Nephilim?

Status
Not open for further replies.

openairboy

Puritan Board Freshman
In Gen. 6 we read, "The Nephilim were on teh earth in those days, and also afterward, 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."

I believe Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, at least its final editor, and he says, "The Nephilim were on the earh in those days [the days described in 1-3], and ALSO AFTERWARD..." What are the "also afterward"? Were they not destroyed in the flood?

If they were, who are the Nephilim in Numbers 13? It reads, "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who came from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

We may be able to run with "Nephilim" simply being "giants", but there seems a particular reason Moses mentions them in Gen. 6 and Nu. 13 and why he mentions "they came from the Nephilim".

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

openairboy
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
The Nephilim - which means to fall?? Were offspring from angels(sons of god) and dauhters of men(human) {This is my view as it is also of many others but Im nto going to get into that now} They are also beleived by many christians that they are the offspring of the line of seth(godly) and Daughters of men(ungodly) now these men were of enormous stature and perfomed ungodly acts such as flesh eating they were also knonw to terrorize others. Alot of mythologies take from the Biblical account with their own twist. It is beleived that the gene was passed on through Ham's wife?

There are two groups I know off hand the rephaim and anikim(sp?)
which descendts include the 13-15 foot King Og of Bashan - Golaith of Gath 9feet or so. And many others who were killed of by Joshua and David.

Their traces though are not limited to the middle east but accross the world. Though it snot mentioned in the bible since the bible in OT times is dealing with the ME predominantly.

The average giant size was around 8-10 feet but there are remaisn that have been found of up wards to 15-36 feet in length I ahve not been able to verify the carthigian giant who was 36 feet in length but when I actually spend more time in research I will be bale to know more.

I hope this helps.

In Christ
Blade
 

SmokingFlax

Puritan Board Sophomore
Quote:

"there are remaisn that have been found of up wards to 15-36 feet in length"

Blade,
WHere did you get this from?
 

openairboy

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the info, Blade, but I'm more curious to find out if Moses is talking about the same "Nephilim" in the two passages, the only two with Nephilim. To my knowledge Nephilim is a transliteration and is translated in the KJV (others?) as "giants". Whey does he make it a point to say they were "on the earth in those days, and also afterwards", then point them out in Numbers 13 and refer to their geneological record with Anak going back to the Nephilim?

If they are the same Nephilim, I am wondering about the flood's destruction of everyone but Noah. If they are not the same, I am trying to figure out their significance in both passages.

Thanks,
openairboy

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
The Nephilim - which means to fall?? Were offspring from angels(sons of god) and dauhters of men(human) {This is my view as it is also of many others but Im nto going to get into that now} They are also beleived by many christians that they are the offspring of the line of seth(godly) and Daughters of men(ungodly) now these men were of enormous stature and perfomed ungodly acts such as flesh eating they were also knonw to terrorize others. Alot of mythologies take from the Biblical account with their own twist. It is beleived that the gene was passed on through Ham's wife?

There are two groups I know off hand the rephaim and anikim(sp?)
which descendts include the 13-15 foot King Og of Bashan - Golaith of Gath 9feet or so. And many others who were killed of by Joshua and David.

Their traces though are not limited to the middle east but accross the world. Though it snot mentioned in the bible since the bible in OT times is dealing with the ME predominantly.

The average giant size was around 8-10 feet but there are remaisn that have been found of up wards to 15-36 feet in length I ahve not been able to verify the carthigian giant who was 36 feet in length but when I actually spend more time in research I will be bale to know more.

I hope this helps.

In Christ
Blade
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Read Genesis 1-6 again, the whole thing. It should be clear to you then. If not, e-mail me and we'll walk through it together. This is not some reference to mystical giants or weird creatures ... :2cents:
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
Keith,
Well we still had a line of adam to Christ through Noah so likewise we have a line of evil through One of noahs sons. Also remember its a certain gene that is passed on that produces these men. It has tappered off ALOT since then and only every rare time we see it pop up. It is mentioned to show as an example one of the things that caused men to be punished by God the angels who were complicit with this are chained in prison as mention by Jude and Peter.

Chris,
here is a link to Steve Quayle he did some excellent research into the area of Giants(my favourite topic) allthough his theology is off his research in this area is some of the best. It should help explain my answer Im way to tired and need to finish my job here at work to discuss this. But this link should help.

Blade

p.s. Steve Quayle is pentecostal-arminian I believe but his 30 years of research on giants is better.
 

openairboy

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Read Genesis 1-6 again, the whole thing. It should be clear to you then. If not, e-mail me and we'll walk through it together. This is not some reference to mystical giants or weird creatures ... :2cents:

I don't believe there is any reference to mythology in the passage, but I'm curious about the relation between the two Nephilim. Are they the same? Rereading the first 6 chapters doesn't make the connection clear to me.

Are the Nephilim in Gen. 6 the same as Nu. 13?

openairboy
 

openairboy

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Read Genesis 1-6 again, the whole thing. It should be clear to you then. If not, e-mail me and we'll walk through it together. This is not some reference to mystical giants or weird creatures ... :2cents:

I don't believe there is any reference to mythology in the passage, but I'm curious about the relation between the two Nephilim. Are they the same? Rereading the first 6 chapters doesn't make the connection clear to me.

Are the Nephilim in Gen. 6 the same as Nu. 13?

openairboy
 

openairboy

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Keith,
Well we still had a line of adam to Christ through Noah so likewise we have a line of evil through One of noahs sons.

The Nephilim and others, although related to Adam, seem to be separated genealogically at this point in history (Gen. 6), so I don't think there is a geneological link with Noah's children. It may be there, but the other nations seem to be genealogically distinct throughout the OT. The genealogical link from the Nephilim in Nu. 13, assuming they are the same as Gen. 6, doesn't seem to be through the Noahic line.

openairboy
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Keith,

Are you referring to Numbers 13:33?

I think the reference is simply to other men of giant stature, rather than to a specific race of men.
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
Possible but we would need supporting evidence of either 1.) Nephilim surviving the flood which is not accounted for 2.) more angels cohabitated after the flood(if you hold to that view) or Noahs family interbreed with unbeleivers somehow and produced Nephilim 3.) We Just dont know.

Blade
 

openairboy

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Keith,

Are you referring to Numbers 13:33?

I think the reference is simply to other men of giant stature, rather than to a specific race of men.

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. I wasn't sure if it was another race or other men of giant stature. I lean to the later, but some of the language seems to suggest a link.

Thanks Fred.

openairboy
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
The Nephilim - which means to fall?? Were offspring from angels(sons of god) and dauhters of men(human) {This is my view as it is also of many others but Im nto going to get into that now} They are also beleived by many christians that they are the offspring of the line of seth(godly) and Daughters of men(ungodly)

"The sons of God" is used in the Bible to describe believers, never angels (that I'm aware of). What was happening in Genesis 6 was that the believers were marrying the unbelievers. Angels are spirit being that neither marry nor are given in marriage. How could they reproduce with a human?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by openairboy
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Keith,

Are you referring to Numbers 13:33?

I think the reference is simply to other men of giant stature, rather than to a specific race of men.

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. I wasn't sure if it was another race or other men of giant stature. I lean to the later, but some of the language seems to suggest a link.

Thanks Fred.

openairboy

Yes. My thought is that the first Nephilim were large in stature and therefore Nephilim (which actually comes from the Hebrew verb "to fall" or "fallen ones" ) became associated with men of large stature. So it is the same sort of thing with the word giant - it actually comes from the Greek gigantes which is derived from Gaia. The gigantes were sons of Gaia, and they were large, hence gigantes became an adjective for large.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
It's really clear in context of Genesis 4-6 that the 'sons of God' were the believers in God and their descendants and families after them. They were in covenant with God. When they married daughters of men, or the ungodly (those not in covenant with God), they sinned and polluted God's gracious covenant community. Thus, the flood, as Noah was seen to be the last of God's elect left on the earth at this time as a result of so much covenant breaking and inter-marriage with the pagans.
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
actually its really clear they were angels they same exact wording is used in Job to describe who? Angels.

Job 1:6

Job 2:1

So you see its angels I know I know it says the same thing in the NT and its used for human believers. But Joshua also is the same as Jesus but yet Joshua the man was not Jesus.

blade
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
Im done discussing this for now please u2u me if you want me to clear something up Id rather study this more but from what I know I really dont see the conflict. So yes Im done.

Blade
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
Blade,

You don't have to respond to this but I would have you consider that in the Job passages, it was the believers that were already in heaven being spoken of as "the sons of God" that came to present themselves before the throne. This would harmonize better with the rest of the scripture references using that phrase "sons of God".

I don't agree with the NIV throwing the word "angels" in there. Although, the word "angel" doesn't always mean the spiritual heavenly beings. It means "messenger." In any case, I don't think the word "angel" is in the text.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. We have not one bit of evidence that angels procreate. We don't have any evidence that angels even have sexual distinctions (male/female). And we have no evidence of any form of inter-species procreation. Bottom line, you have to assume a whole bunch of stuff that is completely unwarranted.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
:ditto:

:ditto:

The problem is in your misunderstanding of Hebrew wording and translation into English, leading you to assume a great deal of information that is not warranted or supported in any way in the rest of teh Bible.. We interpret the Bible using the analogy of faith, do we not? We don't make assumptions about hard-to-understand passages without paying a lot of attention to context, and if you follow the argument of Genesis 1-6, it is clear who the 'sons of God' are. Just read it over and over again, trust me. Even 4-6 makes it very clear. :detective:
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
actually its really clear they were angels they same exact wording is used in Job to describe who? Angels.

Job 1:6

Job 2:1

So you see its angels I know I know it says the same thing in the NT and its used for human believers. But Joshua also is the same as Jesus but yet Joshua the man was not Jesus.

blade

Blade,
(1) The references in Job to "sons of God" do not necessarily refer to Angels. I just read Henry's commentary on this and he presents two options (i) God had some sort of regular meeting with His angels to give an account of their doings (ii) this was some kind of religious practice during the time of the patriarchs and Satan was there in his usual capacity as a tempter. (2) As you said, the phrase is used repeatedly in the NT to refer to human believers, so even if Job does refer to Angels its likely its being used differently. (3) As Paul stated, the non-corporeal cannot have corpreal relations.
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
I would believe this except for one thing how do you explain that "giants" were born to normal woman by normal men ?? and Im not talking goliath here these men were also much larger? Where is there a mention of a curse placed on the children of believing men who mated with unbelieving woman? You would think there would have to be in order for such an odd thing happening like this.

The way I see it( I know a stretch but you are also stretching it by making the 'sons of god' men in Gen and in Job since it doesnt say they were men allthough tradition holds to them being angels) I dont want to make this out to more than it is it snot so important that I would die over it.

I honestly appreciate the comments. But even in the context of matthew when Jesus says angels neither marry or are given over to marriage it is talking about the ah shoot I dont know the right word forgive me here ritual(sorry) but not the actual sexual act. because were married to Christ this is not a sexual thing but a spiritual thing. There would be no need for marriage.

Also the angels that visited Lot before sodom and gomorah was destroyed were very physical I believe they ate with Lot as well.

Man well I told patrick when discussing this that I wouldnt go any futher since I need to spend more time on the subject and I really dont want to break what I said Ive allready gone to far.

So please Im done for now its nothing to worry about I understand where your coming from and I really appreciate your comments allthough I diagree - you disagree with me. Etc....

So Im respectfully bowing out before I jump back in I have plenty of study to like wise on Baptism which I hold to paedo but I want to be able to hammer out a paper on why I do if that makes sense. I get really anxious over feeling the need to constantly check back and respond it show I got into trouble in the politicking.

Well Im done for quit awhile on this.

In Christ
Blade
 

turmeric

Megerator
I thought the children of Seth were marrying the daughters of Cain. His line dies out after the Flood, I think.:detective:
 

Ranger

Puritan Board Freshman
The sons of God discussion is hard to understand since it seems like both 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2 are referring to them by joining those angels who left their heavenly abode to the story of Noah. It would seem that Peter is referring to these sons of God, but maybe not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top