot of sense, particularly in its relation to the actual texts).

I hold with the view that the "sons of God" were angels who fell and that their offspring were mighty men and giants because they were literly not entirely human. They were exactly what we read about in greek mythology and sumerian mythology with such character's as hercules, half man half something that the ancients considered "gods".
I've recently been thinking of the interesting implications of this idea as it relates to understanding God and the Israelites during the time of the conquest of Canaan. At the time of Abraham these Nephilim and Rephaim were present in canaan but there were also people there who weren't tainted by such corruption. The bible says that one of the reasons the children of Israel were in Egypt for 400 years was so that the canaanites could complete their wickedness.. Does this perhaps indicate that by the time Joshua and the Israelites show up the entire population of Canaan was corrupted by interbreeding with Nephilim that perhaps they weren't exactly human any more?
Is this perhaps the reason that God isntructed the Israelites to utterly destroy everything in their path, laying waste and slaying almost every living thing in some cases?

Another interesting thought I sometimes consider is the similarity between modern alien/ufo phenomenon and the accounts of nephilim from the OT. Many alien/ufo buffs use this similarity to suggest that aliens are recorded in the bible.. but what if its really the other way around.. the alien/ufo phenomenon are really fallen angels seeking to reintroduce themselves into the world of man, "as it was in the days of noah..."

So what do you guys think? I freely admit I may be totaly off the wall here, but I find it interesting to consider.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

My view, for what it is worth, is that the term "Nephilim" means both "fallen" and "giants". Knowing how Jewish literature, and Scripture for that matter, is full of such tongue-in-cheek turn-of-phrase nuggets, it makes reasonable sense that these beings in Gen 6 are prominent (possibly godly) men who stumbled and became enthralled by the beauty of women who were to be forbidden to them. (This same thing still goes on today, and it is not unlike what happened to David with Bathsheba.) The duality of the meanings applies because they were men of high social status who then fell by dabbling in activity they were not to indulge in. I see the term as appled in a past and present tense to the subject. For example, a thief is a person who steals; but, that person is not a thief until they do steal something, so it is possible for an upstanding citizen to suddenly become a thief at the instant the act of stealing is employed. Of course, Christ took this concept further (and correctly) to the heart of a person - "if a man lusts after a woman in his heart he has committed adultery with her already" (paraphrased).
Probably the most overlooked element of this whole theoretically theological jumble is the spiritual aspect. The majority of theories look at the context in a purely factual manner (some to the point of dismissing fact and opting for fiction, but I digress), as a point of historical significance. The spiritual element of importance is what though? All of scripture is of value beyond just sheer information ("...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."), so where is the spiritual application of this? Just a thought.
As for aliens and UFOs...my personal view is that these reported events (sightings, abductions, etc) are tied to demonic activity. I also believe such reports are of specific detail to feed the intellect of mankind - bascially to appease the intelligence of man to accept something supernatural as long as it is not God. I see these as tricks of Lucifer to enter the mind of mankind and blind the hearts of the weak. Simple as that.
I don't want to get into mythology, but I do have an interesting story to share...but I think it will stray off topic.

These things are indeed interesting. I spent many years reading all I could about UFOs and other such supernatural/paranormal phenomena...and I wish I could gain back that time because so much of it was a complete waste for such subject matter. There are so many other things worth much more that deserve such devotion.

God bless,
Matt

In saying that many jewish scholars believe the nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels, I didn't mean to imply that the jewish inerpetation of scripture is the best in all or even most cases. Obviously christianity has quite a bit at odds with judaism. However, the thoughts and perspective of Jewish scholars is particularly relavent, in my opinion, when dealing with issues that involve alot of importance placed on the inerpetation of hebrew words.

Now, you make some arguments against the idea that the "sons of God" are angels, most of which are pretty much standard for that major protestant view. However, in my opinion, most of these objections are contrived at best.
Angels able to produce offspring in no way threatens the virgin birth or the status of Jesus as the Only Begotten son of God. Belief in Jesus as born of a virgin and the Son of God, rests entirely on scripture, not on wether or not angels can have offspring. If the scripture is the true word of God then Jesus was born of a virgin, by miraculous conception, and He is the Son of God.. if you don't believe scripture then there are hundreds or even thousands of reasons why you can doubt both those facts all of which are better than believing "it wasn't really God.. it was just an angel".
In fact, the idea that Jesus himself was an angel already exists independant of this argument. Obviously this idea is wrong according to scripture (sorry to any JW's out there).
I simply don't think this argument makes any sense.. the two issues aren't logicaly connected. you might as well say that the idea that angels exist threatens the existance of God.. because hey.. maybe he's just another angel.
Sure you could say that.. but why? Granted if you already don't believe in the scriptures, or in God you can always find some way to doubt, but if you believe the bible is true then this simply is a non issue.
Likewise with the suggestion that this view of nephilim casts doubt on the idea that Jesus is God's only son.. maybe God has many sons... well I don't really see how this is suggested, and in fact the idea that Jesus was just one of many avatars is already prevalent among a number of religions without believing in angelic offspring.

In the refrence you made to the statement by Jesus "... like the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage. " This argument also is sometimes phrased to include the idea that angels are all neuter, being neither male nor female.
The bible never comments on what sex or lack there of angels are, as far as I know, however, every angelic refrence in the bible uses masculine gender in hebrew. Thus wether or not they have sex, all angels appear to have masculine gender. If this is the case then its obvious that they wouldn't marry or be given in marriage because they are all masculine.
That is not, however, what I think Jesus meant in that verse. The sadducees were posing a legal question to Jesus saying, this woman has had seven husbands, so when they are all resurected which one will she be legaly married to? Jesus answered them and said that after the resurection there will be no marraige. In my opinion the correct understanding of this is based on understanding the difference between law and relationship. Marriage is a legal covenant, it did not exist before law and it will not exist after law. The relationship which exists between husband and wife is not a legal contract and thus it existed before law, and can exist when law has passed away. It is often said during marriage ceremonies that God performed the first marraige between adam and eve, but this is not true (at least as I understand it now). Adam and Eve were not married because there was no law. They were simply husband and wife, one flesh, a relationship, not a legal contract. This is why there is a significant difference between the law and Jesus' teaching on marriage. Under law a man and woman could disolve the legal bond between them and were then free to remarry. Jesus, however, said that this was not so, and that remarriage was infact adultery.. this could only be so if the relationship of husband and wife which is created by God is a seperate entity from the legal bond of marriage.
So in my opinion, all this verse says about angels is that they don't bind themselves together in legal contracts of marriage because they are not bound by law.

Furthermore, we know pretty clearly from scripture that angels are capable of appearing in human physical form. Not just form similar to humans but actual indistinguishable human form. There are a few incidents directly reported in scripture where this occured and then there is also the comment from Paul that "many have entertained angels unaware" indicating that it is actually not all that uncommon for angels to walk among humans in physical human form indistinguishable from us.
If angels can take on hair, bone, skin, blood and so on, it is so hard to think that they also can take on human reproductive capability?

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

------------------
Brian

For the record, my arguments were from a "devil's advocate" perspective, just tossing out theories I've read and heard on this subject. They are not necessarily my beliefs. I find it helpful to consider alternatives when trying to make sense of something - which is why I am not offended by your response to what I posted.

Why would an angel want to reproduce? Taking on the form of a human - whether actually being physical or just appearing to be physical - is understandable considering the role angels play in all of this. But why reproductive capability? It makes sense only if the Gen 6 beings were fallen angels who were being vindictive against God's other created beings (humans) and intent on destroying the future promise of saving mankind. Perhaps you are correct and the abomination that was the result of this union is why the Hebrews were told to annihilate certain peoples.

But, this sure is a load of speculation in any case. Just another unknown to be answered in Heaven. Like I said, it doesn't really phase me one way or another...it just isn't something that my faith hinges on. I know this is just a fun discussion, so no harm done I guess.

(and there are quite a few elements of scripture that would make a cool video game...but you sorta have to use some artistic license with them because they are small chunks with no real discernable context. doesn't that create a bit of a problem with some people - ie, parents and strict believers, etc?)

I think your quite right that it is very valuable to look at things from various view poins, especially opposing view points. Without doing that it is simply too easy to miss things (often times important things) and to completely misunderstand other people's views.

Now, on to the other questons and/or points you raised, all of which are ineresting. First I'd like to look at the question of why angels would want to reproduce, or have offspring. For most humans, particularly women there is something of an innate desire to have children. I'm sure part of this is biological, built in to ensure the preservation and flourishing of the human race. Indeed one of God's very first commands to mankind was "be fruitful and multiply". However, there is also a distinct awe and sense of wonder felt by humans at the realization of the magnitude of what it really means to procreate. To bring into being a new life which carries your genetic signature, very blood of your blood, flesh of your flesh etc. There is in genesis 6 an indication that physical lust played some part in the fall of the sons of God, but in the hebrew traditions surrounding this event there is also a strong indication that a major part of the fall of the sons of God was a desire to procreate, to reproduce something that bore their lineage. Granted, as we have already said, hebrew traditions are quite fallible, and very well may be wrong. However, I think that the awe and wonder of procreation very well could provoke something near to jealousy or envy.

The other question you raise is what about the offspring themselves?? There is alot there to consider. Angels being spiritual beings, one would presume that they do not have genetic code of their own.. yet they must have essence, something that makes them different both from other kinds of beings like humans, and also something that makes them individual and different from other angels. If their desire was to procreate, to reproduce something of themselves then I would think they would have made themselves physical form and reproductive capability that would pass along something of themselves. How that would work.. I can hardly begin to imagine. However, I think that would probably account for the gigantic size (goliath is the most well known but Og king of bashan in the bible is much bigger than even goliath, at somewhere near 15 feet tall if memory serves). As well as the mightiness, as well as the hinted at viciousness. Remembering that these angels were fallen they could have passed along some pretty nasty traits.

That still leaves the spiritual nature of the offspring. In scripture sin and the consequences of it are passed only through the male line, not the mother. This is why Jesus could have a human mother, and still not be subject to the curse and fallen nature of Adam. While every human born of a human father in line from Adam, inherits Adam's fallen nature, the consequence of his sin. The bible seems to suggest that fallen angels fall more completely and fully than man both in that they have no hope of redemption and as holy and exalted as they were before, after they are that much more evil and dark. Thus the evil nature inherited from such a parent would seem likely to be much worse than normal human nature.

Certainly there is much speculation involved here, but it is speculation which is the logical extention of a view of scripture... thus if that interpetation of scripture is correct, the speculation is also likely to be true.

"but you sorta have to use some artistic license with them because they are small chunks with no real discernable context. "

I disagree with this to some degree. These things do have discernable context. In fact they are part of the context for the rest of the bible. They aren't just aberant chunks that don't mean anything. They are part of the picture.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:
I disagree with this to some degree. These things do have discernable context. In fact they are part of the context for the rest of the bible. They aren't just aberant chunks that don't mean anything. They are part of the picture.

---

Uh, sorry, sorta got my words jumbled with my thoughts. When those bits and pieces are taken out of the context they are in - in this sense, a video game idea with some degree of artistic license applied to it - they then become said "chunks with no discernable context" - just like any portion of scripture that can be abused out of context. Hope that clarifies that statement.

I understand what you mean when you say that the Hebrew traditions are fallible...but you have to remember that the oral tradition of the Hebrews is the basis of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments).
I also have issue with the degree of speculation we are getting into in this discussion. The fact is we do not know about this, and by not knowing we should not really venture into speculation about if angels have reproductive abilities, how that could work, why it would be, and any result if it were. I also sense a bit of transference (for lack of a better word) in associating certain "angelic traits" to humans - and the reverse - that is totally based on speculation, and here especially one needs to be careful. No doubt the fallen angels had a hatred for God that grew from the pride of taking the place of God. And, as recorded many times in scripture, mankind also had a wickedness that God could not allow. But these two similarities is not evidence for certain humans to have inherited such behavior from angels. Remember, "the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it". I think there is reason enough in the intellect of mankind to revel in such wickedness without any sort of angelic lineage. I am close to 7 feet tall, but that does not mean I am a descendant of some fallen angel. The fact that I have had evil and wicked thoughts in my lifetime does not mean I inherited those traits from an angel.

Another interesting point to consider is that the days of Noah were well before the days of Joshua. The flood of Noah's time covered the earth and killed every living thing that was not on the ark. When Joshua and the other spies checked out the land of Canaan, they saw giants. Why is the event of Gen 6 only recorded once, before the flood of Noah, but not after? You can argue that the event did happen later, because the verse reads "and also afterward". But again this is even more speculation of a larger caliber than before, and so we continue to focus on what we do not know versus what we do know. I agree one can speculate to a point which is logical based on what scripture proves when weighed against itself. But the human mind does not easily know when to draw the proverbial line in such cases, and one can easily conclude things that are untrue even with true scripture (ie, one can have knowledge of scripture but lack the understanding of it).

If it is okay with you, I'll just stop my speculation here.

God bless! Merry Christmas!

[This message has been edited by nfektious (edited December 23, 2004).]

There is no necessity to assume a fallen angelic lineage to explain the wickedness of people, your quite right. I think there is reason to consider it because it is suggested by scripture.

When I said Hebrew tradition I was refering to extra biblical writings, such as the book of enoch, the book of giants etc.. things which do not carry the weight of scripture, but are interesting and do shed light on what hebrews themselves have believed and what they have recorded over the centuries. While its possible that the scriptures were originaly transmitted as oral tradition, I personaly don't think they were. In my opinion they likely had written form right from the beginning. (but that is somewhat beside the point).

Your right that all the nephilim that existed at the time of Genesis would have been killed in the flood, and many commentators on scripture feel that this incident, whatever it was, was one of the reasons God sent the flood. However, in Genesis 6 it says of the nephilim that they existed "at that time, and also afterward" and then in scripture the Nephilim reappear in canaan from the time Abraham to the time of Joshua. (not just the descriptions are the same but the hebrew word "nephilim" is used.

God Bless and God Speed
Merry Christmas! and Happy new year!

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

Christian References
=======
The Complete Jewish Bible
Genesis 6:1-7
1 In time, when men began to multiply on earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3 ADONAI said, "My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years."
4 The N'filim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; these were the ancient heroes, men of renown. 5 ADONAI saw that the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imaginings of their hearts were always of evil only.
6 ADONAI regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. 7 ADONAI said, "I will wipe out humankind, whom I have created, from the whole earth; and not only human beings, but animals, creeping things and birds in the air; for I regret that I ever made them."

The New American Standard
Genesis 6:1-7
1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore {children} to them. Those were the mighty men who {were} of old, men of renown. 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

The King James Version
Genesis 6:1-7
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.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Nephilim: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T2704
Sons of God: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T3477
Giants: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T1474
Anakim: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T225
Rephaim: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/EastonsBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T3107

Nave's Topical Bible
Anakim: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T306
Emims: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T1654
Goliath: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T2082
Ishbi-benob: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T2588
Og: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T3661
Rephaim: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T4148
Zamzummims: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T5235

The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
N@phiyl: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05303&version=nas
Naphal (origin of N@phiyl): http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5307&version=nas
also related
N@phal (Aramaic): http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05308&version=nas
Nephel: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05309&version=nas
=======

Jewish References
=======
The Targum of Palestine (or commonly known as The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel) on Genesis 1-6: http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/pjgen1-6.htm
The Targum of Onkelos on Genesis 1-6: http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/onk/Gen1_6.htm
The Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=215&letter=G
The Jewish Encyclopedia on The Fall of Angels: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=24&letter=F

How's that for scrambling your brain?

[This message has been edited by nfektious (edited December 23, 2004).]

I think nfektious is on the right track, as he seems to have references to back himself up.

It's also not uncommon for God to call his followers his "sons", for example in Hosea 1:10. We should be careful about assigning a "natural" meaning to this phrase.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - hoping to get more done over the holidays . . .

If Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels then I don't think that acts like that would change any today. There are a lot of satanic cults and weird rituals going on in our day, I hear a lot about the satan worship and such, but I've never heard of anything as far as anyone actually getting it on with a fallen angel.

------------------
"Before Abraham was... I Am." - Jesus Christ

3rd Day Studios

[This message has been edited by brandon (edited December 24, 2004).]

I'm not sure that nfektious' last post was necessarily intended to support one side or the other as a number of the refrences didn't really take a position on where the giants in question came from, but simply said "they were giants". The easton's and the jewish encyclopedia "critical" commentary on giants are the only refrences posted that actually take a contrary view. In the easton's it doesn't actually present any argument it simply presents its own view point (line of seth) as fact. In the Jewish encyclopedia it basicly says "the ancients believed these giants to be the offspring of fallen angels, but we with our vast modern knowledge and insight know that they were simply the humans of mighty reputation who were members of the known historical tribes that lived in canaan and all of the appelations applied to them aren't really literal." The entire "critical view" (which is the only part that has a contrary view point) seems based on views of modern textual criticism, portraying scripture as mixture of legends and myths with a little historical context.
Just to test this I looked through the encyclopedia for another "cricitical view" section, on a more standard, but yet also supernatural topic. I found one on the ark of the covenant. In this review its obvious that the encyclopedia is basing its views on the JEPD textual criticism and even sites Wellhausen as a source (he being the most famous of the "higher critics" and major figure in founding of the JEPD criticism). Wellhausen and the JEPD view point he spawned are the primary "scholarly" theory used to deny the inspiration and authority of scripture. This view is something like the textual criticism equivalent of evolutionary theories of origins.. except those have more evidence than JEPD high criticism does.
In any case the "critical view" in the case of the ark of the covenant again concludes that it is essentially a bunch of legends which were cobbled together by several different authors.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is probably a unanimity among modern unbelieving scholars that fallen angels never produced offspring with humans. I'm further willing to concede that it would be relatively easy to come up with a multitude of modern sources which do their best to deny the interpetation of "sons of God" as divine beings or angels. Especially in the age of the internet, finding sources for any argument is easy. Its finding good arguments that is difficult.

So far (not refering to nfektious but just to my experience in general) I've only seen two basic arguments against the idea that the "sons of God" were angelic beings.

#1 the Line of seth argument (or as a varient the great men argument). This argument says "sons of God" is a refrence to either godly humans, or great and powerful humans. Either one of these is certainly possible. However, the supporting reasons for these interpetations are, in my opinion, very weak. In most cases they stem simply from aversion to the idea that angels could mate with humans.

#2 the second argument is basicly the myth/legend argument which amounts to saying that the entire account, including the flood, is all a legend or a myth intended to portray a moralistic story, and it has a bit of history mixed in very vaguely. I obviously reject this because it is an out right denial of scripture. Furthermore its typical of the modern "scholarly" arrogance which is the halmark of most of the academic community.

As for citing exact refrences, I pretty much stopped doing that when i graduated college. If you want to find out the accuracy of what I'm saying, feel free to research it yourself.. if you'd rather just believe I'm lying, exagerating, inacurate, or simply don't know what I'm talking about.. I guess I'm ok with that

now, as to the historical perspective on the interpetation of Genesis 6. In judaism, the interpetation of Genesis 6, "sons of God" was universaly translated as divine beings or angels prior to the 2nd century AD. in the 2nd century Rabbi Simeon Ben Yochai, proported author of the Zohar and major figure of Jewish Kabbalah began teaching that the Sons of God were not angels but rather great men, kings and magistrates of the pre-flood world. He even went so far as to pronounce a curse against anyone who continued to teach that the Sons of God were angelic beings.
Up to that time however, every hebrew tradition, extra biblical literature (book of enoch, giants, jubilee, genesis apocryphon), even the histories of Josephus used the interpetation that the "sons of God" were angelic beings. Most importantly the septuagint translation of the bible which was translated by the top 70 hebrew scholars of the day, and was almost certainly used by Jesus and some of the apostles as well as the entire greek speaking church, renders the translation as "angels".

As for Christian tradition on the matter. Every church father before the 3rd century held the correct translation to be divine beings or angels. The first Christian writer to disagree with this was Julius Africanus in the 3rd century. His teaching on this matter never gained popularity however until it was taken up by none other than St. Augustine in the 5th century. St. Augustine in "City of God" made popular the idea of the "line of seth" interpetation. Following on that tradition the catholic church, in a number of councils has actually decreed it heretical to believe that angels can reproduce with humans.

Now on the textual analysis itself. The phrase in Genesis 6 which is rendered "sons of God" in hebrew is Benei Ha-elohim. Ben is the hebrew for son, elohim is gods, Ha is the hebrew definite article and is always singular, thus showing us the interesting plural singularity of God. Literaly this translates as sons of THE God. The phrase benei Ha-elohim is used several other times in the old testament and every time, without exception it is refrencing angelic beings. In a number of the other cases in fact it is isn't even translated as "sons of God" but rather "heavenly beings" and sometimes as "mighty ones". The other refrences include Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 Psalms 29:1, 89:6, Daniel 3:25 is very similar but it lacks the definite article "Ha" and thus is translated sons of gods, rather than "of God".
Hosea 1:10 is not the same phrase. The phrase in Hosea is sons of the living God, in hebrew it is "benei chay el".

Part of the distinction between the two phrases is that the old testament contains a teaching not often thought of by modern christians often expressed in the term "host of heaven". The hebrew old testament portrays God as a king holding court with a vast host of ministers and princes, this is refered to as the Host of Heaven a number of times in the OT, its why God is called "Lord of Hosts" etc. This is in part why God is often refered to as Ha-elohim, which is both singular and plural and also part of the reason God refers to himself as "we" and "us" in the OT. When the term Ha-elohim is used it is specificly making refrence to God and his heavenly hosts. which are what we commonly term, angels.

So, on the phrase "benei Ha elohim" the textual evidence of scripture, in my opinion, strongly supports its interpetation only as divine beings or angels.

Now there are a couple of other points I'd like to raise from the text of scripture as well.
First Jude. Jude in verses 6 and 7 speaks of the angels who left their first place and sinned. The KJV renders it this way...

"And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; 7 just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

the word "position" at the beginning of the verse in greek is "oiketerion". Its only other use in scripture refers to the glorified spiritual body we will poses after our resurection.
Then the sin of these angels who left their own "oiketerion" is compared directly, in verse 7, to the unnatural sexual fornication of Sodom and Gomorah. To make this even more clear, take a look at how the NEB (new english bible) translates this section of verses

"JUDE 6 Remember too the angels, how some of them were not content to keep the dominion given to them but abandoned their proper home; and God has reserved them for judgement on the great Day, bound beneath the darkness in everlasting chains. 7 Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and followed unnatural lusts; and they paid the penalty in eternal fire, an example for all to see. (NEB) "

the other refrence I want to look at is in genesis 6 itself, verse 9. which reads in the KJV...

"These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God."

The word translated "blameless" here in hebrew is "Tamim". The hebrew word Tamim is most often used in refrence to sacrificial animals. It was required that these animals be completely without physical blemish, they had to be physicaly perfect, no spots, no infirmities etc. these are the refrences in scripture in which "tamim" used to mean physical bodily purity...

"The Heb. word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and, not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity . It is rendered without blemish in Ex. 12.5; 29.1; Lev. 1.3, 10; 3.1, 6; 4.3, 23, 28, 32; 5.12, 18; 6.6; 9.2, 3; 14.10; 22.19; 23.12, 18; Num. 6.14; 28.19, 31; 29.2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36; Ezek. 43.22, 23, 25; 45.18, 23; 46.4, 6, 13.
Without spot: Num. 19.2; 28.3, 9, 11; 29.17, 26.
Undefiled: Ps. 119.1. "
(taken from appendix 26 of the companion bible)

The word "tamim" is used a number of times in scripture to refrence integrity or truth in a metaphorical sense. So it is possible that this is also the usage in the case of Noah... however, it is also very possible, particularly in the way the word is used that it is not refering to moral purity (which infact is already refrenced earlier in the verse) but rather the physical health/purity of Noah's blood line.

Lastly here is Young's literal translation, this is the literal word for word of Genesis 6:1-9

1 And it cometh to pass that mankind have begun to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters have been born to them,
2 and sons of God see the daughters of men that they [are] fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen.
3 And Jehovah saith, `My Spirit doth not strive in man -- to the age; in their erring they [are] flesh:' and his days have been an hundred and twenty years.
4 The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.
5 And Jehovah seeth that abundant [is] the wickedness of man in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil all the day;
6 and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself -- unto His heart.
7 And Jehovah saith, `I wipe away man whom I have prepared from off the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens, for I have repented that I have made them.'
8 And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.
9 These [are] births of Noah: Noah [is] a righteous man; perfect he hath been among his generations; with God hath Noah walked habitually.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

If you look at the Jewish References I posted you see various perspectives. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say, but I found if helpful to provide the different views from a source outside of scripture - especially since scripture does not provide us with the information directly to draw any real conclusion. My personal view on the issue is based solely on the lack of detail in scripture - it just isn't that important to the whole of scripture, other than providing enough information to realize that the earth was filled with all manner of wickedness as mankind could conjure in his heart and imagination. Thus, the introduction of Noah preceding this text and after this text to clearly prepare the important section here - the righteousness of Noah and why there was a flood, and why only the eight survived.
However, if one intends to focus on the identity of the Nephilim and the sons of God here in this section, the only real explanation is found in the original text (not any translation) and the Jewish history. But this is also where the issue becomes diluted with further speculation and likely uninspired translation. If you accept a common viewpoint of who the sons of God here are, and who the Nephilim here are - according to the Jewish history of them being the fallen angels - you then are connected with the traditions of what these angels did in regard to the world since the creation of Adam and further explanations of events that reach into later portions of the Old Testament. My point being, you have to accept all of the story or none of it if you believe these beings were angelic in origin.
If you accept that these beings are fallen angels you then have to explain the named beings in the Jewish tradtion - Samael, Lilith, etc. - and their relationship to early mankind, especially Adam, Eve and Seth. These correlations and interconnections are inseperable with the concept that the Nephilim and the sons of God in this portion of scripture are angelic in nature. The problem with taking this stance is that you are forced to draw on extensive writings that are both apart from scripture but bear some relation to scripture.
Indeed, historical documents have been found that prove events and periods in scripture to be factual, but there is insufficient external documentation to prove all things in scripture as factual or necessarily offer enough information to conclude anything contrary or supportive. Of course it is the word of God that is the absolute measure of truth and not the reverse, and I am not suggesting anything to the contrary. What is required is faith - to accept what is said in scripture; to study scripture for the sake of gaining knowledge, wisdom and understanding in the ways of God; to prove what is of God and be aware of what is not; to build up others in their faith and in all these things. I have no problem with discussion - even speculative discussion - but it has to occur when one's faith is firmly planted in the truth of God and immovable by the thoughts of men. This is my concern - not for you or me, because it has been shown that we have a solid faith and are likeminded in areas that are of utmost importance concerning God. Rather, my concern is for others who are not solid in their faith and have cause to question the things of God; this discussion, though it reveals human facts in abundance, does not reveal enough spiritual facts for the benefit of the spiritually weak. Certainly, everyone is free to investigate these things on their own - but that denies us (those who know what is of importance in spiritual things versus the issues unimportant to spiritual maturity) of the responsibility we have to edify others. This issue has been present in Judaism and Christianity since the church started, if not before, and likely will be around if we are to die on this earth before entering the glory of the presence of God. The good news of all of this is that the outcome has no bearing on the authenticity of Jesus being the only son of God, who died for the redemption of our sins, and was resurrected in glory and victory over all sin, returning to the right hand of God, his father, in Heaven, and preparing for us our place in Heaven - for this is where the scripture ultimately leads.

I havn't been angry during the conversation. As I said its difficult to come across as friendly when the argument your presented with is one you don't think has much merit. I can distinguish between people attacking me, and people attacking my argument, and you probably can as well, however many people can't. Even smart people can have dumb arguments there are teachers I respect on most issues that I think embrace stupid positions on other issues. Thats why its important to be able to distinguish between the person and the argument.

I understand the argument your making about "if you take some of it, you have to take all of it" but I don't totaly agree. For example, I have no trouble believing that portions of the book of enoch are true and accurate to real events but that other portions of it are not. Perhaps this comes from my training as a historian. It is a matter of routine in history to have documentary sources which are a mixture of truth and myth, which contains facts but are also often misrepresenting things. A major reason for this is that the ancients and even more so the medieval mind didn't view history as a recording of stark fact like we do.
I obviously believe that the correct interpetation of Genesis 6 is that the sons of God were angels who fell through their desire of women and of offspring. I think (note the difference between think and believe) it is probable that the book of enoch and other extra biblical sources contain some factual information about this event. However, I in no way accept those extra biblical sources as 100% factual or accurate. Even less so do I regard rabbinical tradition and commentary as worthy of belief. It is undoubtedly ineresting, and valuable for understanding, but much of it is flawed, while some yet may be true.
Thus I have no problem accepting the fall of the "watchers" from enoch while yet denying the idea of Lilith as Adam's first wife from rabbinical tradition.

I do agree that everything we believe has implications for almost everything else. For example.. what you believe about nephilim can have a pretty major impact on your view of God and his nature. In the OT during the conquest of canaan God ordered the Israelites to slaughter without mercy every living inhabitant of certain tribes, men, women, and children, even babies. This fact is one of the most difficult for people to accept and reconcile with the loving God of christianity. Likewise the stoy of the flood is genocide of almost every living human, men, women, children... The reasons why God did these things are important to our view of God. Now, I can accept either view on this issue... but the views do have important differences.

There will always be debates and disagreements about scripture even within christianity.. predestination vs. free will, Law vs. Grace.. the nature and essence of God, of Christ.. these are things that will always be debated, yet our understanding of them is also vital. The existance of debate and disagreement in no way means the scriptures aren't clear either. There are dozens of sects and cults off of christianity which are all founded on denying the obvious clear meaning of scripture and there will likely be many more as time goes on.
Personaly on this issue, I think the scripture much more strongly supports the view that they were angels. The view that they were the line of seth requires some significant juggling of the scripture. I'm sure others would disagree.

Finaly, there is a common view among christians today ( I don't really know if it has been prevalent through all history or not) that all that really matters is those bits of the bible which pertain directly to salvation. With out a doubt salvation is important because it is the beginning of the christian life.. you won't have any of the rest of the christian life without first having salvation. Salvation is not, however, the end of the christian life. Nor is it the only topic in the bible. We, as christians, need to seek and to understand more than just "you must be born again". The journey starts there, but there is much more beyond that point that we must learn. In the gospel of John it says that Jesus taught them much more than they could ever record.. it says "the whole world could not contain the books" if they were to write down everything Jesus said.. do you realise how important that makes everything that is in scripture? What is contained in scripture is just the most important tip of the iceberg.
I just don't understand why people would not want to seek more understanding, why they would not want to go deeper.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_templar:
I just don't understand why people would not want to seek more understanding, why they would not want to go deeper.

---

Free will?

I agree with your comments. Very well stated. Perhaps we have more in common that this discussion makes it appear.

God bless you and yours - and a very Merry Christmas to you as well!

to appeal to simon's orginial intention... and brian's point..
Nephilim make a great story backdrop. haha.
got one floating through my head. haha. yup. ties in multiple cultural mythologies, Nephilim and Atlantis. oh. and later, the mafia.
yup...

so..much... words...
pretty overwhelming, really.

------------------
Soterion Studios

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

God bless

Satan hates God and Satan hates us

Satan was an angel and angels were created to serve God and to help/serve man at the orders of God through our prayers-

But Satan wanting to be God lost the war and he and his angel-demons were herld to earth.
Every pure and holy thing God has made Satan wants to defile and that included our human race before the flood.

When the angels or as we now call them demons saw the daughters of man they mated with them causing our human DNA to be polluted. All for except Hoah and his family that is why God saved them. In fact if it werent for Noah we would have been wiped out, but since Noah was righteous and loved God he didnt come in to the corrupt sexual immorality of the demons and their off spring.
Its not really clear what kind of children were born of these mixed inbreed except that they were giants and very very evil-

In the book of Enoch which was not included in the cannon through the Authority of The Catholic Church goes into Great Detail about the days before the flood. Enoch was Noahs great Grandfather
This book is well worth reading as history and should can be understood as truly coming from Enoch- but it should not be added to the bible only because of the warning in Revelations about taking away or adding anything to the bible.
However I feel in my heart the CATHOLIC CHURCH migh be guilty of this, because before they removed the book of Enoch it was in the part of the Origianl canon.

So the Nephilim were very evil and the off spring were just as bad. People today often say the feel a spirit force trying to have sex with them, I have heard these stories over and over on documentaries based on hauntings-
These foolish people think they are ghost are deceased people that have not moved on, but in reality these are demons and they are very evil.

These demonic angels wil twist pervert and try destroy all that is holy and we in the physical tend to except the lies of the devil. Look at abortion we murder millions of babies and say oh it wasnt a life because it wasnt born yet.

In the end all that were decieved are gonna stand back and realize the truth and just realizing how decieved these people were is going to be horrific non the less the terrible penalty that weights for them. My heart truly hurts for the thought of those who are ignorant to God.

God is so Good and his love for us cannot be expressed enough

People want miracles, well let me tell you everday you get up is a miracle
its a miracle because god gave us another day to either get ourselves right or to help others get right with God. Do not ever take a single day for granite, because each day is precious and the end is near.

I have family that are unsaved and I each day I recieve from God is another day to help them receive Christ.

Dont you want your family and friends saved? I know I do

God Bless

Demons are never mentioned in the OT. They were referred to as demons when Jesus started casting them out in the NT

So you have to pay special attention when reading the OT
another example would be
in 1 Samuel 28:7-25 when Saul consulted a witch to bring up the dead phrophet Samuel. This divination is an abomination to the lord and because of it
the bible says and evil spirit of the lord came upon saul and basicly tormmented him

In this sense since the word demon is not in the OT an evil spirit of the lord is a demon. But its not that God has evil spirits that he sends out but rather Saul sinned terribly against the lord and the lord removed his covering of Saul therefore this eveil spirt came on him. Since God created everything even the fallen angels that is why the bible says an evil spirit of the Lord-

So it is important to find the areas in the OT and make sure that demon is properly matched in place of the words that were known to describe these fallen angels. This will make the OT come alive with knowledge and understanding of what sent us to the position we are now in and in these days they are very much like the evil days of Noah-
A sign that Jesus is about to come for us

I would also be very careful about adding the word alien and ufos in this because I feel that is just another big lie from satans evil imagination to decieve us once again!

When Jesus was asked; "What the signs of the end of the age would be?"
His reply was that it would be... 'As in the days of Noah'... Matthew 24:37

There is something rather provocative about this statement ...
Which the Bible draws our attention to concerning 'the days of Noah'

You can read about this in - -> Genesis 6

It seems there is much more to the 'Noah Story' than just;
a big boat, bad weather and lots of animals.

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." Genesis 6:1-2(KJV)

"There were giants (Nephilim) 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." Genesis 6:4 (KJV)

:: The Sons of God

The Hebrew term translated "Sons of God" as used in the above passage
is B'nai Elohim a term that always refers to "Angels."

It occurs 4 times in the Old Testament (Gen. 6:4 ... Job 1:6 ... Job 2:1 ... Job 38:7 )
and is rendered "Angels of God" in the ancient Septuagint translation.

The term translated "giants" is from the Hebrew
Nephilim which means = "The fallen ones"

This is from the verb: 'Nepal' = which means
to fall, be cast down, to fall away, desert.

In the Septuagint translation, the term used was "gigantes" or "earth-born".

They are also called 'Ha Gibborim' = "the mighty ones"

The text in Genesis 6 implies that there was an unnatural union between some "Fallen" Angels (Sons of God) and Human Women (Daughters of Men) which resulted in offspring that were superhuman, gigantic, violent and very evil!

This seems to shed more light on the drastic judgment of the flood!

In Jude 1:6 ... there is also reference to this strange event...
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

"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; 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;" 2 Peter 2:4-5 (KJV)

Disturbing: one of the common and widespread claims of "Abductees" today is that they claim experiments were performed on their reproductive systems and some talk of sexual encounters.

:: Without Blemish

"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6:9 (KJV)

In the above verse 'perfect' means ...
"tamiym" = without blemish, sound, healthful, without spot, unimpaired.

This term is always used of 'physical' blemishes - not moral ones.

Could it be that Noah was 'unique' not only in the fact that he walked with God and was a just man in a very evil time period ...

But maybe he was also unique in the fact that he and his family were the only ones
"without blemish" from the intrusion of fallen angels into his blood line?

:: And Also After That

Take notice that in Genesis 6:4 it says;
"There were giants in the earth in those days; "and also after that.."

These Giants show up "post flood" too!

There were a number of tribes such as the Rephaim, the Emim,
the Horim, and Zamzummim, that were giants.
Arba, Anak and his seven sons the "Anakim"
There were Giants in the Land of Canaan - the Canaanites
and some of the other "ites" in the Old Testament.
Goliath was probably the most well known giant.

Here are just some Bible References:
> Num 13:33... the sons of Anak
> Deuteronomy 2:20-21 ... Land of Giants, Zamzummims
> Deuteronomy 3:11-13... Og king of Bashan - bedstead was 9 cubits in length
> Joshua 12:14 ... Og, Remnant of the giants
> Joshua 15:8 ... Valley of the giants
> 1 Samuel 17:4-7 ... Goliath - whose height was 6 cubits and a span
> 2 Samuel 21:16-22 ... Goliath's 4 brothers - One with 12 fingers & 12 toes
> 1 Chronicles 20:5-8 ... More on the Sons of the giant in Gath

That fact that these "Nephilim" kept showing up even post flood, seemingly trying to 'stay a step ahead' of where God would bring his people is a curiosity.

It makes you wonder if Satan's strategy was to pollute the human race with the intrusion of these evil creatures. Maybe in a lame attempt to prevent the Messiah - the Savior of the World - from being born?

When we look at the examples below you can see how they keep showing up at the 'right place and the right time.' But God - no surprise - was always ready for them. AND ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!

(From the Article: "And Also After That: The Return of the Nephilim?") @ Koinonia House

"When God had revealed to Abraham that the land of Canaan was to be given to him, Satan had over 400 years to plant his "mine field" of Nephilim! (Genesis 15:13-21)

When Moses sent his twelve spies to reconnoiter the Land of Canaan, they came back with the report of giants in the land. (The term used was Nephilim.) (Numbers 13:33) Their fear of those terrifying creatures resulted in their being relegated to wandering in the wilderness for 38 years.

When Joshua and the nation Israel later entered the land of Canaan, they were instructed to wipe out every man, woman and child of certain tribes. That strikes us as disturbingly severe. It would seem that in the Land of Canaan, there again was a "gene pool problem." (Joshua 6:21; 9:24; 10:28, 39; 11:24 .... Deut 2:34; 7:2, 3; 20:16-17; ... 1 Sam 15:3, 8, 18, 19 ... Ps 137:8, 9) These Rephaim, Nephilim, and others seem to have been established as an advance guard to obstruct Israel's possession of the Promised Land. Was this also a stratagem of Satan?"

Are these more examples of "Also After That?"
There have also been reports of Giant Skeletons that have been found ... http://www.harpazo.net/ufoalien.html

The word "offspring" in Acts 17.29 is quite different. It is (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.

There is a distinction. The reason this had to be made is because in the fourth century the philosophical writer Augustine of Hippo had dealt with this concept of the angelic Host as the sons of God and a concept of their committing fornication with the daughters of Adam and he decided that concept was not right. He wanted to change it to say that the sons of Adam through Seth were the sons of God and the sons of Cain were the sons of men and he tried to trivialise the problem by saying that the sons of Seth had simply interbred with the sons of Cain and that was the intermingling of the blood lines. Augustine was to produce a scenario which was to last up until the twentieth century and completely destroyed the capacity of the Church to deal with anthropological finds, to explain what was happening and to explain the biblical positions. The New Testament is quite clear in its writings that this view of the angels is that they had somehow committed fornication. The letter of Jude which is attributed by most as being written by James, the brother of Jesus, is canonised in Scripture. Jude 6-9 says (Interlinear Bible).

Jude 6-9: 6 And those angels not having kept their first place, but having descended their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example beforetimes, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire. 8 Likewise, indeed, also those dreaming ones even defile flesh, and despise rulership, and speak evil of glories. 9 But Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses - he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy but said, Let the Lord rebuke you!

This whole concept is that the angels had left their first estate and committed fornication. The Interlinear Bible says in its transliteration:

Jude 6-9: 6 angels and those not having kept the of themselves first place, but having deserted the own dwelling-place, for (the) Judgment of a great Day in chains eternal under blackness He has kept: 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah and the around them cities, in the similar to these manner committing fornication and going away after flesh other. laid beforetimes an example of fire everlasting vengeance undergoing. 8 Likewise indeed also these dreaming (ones) flesh even defile, lordship and despise, glories and speak evil of. 9 But Michael the archangel, when with the Devil contending, he argues about the of Moses body, not he dared a judgment to bring of blasphemy, but said, Let rebuke (the) Lord.

The New Oxford Annotated RSV Bible deals with Jude 6 in this way:

the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nethergloom until the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lusts, served as an example to undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

God’s New Covenant - a New Testament Translation by Heinz W. Cassirer published by Eerdmans, Michigan, 1989, in its translation of Jude says:

Moreover there were angels who were not content to keep to the sphere of influence assigned to them but who have abandoned their proper domain and the way the Lord dealt with these was that he confined them to a dark place binding them with everlasting chains and reserving them to receive the judgment of the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and with them their neighbouring cities how they made themselves guilty of the same debauchery as the angels had pursuing their own natural lusts. Now they lie before our eyes serving as a warning and suffer the punishment of being consumed by an everlasting fire.

The Cassirer Bible translation is quite clear. The New English Bible translation is also more clear, perhaps not as clear as Cassirer, but shows absolutely that Jude 6 holds that the angels left their first estate and committed fornication. Paul also held that to be so in the text written in 1Corinthians 11. In this text Paul dealt with the concept of the position of women. In 1Corinthians 11:10 he says:

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (KJV)

The whole basis of the covering and the position of woman in relation to man in the text of 1Corinthians 11, was placed in relation to the activities of the angelic Hosts and the interaction with female humanity. That is why Paul says it was because of the angels. That has been an enigmatic statement to many, but you can’t understand it unless you understand Jude and the interrelationship with what is happening in relation to this Genesis story.

The Genesis story deals specifically with what had happened in this interbreeding and the consequence. Noah had been perfect in his generations. The flood was caused to deal with and eliminate the Nephilim and the Rephaim or Gibbowrim.

The concept of the Rephaim is examined also in Isaiah 26.

Isaiah 26:12-21 12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us. 13 O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish. 15 Thou hast increased the nation, O LORD, thou hast increased the nation: thou art glorified: thou hadst removed it far unto all the ends of the earth. 16 LORD, in trouble have they visited thee, they poured out a prayer when thy chastening was upon them. 17 Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD. 18 We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen. 19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. 20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. 21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. (KJV)

Note the text at verses 13-14

13 O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

The text here deals with the resurrection. This is evident also from a comparison with verse 19. Note also that the world is not converted by Israel.

The resurrection is, however, confined to the one species and not the others. The Nephilim or Rephaim have no resurrection. The word for deceased in verse 14 should not be translated as deceased; it is a proper name, i.e. Rephaim.

The concept of the offspring of the fallen Host or the gods is not pantheistic. The theoi or elohim are all sons of the Most High. They are Sons of Heaven or Sons of the God.

The concept is that by their physical sin the angels produced a race of humanoids which was inferior and violent. The intent appears to have been to sabotage the plan of God by the production of a product which would interbreed with and pollute the Adamic system. This concept is virtually universal. They were often considered to have been of superior stature and power and, hence, mighty. The word gibberish in our language is a reflection of the speech of the gibbowrim. (The question of the resurrection is detailed in the paper The Resurrection of the Dead (No. 143)).

The Companion Bible deals with this concept and is unequivocal in its position on the Nephilim. The position of Augustine of Hippo in The City of God is thus quite false as we now know from archaeological evidence.

The Companion Bible, Appendix 25

The Nephilim, or Giants of Gen. 6

The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil'-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3.15).

This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2 Pet. 2.5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).

But we read of the Nephilim again in Num. 13.33: "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Gen. 6.4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (i.e. in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty - men (Heb. gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (lit. men of the name, i.e. who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as 'the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.

As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Gen. 12.6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated: "The Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land." And in Gen. 14.5 they were already known as "Rephaim" and "Emim", and had established themselves at Ashteroth Karnaim and Shaveh Kiriathaim.

In ch. 15.18-2l they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: "Kenites, and the

Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites and the Girgashites and the Jebusites (Gen 15.19-21; cp. Ex. 3.8,17; 23.23; Deut. 7; 20.17. Josh. 12.8).

These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deut. 20.17. Josh. 3.10). But Israel failed in this (Josh. 13.13; 15.63; 16.10; 17.18. Judg. 1.19,20,28,29,30-36; 2.1-5; 3.1-7); and we know not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognised it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.

As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from one Anak which came of the Nephilim (Num. 13.23), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.

From Deut. 2.10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (v. 20, 21) and Avim, &c.

As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned: but, unfortunately, instead of this, their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead", "deceased" or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isa. 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased" and v. 19, where it is rendered "the dead").

It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26.5; Ps. 88.10; Prov. 2.18, 9.18, 21.16; Isa. 14.8, 26.19). It is rendered "deceased" in Isa. 26.14.

It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Gen. 14.5, 15.20; Josh. 12.15 (marg.); 2Sam. 5.18,22, 23.13; 1Chron. 11.15, 14.9, 20.4 (marg.); Isa. 17.5.

In all other places it is rendered "giants", Gen. 6.4, Num. 23.33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16.14, where it is gibbor (Ap. 14. iv).

By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings.

It is certain that the second irruption took place before Gen. 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrah, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5).

Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak’s father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Gen. 35.27; Josh. 15.13; 21.11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Abrahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deut. 2.10,11,21,22,23; 9.2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Num. 13.33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deut. 3.11.

Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" today, and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem.

Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Num. 13.22.

If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day?

Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown", the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings, and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes"’ of Gen. 6.4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.

Thus the Babylonian "Creation Tablets", the Egyptian "Book of the dead", the Greek mythology, and heathen Cosmogonies, which by some are set on an equality with Scripture, or by others adduced in support of it, are all the corruption and perversion of primitive truths, distorted in proportion as their origin was forgotten, and their memories faded away.

The Companion Bible Appendix is thus useful for looking at the story of the Nephilim in relation to the actual reading of the Bible texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls referred to above were not available when much of the above work was done. The major problem with so-called Orthodox Christianity over the centuries is that the interpretation of the Bible has been anthropomorphic. God and the angelic Host, His sons, have been made to conform to the image of man within his limited understanding of the time. It is only now that we are able to explore the possibilities of DNA and the complex genetic structure of the creation that we begin to see the actual reality of the past. The directionality of time has made us view other aspects previously considered impossible as within the realms of understanding. The myths of the ancient world imperfectly describe a powerful spiritual creation beyond our physical capacities to see and measure. The stories describe a war that was waged and is still being fought out for the control of the creation and its ultimate purpose. The rejection of the Nephilim as the offspring of the fallen Host originated in the fourth century CE. It was not questioned within ancient Israel as a reality. The New Testament treats the immoral and sexual behaviour of the fallen Host as fact.

It stands to reason that if a spiritual being can manifest itself as a male and wrestle with a male there is little to prevent the same process occurring with a female. The capacity to create humanoids must have resided with the Host from the sheer evidence we now have. The presence of humanoids on this planet cannot be the product of the creation of God alone.

The logic of an imperfect creation impugns the nature of God. The process is simple.

Premise 1. God created previous humanoids.

Premise 2. From Isaiah 26:14 the resurrection is denied to them.

Conclusion 1. They were imperfect.

Conclusion 2. God desired that imperfect beings would be present and hence be able to corrupt His plan requiring a destruction of the planet; or

Conclusion 3. God experiments.

If God experiments then God does not know the outcome of His activity and hence He is not omniscient. If His plan is deliberately flawed, then he is not perfectly Good.

If God is not omniscient or perfectly good, then He cannot be God. A being that does not know all the future cannot be God. God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.

Conclusion: God delegates the power of creation and of choice to the elohim Host.

Thus, an inferior Host can and did err without impugning the nature of God. Thus, there is no conflict between the actual biblical texts properly understood and archaeological evidence. The Nephilim are held to exist as a humanoid form akin to, but not, Adamic. That species is not confined to the time frames attributed to Adam and can precede Adam by millennia and be blatantly discontinuous.

It is probable that there were a series of attempts to create an intelligent life form by the Host in order to pre-empt the plan of God. Modern science seems to indicate that intelligent mammalian life is only possible within a window of opportunity of plus or minus a few million years in the life of the star systems. The previous creation such as that of the dinosaurs seem to indicate an attempt at another type. The humanoid record is blatantly discontinuous and as such could not have evolved. The eventual intervention of God through the loyal Host in the creation has ended a war that has seen a physical and spiritual violence that has destroyed entire systems. The story of this conflict is contained in the mysteries themselves and will be unfolded over the ensuing months. The stories of the War in the Heavens when told will make the world stand in amazement. The Resurrection of the Dead (No. 143)).

In the Old Testament only angels are called sons of God. Job.1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord,and satan came also among them.Job.2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord,and satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job.38:7 When the morning stars sang together,and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalm.89:6 For who in the heavens can be compared on to the Lord?Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?

Gen.6:1-2 And it came to pass,when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men that they were fair;and they took them wives of all of which they chose.

2Peter.2:4 For if God did not spared not the angels that sinned,but casted them down to hell,and deliverd them into chains of darkness,to be reserved

1Peter.3:19-20 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient,when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was a preparing,wherein few,that is,eight souls were saved by water.

Jude6 And the angels which kept not their first estate,but left their own habitation,he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.verse7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha,and the cities about them in like manner,giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,are set forth as an example,suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

these were truely fallen angels that married woman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After further review and study of this topic on my own I am convinced that the Sons Of God are deffinately fallen angels. Let me explain why........

The primary reason: I think when considering this it is important to study from the O.T. and see who the Sons Of God were. There are only 2 other passages that mention the Sons Of God and they are most deffinately Angels:

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

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

I suppose it all depends on how you interpret the phrase "Sons of God"

quote:

---

MindQuesti think its a fact that these fallen angels Actually did mate with human woman because if you believe otherwise then you would have to question how did the woman bare Giant hybrid called Nephilims.

---

It's not unusual to have "Giants" in the human race - the height of humans has drastically varied over time. If it weren't for the "sons of God" reference, I'd be inclined just to dismiss it as nothing more than an interesting adjective.

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

So let's see if Moses is telling the truth on this matter or if he is simply telling fairy tales.

De 3:11 - For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit. ( 9 cubits = somewhere around 15 or more feet )

Nu 13:33 - There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

2Sa 21:20 - Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant

And Goliath stood at 6 cubits and a span which = 9-10 feet.

Hence giants such as these were around before the flood and also afterward.

However i find it hard to believe that these giants could simply come about just because the line of Seth married the line of Cain. ( which the bible doesn't say) . It actualy says , the sons of God married the daughters of men .

What i can't figure out is why any christian would want to try and twist this around , what do they hope to gain ? ....and what is their motive for doing so ?

(Genesis 6:1 “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 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. 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.”)

A controversy within the body of Christ surrounds this scripture in Genesis 6. Many people hold that the Sons of God mentioned in this scripture refers to the Sons of Seth because they were righteous ones. But is this really the correct position of this scripture when it refers to the Sons of God? The answer is no, not at all. Let me demonstrate the true teaching as it was taught to be and was held in the early church.

The Hebrew term translated “Sons Of God” is “B’nai HaElohim” a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels. When the Torah was translated into the Greek version of the Hebrew scripture it was known as the Septuagint, and the term “Sons Of God” were translated as Angels.

The Book Of Enoch helps widely on this subject, but I will include Enoch in the next lesson, which is another great deal of controversy over the view of scripture.

Now “The daughters of men” translated from Hebrew as “Benoth Adam” literally means “The daughters of Adam” which refers to the natural female descendants of mankind. Their is no particular genealogical issue in this translation claiming that the daughters were of the Sons of Cain. But now lets look at the word “Giants” and it’s translated form from Hebrew as “Nephilim” which literally means “The Fallen Ones” which come from the verb “Nephal” as to mean “to fall”. In the Septuagint translation, the term used was, “Gigantes”, or known as “Earth born”. They were also called “Hag Gibborim” meaning “The Mighty Ones” or “Hero” or “Chief Man.”

Sons Of Seth Theory

Both the ancient Hebrew scholars and the early church fathers understood the text to refer to fallen angels procreating with human women. But 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. Within that time period, the worship of angels had begun within the church.

Also, celibacy had also become as 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 restored 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.

The problems with the Sethite view is the text itself. As described above we have a clear understanding of who the “Sons of God” are from the Hebrew scriptures. 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 Seth” and the “daughters of Cain?” There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam’s descendants. Further, there exist no mention of daughters of Elohim.

And how does the “Sethite” interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without scriptural support. The Biblical term “Sons Of Elohim” which means of the Creator Himself, is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a “son of God”.

At no time, before the Flood of after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of “mixed marriages.” It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over. When on tries to imply that the “Sons of God” were Sethites and they were godly, one cannot come up with solid evidence to prove this statement at all. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them, and that was Noah’s. So where were all the other supposedly godly sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning “mortal” or “Frail.” And he certainly lived up to it. Genesis 4:26 reads:

(Genesis 4:26 “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.”)

That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself? Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: “Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah.” Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: Then men began to call upon their gods “idols” by the name of Jehovah.” If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so called godly line of Seth is non-existent. The truth if the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer:

(Genesis 6:12 “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth”)

There is no evidence stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come who was “Enoch”, and only 8 were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah’s immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact the text implies that these were distinct from all others. There is no evidence that the wives of Noah’s sons were of the line of Seth. There must be a understanding here that the term “Sons of God” in the Old Testament is only referred to “Angels” where in the New Testament the term “Sons Of God” are implied to those “Born again” and “Sealed of the Spirit”. So if the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

Now let us turn to the daughters of Cain.
The “Daughters of Adam” also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

(Genesis 6:1-2 “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”)

It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited to a particular family or subset, but were indeed, from all the Benoth Adam, “the daughters of Adam.” There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam’s female descendants seem to have been involved. And what about the “sons of Adam?” Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in? Let it also be known that the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain’s children, many of which included the name of God, it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

What about the unnatural offspring? The most fatal flaw in the specious “Sethite” view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. Bending the translation to “giants” does not resolve the difficulties. It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which is cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers will not create superhuman, or unnatural children. It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the flood. The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah’s case is also documented in Genesis 6:9. Noah’s family tree was distinctively unblemished. The Hebrew word is “Tamiym” which is used for physical blemishes.

Why were the offspring uniquely designated “mighty” and “men of renown?” This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merly men, even if godly. A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of renown” are mentioned. Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “X” chromosomes available in this line?

So in its full and final understanding, the “Sons of God” view to fit the “sons of Seth” description is debunked due to faulty understanding of the scriptures and a manmade doctrine that emerged out of the Roman Catholic Church. Even though the “sons of Seth” view is debunked and is not the right view on the “Sons of God” subject, what else does this study shed light on about these “Sons of God?

Angelic Beings & The Nephilim

The other Biblical scriptures that view the “Sons Of God” as angels are found in:

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

(Job 2:1 “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.”)

(Job 38:7 “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”)

The earliest reports of fallen angels is found in the book of Enoch. Which states the sons of heaven, who belonged to the guardian angels, had lusted for the beauty of the daughters of men and in the time of Jared decided to descend upon Mt. Hermon to carry out their plans from there. There were 200 angels who came down on Mt. Hermon, and their leader named Azazel made them swear an oath to adhere to their purpose and it was this oath that game the mountain it’s name “Mt. Hermon” = “Oath”

Now there is one problem some people have been taught and will try to oppose to the understanding that angels of God Almighty came down upon the earth and took wives for theme selves. And it deals with the scripture in Matthew where Yeshua was speaking about the resurrection:

(Mat 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.)

Some will try to say and use this one scripture to oppose the real understanding of the “Sons of God” by saying that the angels are perfect. This is not the case of all the angels. Yeshua was teaching about how we will be transformed into our glories form and holy bodies just as the angels are. People easily forget the difference between heaven and earth, and the nature of these 2 dimensions that exist in there forms.

Heaven the throne of God is pure. Where earth is filled with sin, and all of its temptations. Nothing unholy can exist in heaven, this is why Paul said that we are to put on the incorruptible exchanging it for this corruptible life that exist in a world of sin.

(1Co 15:52-54“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.“)

So let us understand the nature of anything that materializes it self into this physical dimension that is surrounded by sin. So then the question is raised. Can angels do what man does when entering human form? The answer is yes, it should not be shocking. Let us look at the scriptures.

(Gen 19:1 “And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;”)

These 2 angels were in the flesh, the later sat and ate with Lot. Now let us look on as Jacob who’s named was changed to Israel by Elohim, wrestled with a angel of the Lord in physical form.

(Gen 32:24 “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.”)

Lets focus on one who is the Son of God, but was made a little lower than the angels to become man. This will show that even Yeshua though He is the Son of God, He still humbled himself as a man, to be a example and could’ve just like any other man fell into sin, by the nature of this physical dimension. This will also show that if Yeshua could’ve fallen into sin, what makes you think the angels who are not mightier then the Son of God could’ve not fallen into sin?

John 1:14 describes the Word became flesh:

(Joh 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”)

Hebrews 4:15 describes how Yeshua was surrounded by temptation, but did not sin:

(Heb 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.”)

Matthew 4:1-10 describes the greatest form of temptation that surrounded Yeshua, which came by Lucifer while in the wilderness, praying & fasting:

(Matthew 4:1-10 “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. hen saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”)

Let us have understanding that Satan is a angel of light, but he is a fallen angel, just as the 1/3 of the heavenly legion that is casted out of heaven with him as described in Revelation 12:

(Rev 12:3 “And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”)

(Rev 12:7 “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”)

So there must be a responsibility that God has entrusted with certain angels, just as he trust His authority with His Prophets, Apostles, etc. We cannot view all angels equal, because even they just as we of the human race have been created different with our own uniqueness and image. So these angles that have fallen in Genesis and recorded by Enoch are called watchers. God has created angelic beings as Angels, Archangels, Watchers, Seraphim, Cherubim, etc.

But is there any vital piece of information held in the New Testament that can help us clear our understanding that in fact, angels were and can be tempted by women, that in Genesis 6, during the days of Jared, Enoch, and Noah they came down and even after the Flood, that they bore the Nephilim?

In 1 Corinthians 11:9-10, Paul instructs that a woman should cover her head as a sign of subjection to her husband, and also because of the angels. Angels?

(1Co 11:9 “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.”)

This observation has intrigued commentators though the years. Why this sudden reference to angels? Obviously, Paul believed that an uncovered woman was a temptation even to the angels. There is a very old rabbinic account, that it was the beauty of the women’s long hair that attracted and tempted the angels.

Now since this sheds major light on who the Angels were and are, let us move into what else the New Testament bares witness to the account that happen in Genesis 6. There are 2 Biblical passages that teach more on the Old Testament event with the angels, and they are (Jude 1:6-7) & (2 Peter 2:4) These verses indicate that at some point in time a number of angels fell from their pristine state and proceeded to commit a sexual sin that was both unusual and repugnant.

(Jude 1:6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”)

(2Peter 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;”)

Now its interesting to understand that these angels not only failed to keep their original dominion and authority, but they left their own habitation. Habitation means “dwelling place”, and the addition of the Greek word “idion” “Their own” means that they left their own private, personal, unique, possession. Heaven was the personal residence of the angels.

This is why the ultimate destination of the saints will not be heaven, but the new and perfect earth which God will restore (Revelation 21:1-3) Heaven is reserved for the angels, but as for the fallen angels referred to in scripture, they have abandoned it. Not only did these angels leave heaven, they left it once and for all. The Greek verb “Apoleippo” is in the aorist tense, thus indicating a once and for all act. By taking the action they did, these angels made a final and irretrievable decision.

As to the specific sin of these angels, we are given the facts in Jude 7. They were as the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was the sin of going after strange flesh. In Greek strange means “heteros” which means flesh of another kind.

Next to these New Testament scriptures that teach about the fallen angles that are bound underneath the earth, is there any more evidence of that supports these scripture and gives them there understanding? These is, let us turn to the book of Enoch. In my other lesson, I give detail on the Book of Enoch. Enoch records what he was told by God, concerning their capture and being sent underneath the earth intill the end of days, and the final judgemant:

Book Of Enoch (“Further more God said to Raphael, Bind Azazel by his hands, and his feet. And split open the desert which is in Deudael, and throw him in there. And cover him with darkness; and let him stay there forever. That on the day of judgment he may be hurled into the fire. And God said unto Michael, Go inform Shemyaza and the others with him. When all their sons kill each other, and when they see the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them for 70 generations under the hill of the earth until the day of judgment. And in the those days they will lead them to the abyss of fire”)

It is well understood in rabbinic teachings that 4 of these fallen angels will be used in the last days. The Book of Revelation concludes this:

(Rev 9:14-15 “Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.”)

Further confirmation from the early church fathers that they held to the fine understanding of the “Sons of God” and their existence:

(The Writings of Justin Martyr. Book 1 Pg 190)

“God committed the care of men, and all things under heaven to angels who He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by the love of women, and begot children who were of those that are called Demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among them they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologist not knowing that it was the angels and those demons whom had been begotten by them did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations which they related ascribed them to God himself, and to the offspring of those who were called brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given himself, and his children, by that name they were called.”

(The Anti-Nicean Fathers. Volume 2, Pg 142)

“Some free agents you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things which God had made and over which he had ordained them, but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them; namely, this ruler of matter and it’s various forms, and others of these were placed about the firmament, these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjected by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the thing entrusted him of these lovers of virgins, therefore were begotten of those who are called giants (Nephilim). And if something has been said by the poets, too about giants, be not surprised at this.”

In my next lesson I will get into the Nephilim which is known as “the Giants”, and the origin of evil spirits. This will connect all these issues together into one part then, so everyone will have a clear understanding of this subject.

Included in the lesson attachment is the lesson of (The Book Of Enoch)

ATTACHMENT: http://www.imagiin360.com/ForumFiles/Enoch.htm

------------------
Ever wish you could take a glance at nature's source code?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:
My reading on this matter is not complete, but I believe I have read enough to form an opinion on this subject with confidence. My reading to date has involved strictly scripture, along with the aid of a concordance. I will summarize my position on this matter as "unchanged". After much contemplation, and in light of several comments posted on this site in recent weeks, I choose to not expound this subject further - because it adds to debate that is unessential to the intent of this site, and chiefly because it is a matter with little relevance to the whole of Christianity. I apologize for being abrupt in my response; the discussion here (this topic and some others) has been great.

God bless

---

Wow...a good deal has happened in my life since I posted those words above nearly 10 months ago. I have had some time to study this topic further - out of personal curiosity, not at all because of this particular thread. (In fact, I forgot about this discussion here until it became popular again recently. Truth is, I don't really visit this site much anymore as I have many things going on in my life now.)
I have discovered that my thoughts before were perhaps slightly misinformed. The reason for my flawed perspective is simply because the information I had at my disposal was itself flawed. Seeing as I primarily used scripture to form my view on this issue, I'm sure some questions have suddenly formed in your mind. Allow me to simplify my answer with this statement: I have learned how wrong mainstream Christianity is.
I realize that answer itself only raises more questions, so I will encourage you to find out for yourself what exactly I am talking about.

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

thats quite a bit of knowledge there...

I know, when we die, we can ask God, he knows.

no im serious, how else are we going to find out the truth, i 've read the first post, and its a VERY, VERY interesting subject, no doubt one of conflict, but i think if angles fell and produced ofspring with human weomen... i doubt the kids would be totally, or even partly, good. Unless God approved of their turning human, but wouldn't it be Lust on the fallen Angel's part??

Head...hurts... must... find... alka-selzter...
oog...

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

quote:

---

Ten Systematic Errors

1. The New Testament is a Christian document, written in Greek.
2. The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.
3. Christ is building His Church.
4. Christ established religious offices.
5. The Jews rejected and crucified Christ.
6. Christians are the People of God.
7. Sunday, The Lord's Day, is the Christian Sabbath.
8. Christians will spend eternity in Heaven.
9. The Gospel is about how to get to Heaven.
10. Christ established Christianity.
    

---

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

"Christ is building His Church" - Could it be better said that "Christ is building His Church through those who are willing and available?"

"Christians are the People of God." - Is it the actual definition of 'Christian' here? Or the definition of "People of God"? As to what is the object of question?

"Christians spending eternity in heaven" - I think that I understand where you're going with that one... what is heaven? Where is it? From reading the bible I think that heaven is actually on earth. I'm really not sure, and need to study more... but one thing I know is that we'll be in God's presence We'll see Him as He is, and have fellowship with Him forever... and that's what really matters.

"The Gospel is about how to get to heaven" - I believe that is a part of the gospel, but not all of it... It's about Jesus, it's about the Truth, and living it, it's about redemption, about reality, about being set free from the chains of sin.

I'm not trying to coax you into talking more about the book here, but am very interested in what you have to say...

I think that I can see where the author of the book is heading.. many people have placed the name "Christianity", the religion and culture over that of Jesus the Christ Himself! People can claim that they are Christians, but not really believe in Jesus by living a committed life to Him... and that is not what Jesus is about. Is that right?

God Bless,

------------------
Your love, O Lord, reaches to the heavens, your faithfulness to the skies.
Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep.
O Lord , you preserve both man and beast.
How priceless is your unfailing love!

[This message has been edited by brandon (edited November 29, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:
I'll give you this (from the book I referenced above):
[QUOTE]
[b]Ten Systematic Errors

1. The New Testament is a Christian document, written in Greek.
2. The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.
3. Christ is building His Church.
4. Christ established religious offices.
5. The Jews rejected and crucified Christ.
6. Christians are the People of God.
7. Sunday, The Lord's Day, is the Christian Sabbath.
8. Christians will spend eternity in Heaven.
9. The Gospel is about how to get to Heaven.
10. Christ established Christianity.
    

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

It looks like your getting into a christian form of messianic judaism. Thats all well and good, and there is alot to be learned there, but as with everything there are dangers as well if you take things to the extremes.

Virtually every one of the 10 systematic errors listed above do involve some error, or some misunderstanding, but many of the messianic jewish people I've spoken with err on those issues as well.. just to the opposite extreme.

looking at the list of ten systematic errors...

1. the New testament is a christian document written in greek.

Well this depends entirely on how you define the word christian. The new testament is a christian document just as the constitution is an american document, despite the fact that the constitution predates the establishment of the USA. The New Testament established the christian faith, the christian church.
Was it written in greek? most of it was. The vast majority of the New testament was written to greek speaking people.. thus the argument that it was written in aramaic or hebrew is largely unfounded, except for in a couple of specific books (the most famous case probably being matthew) Even if you say that the books were originaly written to jews (which most of them weren't) the jews living around the world spoke greek, many of them did not speak hebrew. That is the entire reason the septuagint translation of the OT was made by the jews.

2. The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.

Again, this is tricky depending on what you mean by it. The New COVENANT supercedes the covenant of Moses. But that is not the same as saying that the New Testament supercedes the Old. The old testament is not some how deprecated (as many believe). It is as valid and as true as ever. I believe the scriptures must be understood in terms of covenants. The bible contains at least 6 covenants.. the new covenant was born out of the abrahamic covenant, it was the fulfillment and continuation of that covenant.. however both the abrahamic covenant, and thus the new covenant as well, supercede the mosaic covenant given at sinai.

3. Christ is building his church.

This one is pretty questionable since Jesus himself said "...I will build my church..." You may argue that much of what passes for church building today in reality is the work of men building their own kingdoms and that would be true enough, but never the less, Jesus is the one who builds the church.

4. Christ established religious offices.

Christ established apostles, and gave them authority over doctrine, over sins, and over the church. The apostles, by the leading and working of the Holy Spirit then established the "offices" of leadership within the church.

5. The Jews rejected and crucified Christ.

This is a more complex issue. Individual jews may not have rejected Christ, but the Jews, as a nation did reject christ. The romans crucified him, but the jewish leadership bears the responsability for it.
Now, the reason this is complex is that the "pharisees" get a bad rap today because people don't understand the historical situation.
At that time the religious offices were the political powers as well in jewish culture. Law and politics was dominated by religion. Thus those who held religious office were political and legal powers as well. The result of this was that the leadership of jewish sects like the pharisees (who were actually the true faithful sect of judaism) had long been stolen by the political powers that be.
There is significant circumstancial evidence both from tradition and in scripture itself that Jesus' extended family was closely tied up with the pharisees and perhaps even should have been leaders among the pharisees. However, Herod, the roman appointed king, who was very unpopular among the jewish people tried to gain popularity and legitimacy in a couple of ways that involved trying to insinuate himself into the traditions of judaism. One was that he married a Hasmonean princess (a descendant of the ruling house after the maccabean revolt) and the other was that he stacked all the ruling religious councils and leadership positions with his political allies and cronies.
Thus at the time of Jesus, the pharisees had essentially been taken over and were ruled by people who did not really believe even in the pharisee teachings. This is why the pharisees get dual representation in the gospels and acts.. on one hand they are portrayed as being complete vile hypocrites who use their positions for personal gain and lording it over the people.. on the other hand they are presented as holding the true form of Judaism and even in Paul's case being allies. Also several of the prominant pharisees become followers of Jesus or speak out in his favor.

Now you can say from this that the jews then didn't reject him because it was really a few scoundrels who basicly formed what amounted to a big conspiracy theory type of deal, which is very true. However the problem is that the jewish people en mass followed those leaders. Across the world when the gospel began to spread it was refused in synygouges and christians were cast out, beaten, or turned over to the Romans under false testimonies and so on. So yes, the Jews did reject Jesus, and in doing so they rejected the church (which should be understood to mean the congregation of the Lord).

6. Christians are the people of God.

The "church" has always been present in scripture. The word church is placed over the greek word Ekklesia, which actually means assembly or congregation, and is the same word used of the congregation of Israel in the greek old testament translated by the Jews. The word Church derives from the greek meaning "of the Lord" Thus the church is "the assembly of the Lord" or "the congregation of the Lord".
Thus the people of God, or the congregation of the Lord originaly was the Jewish people (or more accurately the Israelites because it wasn't just the jews). God made the promise to Abraham (what we now call the Abrahamic covenant) that through Abraham's house God would bless all the houses of the world. That promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus himself told the Samarian woman "salvation comes by the Jews" Salvation came to the world through the Jews, through the house of abraham. However, Salvation did come to "the world" which was the point from the beginning. Paul talks about the gentiles being "grafted into the vine" the vine being Jesus Christ. Paul also says that Christ died to break down the middle wall of seperation between Jew and Gentile and to make of the two.. one new man.
So, yes the Christians are the people of God, BUT that does not mean the jews are no longer the people of God, or more accurately, never will be the people of God again. Paul again tells us that God set Israel aside because of her disbelief, specificly so that he might through israel's unbelief, save the gentiles and bring them to belief. Paul also says that in bringing in the gentiles, God is making Israel Jealous, to stir them up to faith again. The fact is, however, that within the Kingdom of Heaven, there is neither Jew, nor gentile... there are only saints.

7. Sunday is the christian sabbath.

This is true, but not in the way most people would expect. The christian sabbath is not a day at all, it is Jesus Christ. The church from the days of the apostles themselves celebrated their primary day of worship on sunday. They did NOT however, regard sunday as the sabbath, or a sabbath in terms of jewish religious law. There was never a prohibition against working on sunday or anything like that until later when the two ideas became confused by many people. Sunday was not intended to be a sabbath in the Jewish sense, it was intended to be a day of worhship and rejoicing in celebration with fellow believers.
As unpopular as it is among some, the fact is that the church stopped formaly recognizing any sabbath at all almost immediately. The clear teaching of the apostles both in scripture and in the teachings passed down through the church, is that the legal observance of sabbath was not necessary anymore than was circumcision because the sabbath rest of christians was Christ himself.

8. Christians will spend eternity in Heaven.

Again this can be tricky depending on what you mean by it. Technically, according to scripture, no one is going to spend eternity in heaven. A new earth is going to be made and the saints will live there, and a part of heaven will be present there among them.

9. The gospel is about how to get to heaven.

Well if people aren't going to live in heaven then obviously the gospel isn't about how to get there.. but the gospel is about heaven in a way. Through out the bible it is refered to as the "gospel of the Kingdom" It is the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. The gospel is about how to enter the kingdom of heaven and how to have the kingdom of heaven enter you.

10. Christ established christianity.

In the most technical sense, Christ didn't establish christianity because most of its institutions and detailed teachings were not revealed until after he ascended. However, this is largely a semantical argument. Christ established the apostles and sent the Holy Spirit and the apostles, by the unction of the Holy Spirit established the church.. (or "christianity").

One of the big problems with getting back to the Jewish roots of the christian faith is that many of the protestant non demon type of christian churches today barely resemble the actual original christian chruch. So when you talk about "the church" or "the christians" in refrence to those types of churches you must realize that your not addressing the historical church, nor even the majority of the christian world today. The traditional churches that are built upon a chain of tradition from the early church, the apostolic church, have many more elements within them that are derived directly from Judaism at the time of Christ and in the OT.

One big example of that is liturgical worship. All formal jewish worship both in synygouges and in the temple was liturgical.

I if your interested in the original faith of the church and of the apostles, I strongly suggest that you start reading some of the writings of Polycarp, Justin Martyr (he in particular is good when considering christianity and judaism because he writes an indepth discussion about christianity and how it relates to judaism), and Ignatius. These are guys who lived in the first church. Polycarp and Ignatius were students of John the Apostle, and taught directly by the "beloved" apostle. Ignatius grew up as a christian in antioch in the church that Paul started, it is possible that as a young boy he may have seen, paul and peter, and possibly heard them speak. Ignatius was very likely appointed as the bishop of Antioch by Peter himself.

The point being.. these guys were taught by, lived among, and were appointed by the very men who wrote the New Testament. If you want to know what the apostles really believed and what the original church really did.. read these men.
------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

[This message has been edited by simon_templar (edited November 29, 2005).]

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:
I'll give you this (from the book I referenced above):
[QUOTE]
[b]Ten Systematic Errors

1. The New Testament is a Christian document, written in Greek.
2. The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.
3. Christ is building His Church.
4. Christ established religious offices.
5. The Jews rejected and crucified Christ.
6. Christians are the People of God.
7. Sunday, The Lord's Day, is the Christian Sabbath.
8. Christians will spend eternity in Heaven.
9. The Gospel is about how to get to Heaven.
10. Christ established Christianity.
    

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

wait, are those things that are NOT true?!??

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

INFORMATION OVERLOAD

ABANDON BODY

*little guys jump out of my ears as a little trail of smoke exits my nose...*

Ill get the book... i need somthign to read anyway....

dang, im gonna hafto study theology along with programming, game design, and etc.

its a good thing i have till about 75 to live...

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:

Many Jews also believe Adam had a wife previous to Eve (if you remember, Lilith - and this view then compounds things further). If angels can have offspring through procreative intercourse with a human being, probably the foremost question is: Did God have intercourse with Mary - or did an angel do that? This obviously introduces the theory that Jesus was not the Son of God, but of an angel with sensual desires for human women. To take this further, perhaps Jesus was fathered by God...just he was one of many children of God, and thus not THE Son of God (ie, the promised Messiah). This whole angel-human hybrid theory does at least offer some credibility for the miracles of Christ - perhaps only when Christ was aroused though? (Note heavy sarcasm here.)

---

WHOA! WAITWAITWAITWAIT!!! GOD DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOUSRE WITH MARY, NEITHER DID SOME FALLEN ANGEL! GOD DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, AND HE CAN'T HAVE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A SIN!!!! GOD'S ALL POWERFUL, HE COULD MAKE A BABY WITHOUT SPERM OR EVEN A FEMALE!

*pant pant* srry for the double post, but that really just pushed my button....

rant over, but i stand by my point, God can snap his fingers and BAM! Mary's pregnant, he's all-powerful, thats just how it is.

*pant pant*

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

This weakness, in contrast to the nephilim, is very profound. The Nephilim are described as "mighty men", a description made so there is no confusion about what is being talked about. The description of Goliath and his strength in comparison to people who suffer from gigantism is like night and day.
In short, gigantism makes people big and weak were as the Nephilim were big, strong, and very agile.

Lets look at basketball players shall we? When was the last time you saw a forward being over 7 ft? You don't see this because the taller men get the slower and less agile they become, it's simply a fact. The basketball player who is over 7ft tall is usually the center where he doesn't have to be as agile or as fast as his teamates.
Now keeping this in mind and seeing the height of Goliath was 9 1/2 ft, wouldn't you think that Goliath's height would make him very slow and alot less agile? However in 1 Samuel 17 this isn't the description we're given of Goliath. Not only are we made to see that he had monsterous strength but he is called a champion.........................................................
Goliath was the one who was described as six cubits and a span. This would've made him somewhere around 9 1/2 tall but also notice what he wore for armor and weapondry, see 1 Samuel 17. Also see 2 Samuel 21:19-22, here, I'll save you the trouble of finding it and post it here:

2 Samuel 19-22, And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehmite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

Please read chapter 3 in the book of Deuteronomy. it's about the conquest of Og king of Bashan.
Deut. 3:11, For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breath of it, after the cubit of a man.
9 cubits would be somewhere around 14ft long. Now if his bed was 14 feet long what would you think this mans height was?

That still leaves the spiritual nature of the offspring. In scripture sin and the consequences of it are passed only through the male line, not the mother. This is why Jesus could have a human mother, and still not be subject to the curse and fallen nature of Adam. While every human born of a human father in line from Adam, inherits Adam's fallen nature, the consequence of his sin. The bible seems to suggest that fallen angels fall more completely and fully than man both in that they have no hope of redemption and as holy and exalted as they were before, after they are that much more evil and dark. Thus the evil nature inherited from such a parent would seem likely to be much worse than normal human nature.

Certainly there is speculation involved here, but it is speculation which is the logical extention of a view of scripture... thus if that interpetation of scripture is correct, the speculation is also likely to be true.

In the OT the only way one can be called a son of God was for God to have directly created them. Adam is called a son of God because God directly created him. Luke 3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Any man or person born is not considered a son of God. Remember what John 1:12 said? it said that not from the will of the flesh or the will of man but as many as received him were given the power to be called the sons of God. So from the time of Adam and the time of the Church, Adam had been the only human that could be called a son of God.

Angels however came about from a direct result of a creation by God. The angels didn't become innumerable because they procreated but because God had created each and every one of them. Because they came about from a direct creative act like Adam came about they are refered to as sons of God.

------------------
To err is human--and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben

Blind belief is dangerous. - Kenyan Proverb

If sex is such a natural phenomenon, how come there are so many books on how to? - Bette Midler

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. - Pablo Picasso

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:
RM, that comment was made as information for the sake of discussion, with some degree of logical assumption - again, for the sake of discussion. It was an effort to present the different elements that this particular topic relate to and involve, at least beyond the immediate issue alone. It was never, and still is not, an expression of my beliefs. I hope that helps you calm down a bit...many of the comments on this site, in these types of discussion, are merely for the purposes of debate and such. Those who believe something specific tend to admit to that, at least those I've witnessed here that have been involved in these types of discussions. Don't dwell too heavily on everything you read

---

i've GOT to stop posting here.. my head hurts... *throb*

------------------
(yes, i know im stupid)

Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right.
The kingdom of hevan bleongs to them.-Matthew 5:10

PM ME YOUR DESCRIPTION OF ME! ILL PUT IT HERE!

Here's all the comments!

------------------
To err is human--and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben

Blind belief is dangerous. - Kenyan Proverb

If sex is such a natural phenomenon, how come there are so many books on how to? - Bette Midler

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. - Pablo Picasso

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

------------------
A Game to combine all Games A Game that grows upon itself But A Game that ultimately in the end makes and forces one to ask themselves "Why?"

God bless!

------------------
Do not ask if you are doing things right, ask if you are doing the right things.

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

[ quote ]abc [ /quote ] becomes:

quote:

---

abc

---

I keep forgetting whether I'm reading you or the other person; I can't keep track because the text all looks the same . . .

------------------
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike." -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), "The Poison of Subjectivism" (from Christian Reflections; p. 108)

[This message has been edited by deep_mindquest (edited December 04, 2007).]

I personally learnt lots from this series, and it's worth getting.

------------------
"One World. One Web. One Program." -Microsoft promotional advertisement
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" -Adolf Hitler

That having been said, I wouldn't read anything by Benny Hinn if he paid me to take it. That guy's theology is WAY too questionable.

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

“...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer—pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart—all broken and cast down—is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, “Effective Prayer”

People sit in two camps with Benny Hinn, so love him, so dislike him. I haven't found anything wrong with the guy, his book God Morning Holy Spirit, is a very good read, and life changing really. His ministry see millions saved, and that is never a bad thing. By their fruit you'll know them.

Anyways back on topic. I'll try and post some stuff on the subject soon. It's certaintly interesting.

------------------
"One World. One Web. One Program." -Microsoft promotional advertisement
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" -Adolf Hitler