Giants = Nephilim

[74x12]

It is not "inconvenient," it is ridiculous to think angelic beings mated with humans.

When I first learned about it I was not very accepting of the idea.

And you have no proof of supernatural mating. The human makes far more sense in those verses.

We do have proof and I'm afraid it does make sense.

Not sure what your point is here? Angels "appearing" human does not mean they can mate with women. Not their job. Also obviously not giants.

No it's definitely not their job but they did it anyway. I'm not saying the angels themselves were giants. Although in spiritual form they're probably enormous powerful beings; yet when it comes to physical manifestation they can size themselves accordingly and apparently that's what they did.

Again what is your point? You claimed these sons of God were angels. Also I find no proof that Jesus was a begotten son of God in any other sense then King David was called a begotten son. Jesus only claimed to be the awaited Messiah, - a HUMAN from the line of David.

I'm just saying I don't believe it's about king David. I believe it's actually about Jesus who is also called "David" in prophecy.

• Ezek. 34:23-24 speaks of a coming time when “David” will be the Shepherd.
• Ezek. 37:24-25 goes on to say that David will be their prince forever and is clearly about the Messiah the future head of Israel.
• Hosea 3:5 we find that in the latter days they'll seek “David their king”.
• Amos 9:11 the tabernacle of David will be raised up again.
• Zech. 12:8 the house of David will be as God.

1. It could be referring to the 5th and 6th day creation, animals and humans, as the 4th day light is created, - so on the 5th - the first morning stars. Followed by the joy of the created.

2. As usual the word has multiple meanings including Firstborn, servants, stewards, etc. Firstborn humans and animals. Angels are servants and stewards.

3. So we could also read it as -

When the morning stars sang together, and all the Firstborn of God shouted for joy?

When the morning stars sang together, and all the creations of God shouted for joy?

When the morning stars sang together, and all the servants/stewards of God shouted for joy?

Angels are called servants and stewards of God.

The root word is "ben" which means "son" so yes it is correctly translated as "sons of God" by most translations out there. Including the KJV, YLT, RSV and even the JPS says the same.

The stars are made on the 4th day and so this means Job 38:7 is at the latest beginning on the 4th day. Humans were made on the 6th day so it most likely isn't about humans in it's most obvious meaning. Furthermore, God made one man and one woman so they wouldn't be called "sons of God" because it's masculine plural. But if it is really about Adam and Even then they would be the son and daughter of God or just called the children of God. The fact that it is plural means it might be talking about Adam but definitely also the angels ... I think it is referring to a time before Adam was made myself, but you might squeeze him in there. However, that would be mere speculation.

No it isn't. It is about Solomon whom immediately followed King David to the throne.

2Sa 7:12 And when thy (King David) days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels (his son Solomon), and I will establish his kingdom.

2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (Solomon built the Temple)

2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son (same as his father David). If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

2Sa 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

I didn't say it was only about Jesus. Notice I said it was foreshadowing Jesus. Jesus builds the temple of God made without human hands. This is the true temple of God. The temple of Solomon is only a type and shadow of God's true house. God cannot find complete rest in a physical temple made by human hands. As Isaiah claims and even Solomon himself claimed the heavens of the heaven cannot contain God how much less this house that Solomon built? Therefore they called the house Solomon made the:

1. The place where God's name is.
2. The place of God's footstool.
3. A house of prayer for all nations.

You could maybe say God rests His feet there (probably due more to those coming to worship at the temple rather than the building of stone and wood itself) But God does not rest all of Himself there as if it's His real house. But Jesus came to build the true house of God which is the body of Christ. This is where God will find true rest in His love for His people. As the prophet Zephaniah says "he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing."

 

[Thief]

Adam is a hermaphrodite - both male and female - split apart by YHVH.

The clone of a male - would be another male.

*

usually when I post about Adam and Eve I include a list.....which includes.....
genetic manipulation

and Adam called her .....woman
no navel...not born of woman
generated from a bone....a clone

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The sons of God being Celestial angels of heaven.
These angels being the fallen angels of heaven, which are the angels of Satan's.

These Giants ( Nephilim ) are detailed in the Biblical origin being half Celestial angels and half human, being Hybrid Giants, which are Nephilim Giants.

Who were the product of illicit relations between the evil fallen angels of Satan's and human women, Unto which produce the Nephilim Giant's.


.......

But Hybrids half human and half Celestial angels, being Nephilim Giant's, with superhuman strength and cannibal eating habits.

I don't know about the cannibal part, the Bible doesn't say....

But those conditions were bad enough!

No wonder that God stepped in with the Flood....women being used only for sex!


For me, I can easily see where the post-Flood civilizations, like the Greeks and Romans, got their ideas for their myths of Zeus , Hercules, etc......based on the situation that existed in the antediluvian world! Those angels (and offspring) did seem like "gods"!

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't know about the cannibal part, the Bible doesn't say....

But those conditions were bad enough!

No wonder that God stepped in with the Flood....women being used only for sex!


For me, I can easily see where the post-Flood civilizations, like the Greeks and Romans, got their ideas for their myths of Zeus , Hercules, etc......based on the situation that existed in the antediluvian world! Those angels (and offspring) did seem like "gods"!

If you read the book of Numbers 13:32-33.
Note that in Verse 32, down in the middle of the Verse--"The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants there of"

What do you think ? Are they cannibals ?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you read the book of Numbers 13:32-33.
Note that in Verse 32, down in the middle of the Verse--"The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants there of"

What do you think ? Are they cannibals ?

Well, first off, it says 'the land eateth up the inhabitants', not the inhabitants eating other inhabitants.

I don't usually agree with commentaries, but I think this Mathew Poole's maybe correct:

"Eateth up the inhabitants; not so much by civil wars, as most think, for that was likely to make their conquest more easy; nor by the barrenness of the soil, which consumed the people with the excessive pains it required to make it fruitful, as others think, for they confessed the excellency of the land, Numbers 13:27; but rather by the unwholesomeness of the air and place, which they guessed from the many funerals which, as some Hebrew writers, not without probability, affirm, they observed in their travels through it; though that came to pass from another cause, even from the singular providence of God, which, to facilitate the Israelites’ conquest, cut off vast numbers of the Canaanites, either by a plague, or by the hornet sent before them, as is expressed Joshua 24:12, or some other way."

You know, those Canaanites were filthy people, wiith their behavior and practices; it probably led to much sickness.

What may be the correct answer, I’ve no idea.

Take care.

 

[Ingledsva]

I am not sure that it is correct translation , Nachmanides in his
" Commentary on the Torah" said that it means "inferior" not Giants. Inferior to Sons of God. Nachmanides is one of recognized authority.

I said it is NOT giants - other then in the great warriors, etc., sense.

In Tanakh - "Fallen" evil humans ARE "inferior" to the followers of YHVH, - called sons of YHVH.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

When I first learned about it I was not very accepting of the idea.

We do have proof and I'm afraid it does make sense.


No it's definitely not their job but they did it anyway. I'm not saying the angels themselves were giants. Although in spiritual form they're probably enormous powerful beings; yet when it comes to physical manifestation they can size themselves accordingly and apparently that's what they did.


I'm just saying I don't believe it's about king David. I believe it's actually about Jesus who is also called "David" in prophecy.

• Ezek. 34:23-24 speaks of a coming time when “David” will be the Shepherd.
• Ezek. 37:24-25 goes on to say that David will be their prince forever and is clearly about the Messiah the future head of Israel.
• Hosea 3:5 we find that in the latter days they'll seek “David their king”.
• Amos 9:11 the tabernacle of David will be raised up again.
• Zech. 12:8 the house of David will be as God.

The root word is "ben" which means "son" so yes it is correctly translated as "sons of God" by most translations out there. Including the KJV, YLT, RSV and even the JPS says the same.

The stars are made on the 4th day and so this means Job 38:7 is at the latest beginning on the 4th day. Humans were made on the 6th day so it most likely isn't about humans in it's most obvious meaning. Furthermore, God made one man and one woman so they wouldn't be called "sons of God" because it's masculine plural. But if it is really about Adam and Even then they would be the son and daughter of God or just called the children of God. The fact that it is plural means it might be talking about Adam but definitely also the angels ... I think it is referring to a time before Adam was made myself, but you might squeeze him in there. However, that would be mere speculation.

I didn't say it was only about Jesus. Notice I said it was foreshadowing Jesus. Jesus builds the temple of God made without human hands. This is the true temple of God. The temple of Solomon is only a type and shadow of God's true house. God cannot find complete rest in a physical temple made by human hands. As Isaiah claims and even Solomon himself claimed the heavens of the heaven cannot contain God how much less this house that Solomon built? Therefore they called the house Solomon made the:

1. The place where God's name is.
2. The place of God's footstool.
3. A house of prayer for all nations.

You could maybe say God rests His feet there (probably due more to those coming to worship at the temple rather than the building of stone and wood itself) But God does not rest all of Himself there as if it's His real house. But Jesus came to build the true house of God which is the body of Christ. This is where God will find true rest in His love for His people. As the prophet Zephaniah says "he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing."

"Foreshadowing," "also means," additional meaning", etc. These are ALL words used by other people, when there is a natural, proven, accepted meaning, and thus they cannot prove their added interpretation of the text.

You said you HAVE PROOF of angels mating with humans. Where is it?

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We do have proof and I'm afraid it does make sense.

Yes....and when you consider the content of Greek and Roman myths, how the “gods” slept with females and had offspring like Zeus fathered Hercules, you can see how those legends had their origin with actual events.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes....and when you consider the content of Greek and Roman myths, how the “gods” slept with females and had offspring like Zeus fathered Hercules, you can see how those legends had their origin with actual events.

How exactly do myths of other gods sleeping with humans - make the Abrahamic myth of angels sleeping with humans - real?

They are all myth.

*

 

[74x12]

Yes....and when you consider the content of Greek and Roman myths, how the “gods” slept with females and had offspring like Zeus fathered Hercules, you can see how those legends had their origin with actual events.

Exactly. Winner post. In my opinion some of the myths of Greece etc. Stem from the mighty men of old men of renown mentioned in Genesis 6:4. Basically in Greek mythology Zeus would get some woman pregnant and the child would be superhuman. The idea that the sons of Seth married the daughters of Cain and somehow their children were renowned mighty men is really bizarre. People should read up on Gilgamesh or Hercules. These and others like them IMO are the real mighty men of old, men of renown. Gilgamesh was supposedly 2/3rds god and 1/3rd human. I think Hercules was half god but became a god later on.

 

[Ingledsva]

usually when I post about Adam and Eve I include a list.....which includes.....
genetic manipulation

and Adam called her .....woman
no navel...not born of woman
generated from a bone....a clone

The female has something that a male needs to survive. Given before birth.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Adam does not mean male, - it means first human, - which appears to be male and female in this story.

Gen 1:27 So God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thus we have a - turn one hermaphrodite, - which is both male and female, - into two separate humans - story, so they can procreate.

Gen 2:22 And the rib (half), which the LORD God had taken from Adam (first human being), made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

That word for "rib" usually means a HALF. ribs of a boat, door posts, etc.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

That can be read as - This was once selfsame...

One of the now split halves needs a new designation, - 'ishshâh - translated woman.

In this story neither would have a navel, as no umbilical cord.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Exactly. Winner post. In my opinion some of the myths of Greece etc. Stem from the mighty men of old men of renown mentioned in Genesis 6:4. Basically in Greek mythology Zeus would get some woman pregnant and the child would be superhuman. The idea that the sons of Seth married the daughters of Cain and somehow their children were renowned mighty men is really bizarre. People should read up on Gilgamesh or Hercules. These and others like them IMO are the real mighty men of old, men of renown. Gilgamesh was supposedly 2/3rds god and 1/3rd human. I think Hercules was half god but became a god later on.

You folks seem to be of the erroneous opinion that the Bible is the oldest of these stories.

That is not correct. More than a thousand years before Tanakh was compiled, we have The Epic of Gilgamesh on clay tablets of ancient Sumer, - that is over four thousand years ago.

Tanakh seems to have gotten it's stories from these far older texts. They even have the original flood and so-called "Noah's ark" story.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You folks seem to be of the erroneous opinion that the Bible is the oldest of these stories.

That is not correct. More than a thousand years before Tanakh was compiled, we have The Epic of Gilgamesh on clay tablets of ancient Sumer, - that is over four thousand years ago.

Tanakh seems to have gotten it's stories from these far older texts. They even have the original flood and so-called "Noah's ark" story.

*

Lol.

The Bible may not be earlier, but it's describing events before Gilgamesh.

I don't get your stance....you argue that the Bible doesn't say angels came down and cohabit with women because the idea "is ridiculous", but then in your next post, you call the Bible, "Abrahamic myths"!

Seems strange, to me! You don't want the "Abrahamic Myths" to sound "ridiculous"?!

Lol.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I doubt it is legitimately written by Og, but who knows?

It's GOTTA be real! I mean, who'd want to claim to be Og?!

"Hi, I'm Og"!

Lol.

 

[Ingledsva]

When I first learned about it I was not very accepting of the idea.

We do have proof and I'm afraid it does make sense.


No it's definitely not their job but they did it anyway. I'm not saying the angels themselves were giants. Although in spiritual form they're probably enormous powerful beings; yet when it comes to physical manifestation they can size themselves accordingly and apparently that's what they did.


I'm just saying I don't believe it's about king David. I believe it's actually about Jesus who is also called "David" in prophecy.

• Ezek. 34:23-24 speaks of a coming time when “David” will be the Shepherd.
• Ezek. 37:24-25 goes on to say that David will be their prince forever and is clearly about the Messiah the future head of Israel.
• Hosea 3:5 we find that in the latter days they'll seek “David their king”.
• Amos 9:11 the tabernacle of David will be raised up again.
• Zech. 12:8 the house of David will be as God.....

Good grief you guys. David was a shepherd, and the idea of a shepherd here is just people in charge of the human flock.

There is absolutely no question here that they mean the flesh and blood David.

Eze 25:8 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because that Moab and Seir do say, Behold, the house of Judah is like unto all the heathen;
*
Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Eze 34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

Eze 34:5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.

Eze 34:22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.

Eze 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.

Eze 34:24 And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.
*
Eze 35:1 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Eze 35:2 Son of man, set thy face against mount Seir, and prophesy against it,

Eze 35:3 And say unto it, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O mount Seir, I am against thee, and I will stretch out mine hand against thee, and I will make thee most desolate.

Eze 35:4 I will lay thy cities waste, and thou shalt be desolate, and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.

Mount Seir was mentioned as partner with Moab in (Eze_25:8).

You folks are trying to turn all these stories about King David's battles, - into Jesus predictions.

Verse 34:2 makes it clear that there are many shepherds, but King David is chosen as YHVH's shepherd in 34:23.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Lol.

The Bible may not be earlier, but it's describing events before Gilgamesh.

I don't get your stance....you argue that the Bible doesn't say angels came down and cohabit with women because the idea "is ridiculous", but then in your next post, you call the Bible, "Abrahamic myths"!

Seems strange, to me! You don't want the "Abrahamic Myths" to sound "ridiculous"?!

Lol.

Describing/repeating earlier stories that you have heard from earlier groups, - does not make your copies real, or earlier. It is the retelling of the stories of the cultures around them.

It doesn't say angels mated with women. That is just how some groups are interpreting the verses.

Tanakh doesn't say there are fallen angels either. So, - no fallen angels to mate with humans. Which means it is actually talking about humans.

It is religious myth.

Angels mating with women is ridiculous.

As I have said many times, - debating what ancient texts actually say, - does not mean you believe what they say, or that they are real history.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You folks seem to be of the erroneous opinion that the Bible is the oldest of these stories.

That is not correct. More than a thousand years before Tanakh was compiled, we have The Epic of Gilgamesh on clay tablets of ancient Sumer, - that is over four thousand years ago.

Tanakh seems to have gotten it's stories from these far older texts. They even have the original flood and so-called "Noah's ark" story.

*

Genesis 6:4...."sons of God", is the same Hebrew phrase, bene ha-Elohim,

as in Job 2:1....."sons of God", definitely speaking of angels.

The NT writers confirm that angels "sinned", Jude saying they "forsook their proper dwelling place." - Jude 1:6

His words would have no meaning, were it not for Genesis 6:4.

Throughout the entirety of human history according to the Bible, God never changed the path human civilization took (except when protecting His chosen people); it would have to be something drastic, for Him to step in then!

You probably won't want to grasp the severity of the situation: humans as slaves to more-powerful overlords, only to produce beautiful women as sex objects for "Zeus", having offspring like "Hercules".

 

[Ingledsva]

Genesis 6:4...."sons of God", is the same Hebrew phrase, bene ha-Elohim,

as in Job 2:1....."sons of God", definitely speaking of angels.

The NT writers confirm that angels "sinned", Jude saying they "forsook their proper dwelling place." - Jude 1:6

His words would have no meaning, were it not for Genesis 6:4.

Throughout the entirety of human history according to the Bible, God never changed the path human civilization took (except when protecting His chosen people); it would have to be something drastic, for Him to step in then!

You probably won't want to grasp the severity of the situation: humans as slaves to more-powerful overlords, only to produce beautiful women as sex objects for "Zeus", having offspring like "Hercules".

You seem to have missed my post about different meanings for the same word.

We are told the angels are the servants/stewards of God, and "bene ha-Elohim" in a heaven setting, can be translated Servants/Stewards of God.

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

The verses you folks are discussing are more logically meaning humans. Fallen humans - that are men of renown = known fierce Kings, warriors, etc. In this story, - descended from a fallen Ham, = all the peoples warring with the Israelites. And going against their laws, - the women are mating with men from those fallen nations, or they are just taking the women in wars, etc.

I have also read one interesting idea on this (Job 2:1) that says - The sons of God are the Human magistrates, leaders, etc., that have gathered in a normal setting, with God above judging as usual, and Satan representing adversity in life, testing, - which is sent to test Job, - who is one of the gathered leaders/sons.

Jude is Christian and has no bearing on this discussion.

*

 

[William Milverton]

.
.
The thrust of your post is that God did not deliberately kill most of the human race with the flood
because those that he killed were not humans at all.
Protestantism, in order to differentiate itself from Catholicism, puts out the propaganda
that God is just a big sweetie-pie who is incapable of anything but love
Yet from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of it, his chosen people walked in terror of him
and during the early part of Acts, the apostles had exactly the same attitude



In John 5:30 Jesus said "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me"
So Lord Jesus did not ameliorate God The Father's rule of terror
He gave a path of love that would safely take you through its minefield



You have no evidence that the sons of God were celestial angels
Your idea that the fallen angles fell no further than Earth where they lived happy lives is pure invention
The bible says nothing about nephilim being half celestial angels
You have no evidence that they were cannibals
Numbers 13:32 says 'the land eateth up the inhabitants thereof'



Your first 5 paragraphs preach about the importance of accuracy in translation
then you deliver a teaching on ‘Nephilim’
This word is not in the KJV. It first appeared in the New Revised Standard Version of the bible
whose entire purpose was to contort bible translation into gender-neutral language


There is a fine protestant tradition of picking verses out of the bible like chocolates
connecting them together like magic spells
and ‘interpreting’ this hotch-potch by exposition
into complete fantasy
under the pretence that the Holy Ghost is speaking in your ear



The more educated a population becomes
the greater the decline in its church attendance
Do you think these two are connected?



"The mandate given the NRSV committee was summarized in a dictum: 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary.'
The NRSV adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.
According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”
New Revised Standard Version - Wikipedia
.
.

 

[Ingledsva]

.
.
The thrust of your post is that God did not deliberately kill most of the human race with the flood
because those that he killed were not humans at all.
Protestantism, in order to differentiate itself from Catholicism, puts out the propaganda
that God is just a big sweetie-pie who is incapable of anything but love
Yet from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of it, his chosen people walked in terror of him
and during the early part of Acts, the apostles had exactly the same attitude



In John 5:30 Jesus said "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me"
So Lord Jesus did not ameliorate God The Father's rule of terror
He gave a path of love that would safely take you through its minefield



You have no evidence that the sons of God were celestial angels
Your idea that the fallen angles fell no further than Earth where they lived happy lives is pure invention
The bible says nothing about nephilim being half celestial angels
You have no evidence that they were cannibals
Numbers 13:32 says 'the land eateth up the inhabitants thereof'



Your first 5 paragraphs preach about the importance of accuracy in translation
then you deliver a teaching on ‘Nephilim’
This word is not in the KJV. It first appeared in the New Revised Standard Version of the bible
whose entire purpose was to contort bible translation into gender-neutral language


There is a fine protestant tradition of picking verses out of the bible like chocolates
connecting them together like magic spells
and ‘interpreting’ this hotch-potch by exposition
into complete fantasy
under the pretence that the Holy Ghost is speaking in your ear



The more educated a population becomes
the greater the decline in its church attendance
Do you think these two are connected?



"The mandate given the NRSV committee was summarized in a dictum: 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary.'
The NRSV adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.
According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”
New Revised Standard Version - Wikipedia
.

Hello,

You should use the reply button so we know whom you are responding to.

*