There be GIANTS

[Dennis1209]

Genesis 6:4 (KJV) 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. [emphasis added]

I realize there are a number of hermeneutic interpretations of this passage. I hold the literal what it says view. I discount the line of Seth & Cain view for so many reasons. For those that hold the same literal reading of Gen. 6:4, have you ever wondered how a second incursion of Nephilim occured after the deluge? The tribes of GIANTS in the Bible [Rephaim; Zuzim; Emim: Horim; Avim and Anakim], from who and where did they come from?

Genesis 9:24 (KJV) And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Genesis 9:25 (KJV) And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [emphasis added]

Ever stop to ask yourself, what was the sin Ham committed against his father Noah; and why was Canaan the one cursed for his fathers [Ham] act? Would you believe there's a strong connection between Ham, Canaan and the Nephilim? This should stir up the beehive! Has anyone studied and made the connection and traced the dots and lines in scripture?

I was investigating and verifying the teachings of semitic language expert and scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser. I own a couple of his books and I've watched plenty of his seminars. Even though he is scholastically peer reviewed and credible, I'm not one to take anyone's word for seemingly bizarre theology. 

Anyone on the same page?

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dennis1209

[JohnD]

Giants = seemingly impossible odds / opposition (in the minds of man).

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Genesis 6:4 (KJV) 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. [emphasis added]

I realize there are a number of hermeneutic interpretations of this passage. I hold the literal what it says view. I discount the line of Seth & Cain view for so many reasons. For those that hold the same literal reading of Gen. 6:4, have you ever wondered how a second incursion of Nephilim occured after the deluge? The tribes of GIANTS in the Bible [Rephaim; Zuzim; Emim: Horim; Avim and Anakim], from who and where did they come from?

Genesis 9:24 (KJV) And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Genesis 9:25 (KJV) And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [emphasis added]

Ever stop to ask yourself, what was the sin Ham committed to his father Noah; and why was Canaan the one cursed for his fathers [Ham] act? Would you believe there's a strong connection between Ham, Canaan and the Nephilim? This should stir up the beehive! Has anyone studied and made the connection and traced the dots and lines in scripture?

I was investigating and verifying the teachings of semitic language expert and scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser. I own a couple of his books and I've watched plenty of his seminars. Even though he is scholastically peer reviewed and credible, I'm not one to take anyone's word for seemingly bizarre theology. 

Anyone on the same page?

I highly respect Dr. Heiser and his interpretation of The Unseen Rhelm and his interpretation of holy scripture.  Am I on the same page?  For the most I am with the possible exception of the Genesis creation account.  Here I follow the interpretation given by Dr. Dill in his book In the Beginnings.  So I follow one of The Gap interpretations of the Genesis account.  From my reading, Dr. Heiser adheres more to the Dr. Hugh Ross interpretation of Creation.  I leaned this way before I read Dr. Dill's book.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Genesis 9:24 (KJV) And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Genesis 9:25 (KJV) And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [emphasis added]

Ever stop to ask yourself, what was the sin Ham committed to his father Noah; and why was Canaan the one cursed for his fathers [Ham] act? Would you believe there's a strong connection between Ham, Canaan and the Nephilim? This should stir up the beehive! Has anyone studied and made the connection and traced the dots and lines in scripture?

I have wondered about this passage but have never studied it, or if I did, I wasn't satisfied with the explanation.  When you have time, I would love to hear you expound on this section of text or point me to a trusted source.  Thanks.  [I have several books by Dr. Heiser]

Edited October 10, 2020 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Dennis1209]

3 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I highly respect Dr. Heiser and his interpretation of The Unseen Rhelm and his interpretation of holy scripture.  Am I on the same page?  For the most I am with the possible exception of the Genesis creation account.  Here I follow the interpretation given by Dr. Dill in his book In the Beginnings.  So I follow one of The Gap interpretations of the Genesis account.  From my reading, Dr. Heiser adheres more to the Dr. Hugh Ross interpretation of Creation.  I leaned this way before I read Dr. Dill's book.

Good evening!

By no means am I dogmatic in most of my views; with the exception Jesus and the only way for Salvation. What I think I know fits inside of a pea shell and I'm always open to other views and learning, being a Beran. With that said; I've commented plenty of times on my thoughts of the 'Gap Theory', I've put much study and research into it. I came to the conclusion of being on the fence, and it's just a secondary theological issue, nothing to get bent out of shape over.

I've read plenty of books from the likes of G.H. Pember [Earth's Earliest Ages], Michael Pearl, etc., those with a gap view of Genesis. Just being an ordinary Bible student and dummy, I've done extensive word studies and research on Hebrew word meanings. Hebrew [Greek too] is a precise language that generally doesn't lend itself to a single English word as I discovered. So, Hebrew words are precise; under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the 40+ penmen of our Bible were careful in their wording in the original texts. Errors in translations for copies, and which source texts were used, lends itself to mistranslations of words sometimes. 

All that to say; there's a consistent pattern of the Hebrew words used in the Bible, and I'm focusing on Genesis 1: in particular and: Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. [emphasis added]

A pattern is consistent between words used during the creation week; what was 'Created' [ bârâʼ - ex nilo - spoken into existence] and what God made [ʻâsâh] molded from preexisting material, material mold. In that context, everything doesn't seem to have been "created" [ex nilo] in six days. There appears to be a 'gap' of undetermined time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

But like I said, I won't argue the point. I've learned from being wrong too many times!

[Dennis1209]

43 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I have wondered about this passage but have never studied it, or if I did, I wasn't satisfied with the explanation.  When you have time, I would love to hear you expound on this section of text or point me to a trusted source.  Thanks.  [I have several books by Dr. Heiser]

Wow! Explaining it all would run my computer cyber ink well completely dry, and I would have no ink left for much else  I have two of Dr. Heiser's books, Reversing Hermon and The Unseen Realm, getting around to ordering his latest book. If I recall correctly, he discusses it in one or both his books. 

I suggest a good way, as I do often, is to set in your recliner with a smartphone, Ipad or whatever; relax with a nice cold Cherry Dr. Pepper and watch his seminars and take notes. I use ear buds; the wife thinks I use them not to disturb her TV viewing. I use ear buds so when she speaks to me while I'm studying, it doesn't go in one ear and out the other, it's blocked 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Good evening!

By no means am I dogmatic in most of my views; with the exception Jesus and the only way for Salvation. What I think I know fits inside of a pea shell and I'm always open to other views and learning, being a Beran. With that said; I've commented plenty of times on my thoughts of the 'Gap Theory', I've put much study and research into it. I came to the conclusion of being on the fence, and it's just a secondary theological issue, nothing to get bent out of shape over.

Agreed.

56 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

I've read plenty of books from the likes of G.H. Pember [Earth's Earliest Ages], Michael Pearl, etc., those with a gap view of Genesis. Just being an ordinary Bible student and dummy, I've done extensive word studies and research on Hebrew word meanings. Hebrew [Greek too] is a precise language that generally doesn't lend itself to a single English word as I discovered. So, Hebrew words are precise; under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the 40+ penmen of our Bible were careful in their wording in the original texts. Errors in translations for copies, and which source texts were used, lends itself to mistranslations of words sometimes. 

All that to say; there's a consistent pattern of the Hebrew words used in the Bible, and I'm focusing on Genesis 1: in particular and: Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. [emphasis added]

A pattern is consistent between words used during the creation week; what was 'Created' [ bârâʼ - ex nilo - spoken into existence] and what God made [ʻâsâh] molded from preexisting material, material mold. In that context, everything doesn't seem to have been "created" [ex nilo] in six days. There appears to be a 'gap' of undetermined time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

But like I said, I won't argue the point. I've learned from being wrong too many times!

That's right were I'm at.  If read a book by Dr. Hugh Ross I will lean one way, if I read a life book by Dr. Snoke, like "A Biblical Case for an Old Earth",  I lean the other way were I spend most of my time at.  It was The Dake KJV Study Bible with a included commentary Dr. Finis Jennings Dake which had no small part in my acceptance of Jesus and The Gap Theory.  Nothing else makes sense to me if I take the Bible literally.  Your position seems thoughtful.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Wow! Explaining it all would run my computer cyber ink well completely dry, and I would have no ink left for much else  I have two of Dr. Heiser's books, Reversing Hermon and The Unseen Realm, getting around to ordering his latest book. If I recall correctly, he discusses it in one or both his books. 

I have both of those books but haven't read it yet.  You pointed me in the right direction.  Thanks and God bless.

49 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

I suggest a good way, as I do often, is to set in your recliner with a smartphone, Ipad or whatever; relax with a nice cold Cherry Dr. Pepper and watch his seminars and take notes. I use ear buds; the wife thinks I use them not to disturb her TV viewing. I use ear buds so when she speaks to me while I'm studying, it doesn't go in one ear and out the other, it's blocked 

I'll have to borrow that. 

[Speks]

A few weeks back after reading a post here that was speculating about angels and demons in human form, I was thinking about the first few verses of Genesis 6. Some of the study bibles I had to hand gave some background info. It may not be of direct interest, but I thought I'd share it anyway...

Genesis 6:4 (Amplified Bible):
There were Nephilim (men of stature, notorious men) on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they gave birth to their children. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (great reputation, fame).

Two major questions arise in this verse: who are the Nephilim and what if anything is the connection of the Nephilim to the sons of God and the daughters of mankind? The word Nephilim is actually a transliteration — not a translation — of the Hebrew word; translated, it means “ fallen ones,” a phrase that could mean morally or physically degraded individuals, or possibly angels who fell from heaven ( Is 14: 12 ). 

In spite of its literal meaning , many versions (e.g., KJV, NLT) have followed the Septuagint in translating it as “giants,” a guess seemingly based on the mention of Nephilim in Nm 13: 33 . This proposal appears unlikely, however, since no Nephilim would have survived the flood ( Gn 7: 22-23 ) and thus could not have lived during the post-flood events narrated in Numbers. Further, the Nephilim are never mentioned as one of the groups to be wiped out by the Israelites when they entered Canaan. Their mention in Numbers 13 probably came from the lips of a fear-crazed spy who misinterpreted what he had seen in Canaan. 

Were the Nephilim products of the marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of mankind ( v. 2 )? Possibly, but in the Hebrew text there is no explicit connection between them. Moreover, the fact that they were on the earth in those days, i.e., before and during the sinful unions, leads some to suggest that their origins are elsewhere. Whatever their ancestry, as powerful and famous men they played a significant role in pre-flood society. 

Nephilim: These giant-like “mighty men” fill the earth with violence (v. 11; Num. 13:32, 33). The Hb. root means “to fall” and may suggest their fate (Ezek. 32:20–28). and also afterward. This parenthetical remark reminds the book’s original audience that the same kind of horrible people existed after the flood (Num. 13:32, 33). mighty men. The Hebrew here is also used later for Nimrod and his bestial kingdom (10:8–11). As a consequence of the fall, human beings misuse their God-given capacity to rule over other creatures. Aggressive force and violence become the hallmark of human dominion on earth.

GENESIS 6:2 sons of God: These have been identified as Sethites (the traditional Christian interpretation), as angels (the earliest Jewish interpretation; cf. Job 1:6), and as royal tyrannical successors to Lamech who gathered harems (proposed by rabbis of the second century A.D.). 

All three interpretations can be defended linguistically. The first interpretation best fits the immediate preceding context (a contrast of the curse-laden line of Cain with the godly line of Seth). If “sons of God” denotes Seth’s line, then “daughters of man” probably refers specifically to Cainite women. The intermarriage of the two lines easily explains why Noah is the sole righteous offspring of Seth after nine generations. Luke’s genealogy of Jesus provides a basis for understanding how Seth’s lineage may be viewed as “sons of God” (Luke 3:36–38). 

The second view has ancient support, but seems to contradict Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry (Mark 12:25) and does not explain why the focus is on mortals (v. 3) and the judgment on them (vv. 5–7). 

The third interpretation explains the phrase “any they chose” and matches the description of Lamech’s actions in 4:19–24 but lacks much ancient support and demands that “sons of God” refers to people who are anything but God-like.

[Justin Adams]

The Sethite view is wrong. Read 1st Enoch and the Qumran texts plus second temple literature. Many quotes from the new testament writers refer to Enoch. The giants or nephilim were the off springs of 'the angels that sinned'. Check out the Anakim references and much of ancient Mesopotamian literature.

The seminaries are rife with disinformation about the nephilim and often strip the scriptures of its supernatural components like Augustine did. Augustine's ideas permeated christian doctrine until today - it is mostly suspect and often entirely wrong.

Augustine did not like Enoch from his earlier days with the Manechaens. Thus, down thru the ages the church adopted the false view about Gen 6 and many references throughout the Tanakh to these giant clans.

The gibbōrīm, “mightie men,” (NT) the “men of renown,” termed gigantes in Greek and anglicized as giants in the Septuagint (LXX) are the transliterated Hebrew word nephīlīm. The term is related to the Hebrew naphal, meaning “to fall,” but is not the same word. Such mistaken interpretations have led to the assumption of many that the Nephilim were the fallen angels who allied alongside Lucifer during the rebellion. Other giants include Emim, Rephaim, Gibborim, Zamzummim, Anakim and Ivvim. These were all different tribes of giants, not fallen angels or gods. 
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/mistaken-mythology-0011408

"(by Gillian Clark, from the introduction to her Cambridge Latin edition of Confessions, Books I-IV)

Augustine encountered Manichaean teaching soon after the impact of the Hortensius, and remained an adherent for nine years. His subsequent attacks on Manichaeism are a major source of information, but of course they are polemic against the system, not exposition of it. In the Confessions he is concerned with the effect of Manichaeism on his own relationship with God. Instead of explaining what he believed as a Manichaean and why, he denounces the aspects of his belief which, in the light of Platonist philosophy and the preaching of Ambrose, he had come to see as its major confusions. But it is now possible to give a general account of western Manichaeism which does not depend chiefly on Christian polemic... Several Manichaean texts have been discovered this century: the Coptic texts from Medinet Medi in the Fayyum include a book of psalms, and the Greek ?Mani codex?, a tiny papyrus volume, is an anthology on the birth and early life of Mani.

Mani, born in 216 in southern Mesopotamia, was brought up in an ascetic Judaeo-Christian sect which he left in his mid-twenties. He believed himself to be the Paraclete, the ?Advocate? who, as Jesus promised to his followers (John 14:26), would lead them into all truth. Revelations from his ?divine twin? taught him the doctrines and the organisation of Manichaeism, and instructed him to travel and preach. His teaching spread eastward and westward, adapting to existing religious beliefs and practices: some of the most important Manichaean texts, written in various Central Asian languages, were found at Turfan in China. In the Roman empire, Manichaeism was regarded by Christians as heretical and by the state as a dangerous import from the rival power, Persia (Iran). In Persia there was religious toleration until the death of Shapur I (c. 272), but under his successor Zoroastrianism became the most influential religion, and Mani was imprisoned and died after torture. His death was commemorated in the festival of the Bema, which western Manichaeans celebrated rather than Easter.

Mani?s claim to a new revelation was not a new phenomenon in the west. Jesus had told his followers (John 16:12-13) ?I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot handle them now. But when the spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth.? He had said that the Paraclete was ?the spirit of truth which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees nor knows it; but you know it, because it remains with you and is in you? (John 14:17). Several religious leaders had convinced their followers that they had the truth, the gnosis (knowledge), which most people could not see. The ?knowledge? took the form of a deeper understanding of what is really happening in human lives. Gnostics believed that the physical world is of no value: it is the temporary, illusory stage for a struggle of spiritual powers, and all that matters is the release of the divine spirit within us from the contamination of the material body and its return to its true home. They produced complex mythologies of angels and demons to explain the workings of the universe. They refused to accept the affirmation of Genesis that God made the world, ?and God saw all the things that God had made, and they were very good? (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, they also refused to accept the Incarnation, the union of God and human in a human body, and taught that Christ was a divine spirit in the appearance of a human body, and that his death on the cross was an appearance of death.

Gnosticism recurs through the history of Christianity, but Gnostic sects tended to fragment. Mani combined impressive teaching, reinforced by hymns and splendidly produced books, with effective organisation. He taught that Good and Evil are equal powers, and both have always existed. Each has a kingdom, Good the kingdom of Light and Evil the kingdom of Darkness. Darkness invaded Light, and fragments of light are still entrapped in the darkness; this world was created in order to free them. Jesus of Light, who is pure spirit, shows humans how the light may be freed, and the Suffering Jesus is the Light which is entrapped in this world. The human soul is a fragment of Light which has fallen from its home, the kingdom of heaven, and is trapped in the body. It can escape by disciplining the body and with the help of saving powers.

There were two kinds of Manichaeans, the Elect Saints and the Hearers. The Elect, who formed the nucleus of a Manichaean ?cell?, were committed to a missionary life of poverty and celibacy. They were strict vegetarians, drank no wine, and were forbidden even to harvest or prepare food, because Mani had a revelation that it is a kind of murder to damage plants by harvesting. The sect survived because the Hearers incurred the sin of preparing food, and were released from sin by the prayers of the Elect who ate it: Mani taught that fragments of the divine which were trapped in plants could be released when ingested by the pure body of the Elect. The Hearers were also allowed a wife or concubine, but were taught to avoid procreation because it entraps more divine spirits in matter. Manichaean cells, like Christian churches, were kept in touch with one another by a hierarchy analogous to the Christian clergy, so when Augustine left Carthage for Rome he was able to stay with another Hearer and meet some of the Elect (5.10.18-19).

Manichaeism offered Augustine a way to accommodate his conflicts: he could pursue his career, and retain his partner, while purging his sins through his service to the pure Elect (4.1.1); and he could blame those sins on his lower, alien nature, which like the material world had been made by the power of evil, but which his true self would eventually shed (5.10.18). Manichaeism also responded to his need, instilled by his childhood, for the name of Christ, and his initial distaste for the Christian scriptures (3.4.8-6.10). He could regard the Bible as a crude and contaminated attempt at the truth, whereas the Manichaean scriptures offered both the name of Christ and what seemed to be a profound understanding of the universe and of human life (3.6.10)."