Nephilum??

[Enoch2021]

 

I Couldn't Disagree Stronger, we are studying the WORD OF GOD.....

 

(Genesis 6: 1-4):

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.

 

And many other Passages dealing with this either directly or indirectly

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

Does it say Study just the Gospel or is all of GOD'S WORD in play here?

 

I'm Studying Jesus Right Here in the Scriptures in Genesis.  How?

 

Well...

 

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."    Jesus IS THE WORD!!

 

 

Am I in Error?

 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

There are 3 common interpretations concerning the Nephilim. The word translated as giant does not always mean height, but rather great, a leader, but it can mean literal height, so it is open

 

1. Nephilim are children from a union with people of the line of Seth (God fearers) and others who are not God fearers. 

2. Nephilim are children from a union of people from Adams line and people who lived on the earth before. (I have looked at this at one point and if this one is true, it could seem to verify the legend of Atlantis, and those great men.

3. Nephilim are children from a union of humans and angels.

 

Each possibility has some support in scripture and some issues when compared to scripture.

 

So, there are already known and various interpretations, but since this is not an issue which effects salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, it is not worth entering into strife and contention to fight for a pet understanding.      

 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

 

 

I've already dealt Comprehensively with the Majority of your "123", here: 

 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

This statement is quite troubling ....so you're saying Jesus is not the WORD?  And The WORD is not Scripture?

[Qnts2]

 

 

I Couldn't Disagree Stronger, we are studying the WORD OF GOD.....

 

(Genesis 6: 1-4):

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.

 

And many other Passages dealing with this either directly or indirectly

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

Does it say Study just the Gospel or is all of GOD'S WORD in play here?

 

I'm Studying Jesus Right Here in the Scriptures in Genesis.  How?

 

Well...

 

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."    Jesus IS THE WORD!!

 

 

Am I in Error?

 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

There are 3 common interpretations concerning the Nephilim. The word translated as giant does not always mean height, but rather great, a leader, but it can mean literal height, so it is open

 

1. Nephilim are children from a union with people of the line of Seth (God fearers) and others who are not God fearers. 

2. Nephilim are children from a union of people from Adams line and people who lived on the earth before. (I have looked at this at one point and if this one is true, it could seem to verify the legend of Atlantis, and those great men.

3. Nephilim are children from a union of humans and angels.

 

Each possibility has some support in scripture and some issues when compared to scripture.

 

So, there are already known and various interpretations, but since this is not an issue which effects salvation, or the fundamentals of the faith, it is not worth entering into strife and contention to fight for a pet understanding.      

 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

 

 

I've already dealt Comprehensively with the Majority of your "123", here: 

 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

This statement is quite troubling ....so you're saying Jesus is not the WORD?  And The WORD is not Scripture?

 

 

Jesus is the Word (Memra). The word is Scripture, but Jesus is not the scripture/bible.

 

Just because the term word is used for both, does not mean that they are the same thing.

 

Stalk is part of the plant and stalk means to follow and harass a person.

Bark is the sound of a dog and bark is the skin of a tree.

 

Word can refer to the bible and Word can refer to Jesus, but they mean something different. You can not arrive at the idea that Jesus is the bible, or the bible is Jesus any more then you can that the sound of a dog is the skin of a tree.  

 

Jesus is the Word, refers to a Hebrew concept and slang term used at Jesus time. The Word of God,,, Memra, was a term used whenever God in scripture, manifested Himself on the earth. The first such occurence is in Genesis, during the creation. So, we might say, Jesus is the manifestation of God on the earth, is the point John was trying to make.  

[Enoch2021]

 

I've already dealt Comprehensively with the Majority of your "123", here: 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

This statement is quite troubling ....so you're saying Jesus is not the WORD?  And The WORD is not Scripture?

 

 

Jesus is the Word (Memra). The word is Scripture, but Jesus is not the scripture/bible.

 

Just because the term word is used for both, does not mean that they are the same thing.

 

Stalk is part of the plant and stalk means to follow and harass a person.

Bark is the sound of a dog and bark is the skin of a tree.

 

Word can refer to the bible and Word can refer to Jesus, but they mean something different. You can not arrive at the idea that Jesus is the bible, or the bible is Jesus any more then you can that the sound of a dog is the skin of a tree.  

 

Jesus is the Word, refers to a Hebrew concept and slang term used at Jesus time. The Word of God,,, Memra, was a term used whenever God in scripture, manifested Himself on the earth. The first such occurence is in Genesis, during the creation. So, we might say, Jesus is the manifestation of God on the earth, is the point John was trying to make.  

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

 

Forgive me but the analogies that you used are Non-Sequiter on steroids.

 

 

(Revelation 19:13) "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

 

(John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

 

Is Scripture The WORD of GOD?  Is Jesus the WORD of GOD?

[Qnts2]

 

 

I've already dealt Comprehensively with the Majority of your "123", here: 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

This statement is quite troubling ....so you're saying Jesus is not the WORD?  And The WORD is not Scripture?

 

 

Jesus is the Word (Memra). The word is Scripture, but Jesus is not the scripture/bible.

 

Just because the term word is used for both, does not mean that they are the same thing.

 

Stalk is part of the plant and stalk means to follow and harass a person.

Bark is the sound of a dog and bark is the skin of a tree.

 

Word can refer to the bible and Word can refer to Jesus, but they mean something different. You can not arrive at the idea that Jesus is the bible, or the bible is Jesus any more then you can that the sound of a dog is the skin of a tree.  

 

Jesus is the Word, refers to a Hebrew concept and slang term used at Jesus time. The Word of God,,, Memra, was a term used whenever God in scripture, manifested Himself on the earth. The first such occurence is in Genesis, during the creation. So, we might say, Jesus is the manifestation of God on the earth, is the point John was trying to make.  

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

 

Forgive me but the analogies that you used are Non-Sequiter on steroids.

 

 

(Revelation 19:13) "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

 

(John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

 

Is Scripture The WORD of GOD?  Is Jesus the WORD of GOD?

 

 

Do dogs bark? Do trees have bark?

 

Bark is being used in two different ways, with two different meanings.

 

Jesus is the Word of God (memra). Scripture/bible is the words of God (logos). They are both translated to 'word' but they are two different meanings and concepts.  

Jesus is not the bible. The bible is not Jesus.

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

 

Jesus is not a book,  maybe? The bible is a book. All that Jesus did, is not contained in scripture, and all that Jesus is, is not contained in scripture. Scripture tells us about Jesus, but scripture is not Jesus.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

I've already dealt Comprehensively with the Majority of your "123", here: 

 

 

That is a confusion of words. Jesus is not scripture. Scripture talks about Jesus but Jesus is not scripture.

 

This statement is quite troubling ....so you're saying Jesus is not the WORD?  And The WORD is not Scripture?

 

 

Jesus is the Word (Memra). The word is Scripture, but Jesus is not the scripture/bible.

 

Just because the term word is used for both, does not mean that they are the same thing.

 

Stalk is part of the plant and stalk means to follow and harass a person.

Bark is the sound of a dog and bark is the skin of a tree.

 

Word can refer to the bible and Word can refer to Jesus, but they mean something different. You can not arrive at the idea that Jesus is the bible, or the bible is Jesus any more then you can that the sound of a dog is the skin of a tree.  

 

Jesus is the Word, refers to a Hebrew concept and slang term used at Jesus time. The Word of God,,, Memra, was a term used whenever God in scripture, manifested Himself on the earth. The first such occurence is in Genesis, during the creation. So, we might say, Jesus is the manifestation of God on the earth, is the point John was trying to make.  

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

 

Forgive me but the analogies that you used are Non-Sequiter on steroids.

 

 

(Revelation 19:13) "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

 

(John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

 

Is Scripture The WORD of GOD?  Is Jesus the WORD of GOD?

 

 

Do dogs bark? Do trees have bark?

 

Bark is being used in two different ways, with two different meanings.

 

Jesus is the Word of God (memra). Scripture/bible is the words of God (logos). They are both translated to 'word' but they are two different meanings and concepts.  

Jesus is not the bible. The bible is not Jesus.

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

 

Jesus is not a book,  maybe? The bible is a book. All that Jesus did, is not contained in scripture, and all that Jesus is, is not contained in scripture. Scripture tells us about Jesus, but scripture is not Jesus.

 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

 

I hear ya Brother.

 

Then you go right back to the same analogies.

 

Well, lets see if anyone else will chime in here

[EnochBethany]

The claim has been made by many:

"

I personally believe they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

The claim has been made by many:

"they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

OK, so then that would mean that angels have bodies including male genitalia.  So, with male genitalia, they produce testosterone, and spend eternity itching to use their genitalia & enjoy the chemical rush that comes from the process.  So then, the Lord created beings to dance in the hog trough & be frustrated for eternity.  Moreover, the bodies of angels have matching DNA to permit reproduction with humans, and God made it that way.

 

Moreover, since believers in Heaven are "like angels," then they would be in the same condition, and also cannot marry.   I suppose then that female believers would become male in heaven.  (We don't want to go the eternal pregnancy route with the Mormans).

 

Can you not see that this is absurd?

 

But He created the angels spirits.

 

Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith,

      Who maketh his angels spirits,

    And his ministers a flame of fire:

[Sevenseas]

 

The claim has been made by many:

"

I personally believe they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

The claim has been made by many:

"they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

OK, so then that would mean that angels have bodies including male genitalia.  So, with male genitalia, they produce testosterone, and spend eternity itching to use their genitalia & enjoy the chemical rush that comes from the process.  So then, the Lord created beings to dance in the hog trough & be frustrated for eternity.  Moreover, the bodies of angels have matching DNA to permit reproduction with humans, and God made it that way.

 

Moreover, since believers in Heaven are "like angels," then they would be in the same condition, and also cannot marry.   I suppose then that female believers would become male in heaven.  (We don't want to go the eternal pregnancy route with the Mormans).

 

Can you not see that this is absurd?

 

But He created the angels spirits.

 

Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith,

      Who maketh his angels spirits,

    And his ministers a flame of fire:

 

 

 

no.

 

but I did take note of your overuse of the word genitalia....

 

 

uh...as well as your...uh....employment of descriptive terms that are not necessary unless one has lived as a hermit for the last 150 years

 

nice chatting with you  

[Enoch2021]

 

The claim has been made by many:

"

I personally believe they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

The claim has been made by many:

"they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

OK, so then that would mean that angels have bodies including male genitalia.  So, with male genitalia, they produce testosterone, and spend eternity itching to use their genitalia & enjoy the chemical rush that comes from the process.  So then, the Lord created beings to dance in the hog trough & be frustrated for eternity.  Moreover, the bodies of angels have matching DNA to permit reproduction with humans, and God made it that way.

 

Moreover, since believers in Heaven are "like angels," then they would be in the same condition, and also cannot marry.   I suppose then that female believers would become male in heaven.  (We don't want to go the eternal pregnancy route with the Mormans).

 

Can you not see that this is absurd?

 

But He created the angels spirits.

 

Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith,

      Who maketh his angels spirits,

    And his ministers a flame of fire:

 

 

 

 

==========================================================================================================

 

 

 

OK, so then that would mean that angels have bodies including male genitalia.

 

Well they have bodies (See: Abraham/Lot)  Genitalia is inferred from......

 

(Genesis 3: 14-15)

And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

satans seed.

 

And this.....

 

(Genesis 6: 1-4):

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.

 

See it?

 

 

they produce testosterone, and spend eternity itching to use their genitalia & enjoy the chemical rush that comes from the process.  So then, the Lord created beings to dance in the hog trough & be frustrated for eternity.  Moreover, the bodies of angels have matching DNA to permit reproduction with humans, and God made it that way.

 

This is ALL in TOTO an ASSUMPTION without support BY YOU.

 

Moreover.....Jude said they (Bad Angels) shed their Spiritual Bodies to conduct their Mischief:

 

(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."

 

 

Moreover, since believers in Heaven are "like angels," then they would be in the same condition, and also cannot marry.

 

True.....but HE'S speaking of the "GOOD GUY'S" in Heaven.  Not the "Bad Guy's" on Earth....Like Here:

 

(2 Peter 2: 4-5) 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;

 

and here:

 

(Job 4:18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly.

Folly defined in Scripture per (Genesis 34:7, Deuteronomy 22:21, Judges 19: 22-23, 2 Samuel 13:10-12) is laying with women, sodomy, and incest.

 

 

Can you not see that this is absurd?

 

Actually No, can you please show where?

 

 

But He created the angels spirits.

 

Then you have a real problem with (Abraham/Lot/ Sodom and Gomorrah) Scenario

[EnochBethany]

 

 

The claim has been made by many:

"

I personally believe they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

The claim has been made by many:

"they are the offspring of angel/human women."

 

OK, so then that would mean that angels have bodies including male genitalia.  So, with male genitalia, they produce testosterone, and spend eternity itching to use their genitalia & enjoy the chemical rush that comes from the process.  So then, the Lord created beings to dance in the hog trough & be frustrated for eternity.  Moreover, the bodies of angels have matching DNA to permit reproduction with humans, and God made it that way.

 

Moreover, since believers in Heaven are "like angels," then they would be in the same condition, and also cannot marry.   I suppose then that female believers would become male in heaven.  (We don't want to go the eternal pregnancy route with the Mormans).

 

Can you not see that this is absurd?

 

But He created the angels spirits.

 

Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith,

      Who maketh his angels spirits,

    And his ministers a flame of fire:

 

 

 

 

==========================================================================================================

 

 

 

OK, so then that would mean that angels have bodies including male genitalia.

 

Well they have bodies (See: Abraham/Lot)  Genitalia is inferred from......

 

(Genesis 3: 14-15)

And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

satans seed.

 

There is no ref to satan having a body or genitalia in this passage; neither word occurs.

 

As to "seed,"  you may as well argue that the men in John Bapt's day were literally descended from vipers. (O generation of vipers).  Seed cannot be literally seeds that grow plants.  The woman has seed here also; thus it cannot mean sperm here.  And how do you know that the passage does not concern animals specifically snakes?  Is it not absurd to postulate that satan produces sperm from a male body which can reproduce with a human body?  Does it make sense that the Lord created angels to want sex, have the equipment for it, yet be denied, as He made no female angels?  Angels are spirits.

. 

 

 

And this.....

 

(Genesis 6: 1-4):

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.

 

See it?

 

There is no ref to angels in the verse, nor bodies of angels, nor genitalia of angels.  "Sons of" is a well-established Hebrew figure of speech for persons characterized some way, like "Sons of Destruction" could be persons with behavior that destines them for destruction.  It makes good sense then to find that Sons of God are godly men, who did not maintain sexual separation from Adamic human women, women who acted Adamic instead of godly.  It is absurd to postulate angels reproducing with women.

 

 

they produce testosterone, and spend eternity itching to use their genitalia & enjoy the chemical rush that comes from the process.  So then, the Lord created beings to dance in the hog trough & be frustrated for eternity.  Moreover, the bodies of angels have matching DNA to permit reproduction with humans, and God made it that way.

 

T

 

Moreover.....Jude said they (Bad Angels) shed their Spiritual Bodies to conduct their Mischief:

 

(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."

 

Jude says nothing about angels having bodies, neither does the word body occur.  We find  ἀρχὴν = (per BDAG) "7. the sphere of one’s official activity, rule, office, or better domain, sphere of influence  of angels Jd 6.

The word "habitation" οἰκητήριον does not mean body.  ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον =  dwelling, habitation, a term which could be used for body of a spirit, but does not denote that.

 

 

 

Moreover, since believers in Heaven are "like angels," then they would be in the same condition, and also cannot marry.

 

True.....but HE'S speaking of the "GOOD GUY'S" in Heaven.  Not the "Bad Guy's" on Earth....Like Here:

 

(2 Peter 2: 4-5) 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;

 

This passage does not mention body or bodies.  Neither does it say that the sin of angels is connected to the Flood.  There are 2 examples given: 1) angels who sinned, & 2) the Flood.

 

 

(Job 4:18) Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly.

Folly defined in Scripture per (Genesis 34:7, Deuteronomy 22:21, Judges 19: 22-23, 2 Samuel 13:10-12) is laying with women, sodomy, and incest.

 

How do you know that Scripture defines folly as lying with women, sodomy, & incest?  Are not those just 3 varieties of many kinds of folly  נבלה ?

Gen 34:  כי נבלה עשה

The same word for folly refers to special thievery or taking forbidden spoil:

‘ It shall be that the one who is taken with the things under the ban shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of YHWH, and because he  has committed folly in Israel.’”

"this  worthless man, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he.  Nabal is his name and folly is with him;

Nabal was rude to King David.

 

 

But He created the angels spirits.

 

Then you have a real problem with (Abraham/Lot/ Sodom and Gomorrah) Scenario

 

Where is any problem with the Sodom story? Of course angels have made appearances in which they took a human appearance.  People have entertained angels unawares.  Even Malach YHWH has appeared, evidently the pre-incarnate Christ.  Thus the Sodomites thought they were humans; but what does that prove about them having bodies y male equipment?

 

You simply have no proof that angels have bodies, and it is absurd to suppose that God would give angels male genitalia to no use except sexual frustration.

[Guest]

 

 

I am not following that one, what is the problem exactly?