There be GIANTS

[Justin Adams]

12 hours 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]

It is a well known method of scriptural euphemisms. To uncover his father's nakedness was to sleep with his wife. To have an offspring by her  meant the curse of the offspring would take place. And it did.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Justin Adams

[Dennis1209]

5 hours ago, Speks said:

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). 

Afternoon there Speks!

First I'd like to mention, it's obvious you've put in much study and came to your own hermeneutic view; that's admirable and being a Berean. My views may not completely align with yours but; does that make us less Christian or in opposition to one another, nope! I'm always interested in hearing the views of others, discussing them and comparing notes in brotherly love. With that said, I have a couple of questions of how your arrived at your views?

Genesis 6:2 (KJV) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. [emphasis added]

sons = bên: God = ʼĕlôhîym [ben elohiym]; how does that refer to the line of mortal Seth linage? Elohiym always refers to spiritual beings, lessor gods if you will. Excluding Adam; we are all the sons of Adam in the flesh. Why was the righteous Seth line also wiped out by the flood? Not to be argumentative, those are questions?

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

It is a well known method of scriptural euphemisms. To uncover his father's nakedness was to sleep with his wife. To have an offspring by her  meant the curse of the offspring would take place. And it did.

This may well be true.  But I'm surprised that the writer of Genesis (Moses) did not make this scripture more explicit as scripture does elsewhere.

[Speks]

Hello Dennis. I did chew over this passage for another thread and topic (below), but what I put in the above post was just cut 'n' paste from 3 study bibles in case it was of interest. But it's good to think things over ourselves of course. I tend to want to look at any Scripture in the context of Christ and my walk with Him, and do realise how narrow that may sound!

Yes you're right, no opposition here, although I've come on a few here who are soul-centric (a Hebrews 4:12 kind of thing I plan posting about some day), and others who in my view misuse Scripture and cause wrangles or take positions contrary to Scripture or are snared by personal preferences... All things to be wary of and humble about! But that's by the way stuff here. There are those whose posts are valuable and other interesting topics here and there too.

"Discussing... and comparing notes in brotherly love" is how it should be among true believers, I totally agree.

_

"The sons of God are possibly those who at one time gave the Lord His proper place in their lives, or are angels (messengers) who didn't stay where they belonged. They had casual sexual relations with the daughters of man — of "Adam". The sons of these relationships were mighty men of renown, or warriors. The Nephilim — "fallen ones" — aren't clearly identified here so we need to speculate carefully. We can't be exactly sure why they are mentioned in the same context as the sons of God."

[Justin Adams]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

This may well be true.  But I'm surprised that the writer of Genesis (Moses) did not make this scripture more explicit as scripture does elsewhere.

It is often the case, when things are just mentioned in passing that the wealth of colloquial knowledge bridges any apparent gap. If we mention 9/11, we do not have to detail it all. We contemporaries know all about it. So it is with Gen 6. It was all well known by the extant peoples, so little needed to be said as there was a wealth of knowledge both written and spoken in the way they handed down sayings, fables and myths. Few had books but there were a few tablets and stone scripts plus an active memory amongst the people. Their leaders and their 'memory men' would relate things in story form for future generations. 

Eventually it was transcribed in scroll form by those that God chose and prepared to do so. Many generations of our scriptures show not merely one scribe but many and editors often corrected the words as they were later compiled, copied and transcribed from paleo Hebrew (similar to Ugaritic) to the more modern 'square' letters. Also the Targums and Greek versions of the Tanakh were made available as time and necessity dictated.

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Justin Adams

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

It is often the case, when things are just mentioned in passing that the wealth of colloquial knowledge bridges any apparent gap. If we mention 9/11, we do not have to detail it all. We contemporaries know all about it. So it is with Gen 6. It was all well known by the extant peoples, so little needed to be said as there was a wealth of knowledge both written and spoken in the way they handed down sayings, fables and myths. Few had books but there were a few tablets and stone scripts plus an active memory amongst the people. Their leaders and their 'memory men' would relate things in story form for future generations. 

Eventually it was transcribed in scroll form by those that God chose and prepared to do so. Many generations of our scriptures show not merely one scribe but many and editors often corrected the words as they were later compiled, copied and transcribed from paleo Hebrew (similar to Ugaritic) to the more modern 'square' letters. Also the Targums and Greek versions of the Tanakh were made available as time and necessity dictated.

The problem with that theory is that Moses went into great detail in all the rest of his writings in the Pentateuch.  It seems odd he would not elaborate here.

[Dennis1209]

10 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

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)."

Thanks, my fingers are tired and didn't want to go through all that. One is much more informed and gets a better picture of what is going on when they come across the "giants" Nephilim tribes [Rephaim; Zuzim; Emim; Horim; Avim; and Anakim]. People wonder why a loving and caring God would command genocide; and command the killing of every man, woman, child, animal; and the destruction of all their property. The answer is simple: They are not 100% human, not eligible for the resurrection; bastard [mixed] offsprings of an unholy union.

[Dennis1209]

10 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

It is a well known method of scriptural euphemisms. To uncover his father's nakedness was to sleep with his wife. To have an offspring by her  meant the curse of the offspring would take place. And it did.

Like I was hee hawing and beating around the bush before, following all the dots, migrations patterns, places, events and people. I'm thinking of how the second incursion [and after that, being the deluge] possibly happened. It seems evident the second incursion of the 'giants' [Nephilim] followed the line of Ham; through Ham's son Canaan? 

It's a common pattern and tactic of Satan trying to destroy the bloodline and/or annihilate the Hebrew/Jewish race, trying to prevent the coming of the Messiah.

[Dennis1209]

3 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

It is often the case, when things are just mentioned in passing that the wealth of colloquial knowledge bridges any apparent gap. If we mention 9/11, we do not have to detail it all. We contemporaries know all about it. So it is with Gen 6. It was all well known by the extant peoples, so little needed to be said as there was a wealth of knowledge both written and spoken in the way they handed down sayings, fables and myths. Few had books but there were a few tablets and stone scripts plus an active memory amongst the people. Their leaders and their 'memory men' would relate things in story form for future generations. 

Eventually it was transcribed in scroll form by those that God chose and prepared to do so. Many generations of our scriptures show not merely one scribe but many and editors often corrected the words as they were later compiled, copied and transcribed from paleo Hebrew (similar to Ugaritic) to the more modern 'square' letters. Also the Targums and Greek versions of the Tanakh were made available as time and necessity dictated.

 

I like how scholar Dr. Michael Heiser address this, and to paraphrase. The Bible was written and penned by Jews for Jews [save Daniel 4:]. The apostles and the population during the 2nd Temple period, read other literature such as 1 Enoch and had access to the Septuagint and other writings. They were well aware of there history and mythology and believed it. The writers would have no need to expound in detail about the particulars, as they were well aware of what they were referring to; thus just mentions of something or referrals to it.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dennis1209

[teddyv]

10 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

It is a well known method of scriptural euphemisms. To uncover his father's nakedness was to sleep with his wife. To have an offspring by her  meant the curse of the offspring would take place. And it did.

Can you provide other examples using this euphemism. I can't recall any outside of this occurrence.

 

As to Canaan being cursed - that sounds a bit like propaganda for the Israelites as they were heading into that land to take possession. Same idea with Moab and Ammon being the children of incest also happening to be one of Israel's chief enemies through their taking and possessing of Canaan.