Angels

[Starise]

5 hours ago, Golds and Blues said:

Basing an interpretation on Shet being the sons of elohim intermarrying with daughters of cain(men with ever evil hearts arised) giving reason for the descriptive use of the offspring being "mighty, renowned". They would of had a collaborated arrogance of knowledge that 'puffed up. A bronze and iron understanding of the worldly kind that is far from the Lords will and Spirit. Hence the hebrew word term woodcutter, ie nephilim "those whom destroy the earth will be destroyed"! The heart of men being continuously evil mentioned by a certain prophet was likely a reminder of what happens when intermarrying with the ungodly.?

Do you agree with this exegesis?

One likely explanation would come from the manner in which these things were said originally.

 

18 hours ago, Starise said:

4 The Nephilim2 were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

This may be no different than saying, there were Llamas on the earth in those days and also afterwards when the son's of God came into the daughters of men. Or we could replace it with dinosaurs to make it more interesting- The dinosaurs were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards when the sons of God came into the daughters of men.

People make an immediate tie to the Nephilim when reading this passage when really it could be a commentary on the times. The point is made about the Nephilim because they were a huge contrast  to the present day and probably worth a serious mention as they were a menace.

NEPHILIM

I don't dispute that we may well be referring to at least two classes of beings. The group of men you tie to as "mighty men" who followed pagan gods and practices in addition to the others who were not totally human. 

It would be easier to write off Anak and the Nephilim as wayward men if we didn't have archeological record of massive "not quite human" beings who walked the earth in those days.

 

[Starise]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Why would SIZE be the issue that demanded a Flood, anyway? Wasn't the issue the EVIL that was continually in the hearts of men?

Some suggest that the Flood was to eliminate the half-breeds; those made from the man-angel unions, but we don't even know that such unions are POSSIBLE, let alone MADE!

I contend that there is NOWHERE in Scriptures where "sons of God" refer to "angels" (or "supernatural messengers"), especially those "angels of God!"

I agree the flood came as the result of evil. I see the giants as a  problem that would have been solved in the process. Not the main motive, but a legitimate side concern.

The tribe of Anak along with other similar tribes of giants were a very real concern. The flood helped to solve more than one problem.

The only writings I am aware of that support a race of half breed giants are in extra biblical writings.The book of Enoch being the most read on the subject. The same book among others found along with the dead sea scrolls.

The various quotes posted in your comments refer to the sons of God in possibly different contexts with different meanings all depending on the context. True, the references used are the most common types of these references in scripture. The sons of God are often us or followers of Christ.

Within the contextual frame we are discussing this subject I am not so sure we can draw the same conclusions about "sons of God" in this passage.

Here's a real wild card- Did God ever make other men who never sinned besides Jesus? Not angels, men? Could there be other groups or classifications compatible on some level with earthly human females? This theory escapes two conundrums. They didn't necessarily HAVE to be angels. Neither did they necessarily HAVE to be mere sinful men.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Starise

[Retrobyter]

13 hours ago, Starise said:

I agree the flood came as the result of evil. I see the giants as a  problem that would have been solved in the process. Not the main motive, but a legitimate side concern.

The tribe of Anak along with other similar tribes of giants were a very real concern. The flood helped to solve more than one problem.

Shalom, Starise.

The word "giants" was introduced to the Scriptures as a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word "hanfiliym," adding the definite article prefix, (often written "nephalim"). The word MEANS "the woodcutters" or "the lumberjacks." It's not a "tribe" or a "race" or a "people"; it's an "OCCUPATION!"

The fact that the condition known as "giantism" can be found in human populations where the genes that cause that genetic condition is found in peoples like the tribe of Anak can be attributed to one of two things:

First, it is just another variation within the DNA as a recessive gene that only comes out in a particular living condition.

Second, it may come out as a DEFECT in the genetic code - a MUTATION of what God originally wrote!

Most mutations produce sterile offspring. That is, God weeds them out by not allowing them to reproduce that defect. That's why I believe that giantism, as found in the tribes of the southern Sudan, is NOT a mutation, but a VARIATION in the DNA code.

However, ALL of this about giantism is NOT found in Genesis 6 anyway! Again, this was inappropriately translated as "giants," as though it was a "race of creature" or a "tribe," when in fact it was an "occupation" that could have been filled by any human being, but was best suited for those who had significant strength. Remember: as far as we know, they didn't have CHAINSAWS!

13 hours ago, Starise said:

The only writings I am aware of that support a race of half breed giants are in extra biblical writings.The book of Enoch being the most read on the subject. The same book among others found along with the dead sea scrolls.

YES! And, I consider the book of Enoch not only non-canonical, but a piece of FICTION, written by someone in the intertestamental period, not truly by Chanokh, the "seventh from Adam."

13 hours ago, Starise said:

The various quotes posted in your comments refer to the sons of God in possibly different contexts with different meanings all depending on the context. True, the references used are the most common types of these references in scripture. The sons of God are often us or followers of Christ.

Within the contextual frame we are discussing this subject I am not so sure we can draw the same conclusions about "sons of God" in this passage.

That's fine. I'm a huge supporter of following the context of the Scriptures. Actually, I do NOT believe that <<these "sons of God" were necessarily "born again," as true "sons of God">>, JUST AS <<the "angels with the daughters of men" theory doesn't believe these "angels" were "messengers of God," but were "FALLEN angels">>. Rather, I believe that the TERM "sons of God" was a MONIKER that they used prejudiciously of themselves, as a TITLE they applied to themselves, like men do today with monikers such as "the Elite" or "the Bourgeoisie" or "the Arian race!" 

13 hours ago, Starise said:

Here's a real wild card- Did God ever make other men who never sinned besides Jesus? Not angels, men?

No, that's definite:

Romans 5:12-14 (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

But, the good news is ...

Romans 5:15-17 (KJV)

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

So, death and sin had to pass to all men through Adam, so that life and righteousness could abound unto many through the one man, Yeshua` the Messiah of God.

 

13 hours ago, Starise said:

Could there be other groups or classifications compatible on some level with earthly human females? This theory escapes two conundrums. They didn't necessarily HAVE to be angels. Neither did they necessarily HAVE to be mere sinful men.

I don't think we can rightly make that conclusion; HOWEVER, if being "a son of God" or a "daughter of a man" wasn't based upon righteousness or sin but was based upon someone's or someones' OPINION of someone else, then we're talking about terms that don't necessarily speak to whether one is right with God or not to be a "son of God" OR a "daughter of a man!" It's like the "slave or master" ideology of the 1700s and early 1800s of these United States. Neither group of men and women were better or worse than the other, and both could be either born again into God's Family or outside of His Family, but it was all a matter of PERCEPTION in the politics of this country's history. ... And, that was unfortunate for BOTH sides of the perception! For the slaves (who were NOT all black, btw), it was economic and social bondage, but for the rich slave-owners, it was a MORAL bondage because they weren't listening to the Scriptures admonishing the masters to be fair and equitable to their slaves.

Colossians 4:1-9 (KJV)

1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. 2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving; 3 Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: 4 That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. 5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without (outside), redeeming the time. 6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord: 8 Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts; 9 With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here.

Onesimus was the slave of the master and slave owner, Philemon, to whom Paul wrote:

Philemon 1:10-16 (KJV)

10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: 11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: 12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: 13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

Ephesians 6:5-9 (KJV)

5 Servants (slaves), be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Retrobyter
to put finishing touches on the post

[Starise]

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

The word "giants" was introduced to the Scriptures as a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word "hanfiliym," adding the definite article prefix, (often written "nephalim"). The word MEANS "the woodcutters" or "the lumberjacks." It's not a "tribe" or a "race" or a "people"; it's an "OCCUPATION!"

Shalom Roy,

I hate to seem disagreeable right in the beginning of my post, however almost any other possible rendering for nephalim is omitted in your reply.

The Hebrew word hanfiliym does not appear to be the same as the Hebrew rendering of nephalim- The Nephilim (/ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/; Hebrew: נְפִילִים Nəfīlīm)

Why would the bible put so much emphasis on woodcutters?

To me this makes no logical sense. There is no significance in mentioning woodcutters. It would be like me saying that I live in a neighborhood and in my time there were paper boys.So what? Did God simply throw in woodcutters for no good reason?

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

The fact that the condition known as "giantism" can be found in human populations where the genes that cause that genetic condition is found in peoples like the tribe of Anak can be attributed to one of two things:

First, it is just another variation within the DNA as a recessive gene that only comes out in a particular living condition.

Second, it may come out as a DEFECT in the genetic code - a MUTATION of what God originally wrote!

This is very true, however these are isolated genetic circumstances. The few who are affected are most often impeded physically. These are NOT mighty men.

Interbreeding among humans produces dwarfism not giantism.

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

Most mutations produce sterile offspring. That is, God weeds them out by not allowing them to reproduce that defect. That's why I believe that giantism, as found in the tribes of the southern Sudan, is NOT a mutation, but a VARIATION in the DNA code.

In my opinion,  giants mentioned in the bible along with archaeological finds which indicate "men" in excess of 10 feet tall cannot be explained away as a natural or minor deviation in  DNA UNLESS there was some kind of either meddling or upset of normal DNA through abnormal behavior. I am not prepared to say this was angels. SOMETHING happened that caused these "men" to be so abnormally large as to be something of an oddity.

Cain was as human as his brothers.

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

However, ALL of this about giantism is NOT found in Genesis 6 anyway! Again, this was inappropriately translated as "giants," as though it was a "race of creature" or a "tribe," when in fact it was an "occupation" that could have been filled by any human being, but was best suited for those who had significant strength. Remember: as far as we know, they didn't have CHAINSAWS!

I will not be so sure. I am very skeptical of the translation as woodcutters being the only explanation for it. Until I can conclude this with absolute certainty this is the ONLY explanation I will keep looking.

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

YES! And, I consider the book of Enoch not only non-canonical, but a piece of FICTION, written by someone in the intertestamental period, not truly by Chanokh, the "seventh from Adam."

For the sake of a solid argument either for or against I didn't bring the book of Enoch into this discussion, even though I think some of it could have value to this discussion.

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

Romans 5:12-14 (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

But, the good news is ...

Romans 5:15-17 (KJV)

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

So, death and sin had to pass to all men through Adam, so that life and righteousness could abound unto many through the one man, Yeshua` the Messiah of God.

 

 

On 3/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Retrobyter said:

I don't think we can rightly make that conclusion; HOWEVER, if being "a son of God" or a "daughter of a man" wasn't based upon righteousness or sin but was based upon someone's or someones' OPINION of someone else, then we're talking about terms that don't necessarily speak to whether one is right with God or not to be a "son of God" OR a "daughter of a man!" It's like the "slave or master" ideology of the 1700s and early 1800s of these United States. Neither group of men and women were better or worse than the other, and both could be either born again into God's Family or outside of His Family, but it was all a matter of PERCEPTION in the politics of this country's history. ... And, that was unfortunate for BOTH sides of the perception! For the slaves (who were NOT all black, btw), it was economic and social bondage, but for the rich slave-owners, it was a MORAL bondage because they weren't listening to the Scriptures admonishing the masters to be fair and equitable to their slaves.

Good points. To follow my reasoning though a better explanation for sons of God needs to be found. If they are mere men we can let it at that. If not, more answers are needed.

[Starise]

On 4/1/2022 at 3:25 PM, Golds and Blues said:

Roy?

Yes I was responding to both yourself and to Roy. I don't know your name GB.

On 4/1/2022 at 3:25 PM, Golds and Blues said:

I offered a reasoning for the mention of nephilim/woodcutters as fellers of trees/men.[Mark 8:24] Reaping recompense for destroying the earth in murderous contempt..An after Effect from the inter marriages corrupting the lineage of shet, in part, except for the ten including noach and family called righteous. 

Reasoning that ben elohim is a spiritual title for the line of shet or quayin? And that in hebrews 2 the Angel's being mentioned in d'rash form of speech are messengers leaves room for discernment?

And you are certainly entitled to your reasoning as I am mine.

One thing both yourself and Roy are doing is taking unfamiliar words from apparently original texts. Most people are unfamiliar with shet and quayin as terms.

I am not from Israel, I am from the US and I don't speak the language of Israel. If you want to discuss these things with those like yourself, I suggest you look to discuss them with those similar. Maybe you and Roy could start lost or little used languages thread.

If OTOH you want to have discourse over the texts we are all familiar with, at the very least give some basis for your use of these terms so we know what your are actually talking about. IF there is error in the translations we have, this should be confirmed with the proper data. Then we can pursue alterations in meaning through translation instead of our actual discussion. If a German shows up in the US they will be expected to speak English or not be understood. Am I making myself clear here? This is an English forum.

20 hours ago, Golds and Blues said:

Is elohim translated Angel's in psalms 8 a proper communication. I ask because the hebrew word malakh is also translated to angel in greek. There are distinctions needed when discussing this. Messengers strictly as spiritual beings, or messengers in flesh conveying the spiritual. A distinction is made per scripture so that the eyes of the heart are able to see on earth as it is in heaven. Elohim can be as spiritual men as messengers. While in contrast the malakh are strictly spiritual beings in the school of thought I'm from. Example being the burning bush as strictly malakh a spiritual messenger. 

ה  מָה-אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי-תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ;    וּבֶן-אָדָם, כִּי תִפְקְדֶנּוּ.5 What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that Thou thinkest of him?

ו  וַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ מְּעַט, מֵאֱלֹהִים;    וְכָבוֹד וְהָדָר תְּעַטְּרֵהוּ.6 Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

ז  תַּמְשִׁילֵהוּ, בְּמַעֲשֵׂי יָדֶיךָ;    כֹּל, שַׁתָּה תַחַת-רַגְלָיו.7 Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet:

ח  צֹנֶה וַאֲלָפִים כֻּלָּם;    וְגַם, בַּהֲמוֹת שָׂדָי.8 Sheep and oxen, all of them, yea, and the beasts of the field;

ט  צִפּוֹר שָׁמַיִם, וּדְגֵי הַיָּם;    עֹבֵר, אָרְחוֹת יַמִּים.9 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea; whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

י  יְהוָה אֲדֹנֵינוּ:    מָה-אַדִּיר שִׁמְךָ, בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ.10 O LORD, our Lord, how glorious is Thy name in all the earth! 

 

I am not sure if elohim is translated as angels in any case. I think they are two distinct beings so you would have a point that possibly there is some confusion here.