"Sons of God"? & nephalim

[Ramblinman]

nakedpreacher, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion and you make a good point about selective breeding. But that is not the sole means of creating offspring that are different from the parents:

Although God is the only creator, humans have been using genetic engineering for decades.
Beginning with colchicine to mutate plants, then radiation-induced mutations.
Today, specific genes are modified directly.
And we humans are not as intelligent as angels and fallen angels.

The Idea that Humans bred with angels has Little evidence to recommend it from the text in Gen. (according to my reading) and introduces many theological problems going to the very foundation of our faith, which I am not willing to accept. I know that this theory is a popular explanation of the Nephalim but it does not seem to me to be satisfactory. If the Cain/Seth line explanation is infact true, then the nephalim Genes could have been passed on through the wives of Noah's sons.
Naked Preacher

P.S. from the above picture 6-9 is not that tall, I was 6-8 when I graduated High School

Ah! So you are one of the Nephilim!

[c.o.]

If interested in a biblically contextual treatment of the idea of nephilim, here is an excellent one:

http://shepherdproject.com/the-nephilim ... enesis-64/

[Ramblinman]

If interested in a biblically contextual treatment of the idea of nephilim, here is an excellent one:

http://shepherdproject.com/the-nephilim ... enesis-64/

c.o., I gave it a fair reading, but this has got to be one of the most poorly-reasoned articles I have ever read: leaps in logic, circular reasoning etc.

[c.o.]

[No argument.] When it comes to reason, logic, and education/knowledge, you (and very many others) are my elder.

If hermeneutics is, to any degree, the search for answers to the inscrutable among the things that CAN be known of Scripture, the essay i attached seemed to me to be such an exercise. The only thing i can be dogmatic about is my agnosticism on the topic .

You didn't cite any specifics, but if using Scripture to interpret Scripture is circular reasoning, i too am guilty as charged.

[Ramblinman]

Item 1: the union between sons of God and daughters of men was clearly displeasing to God, so angels that did so would have fomented a second angelic rebellion.
THEN Craig Smith asserts that there is no mention of a second rebellion.
Well, if these sons of God were indeed angels (in human form), there you have your second angelic rebellion. And there is a second passage of scripture that may refer to this second rebellion as well: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” II Peter 2:4
This was a greater punishment than simply being cast out of heaven. This verse of course does not prove the incarnation of angels, they may have had some other means of producing the Nephilim.

2. Mr. Smith makes an improper leap of logic when he cites Job 1:6 and 2:1 and claims that "it does not have the meaning of demonic spirits and is unlikely in Genesis 6.

3. Smith assumes that because angels do not marry, that they could not assume human form and marry. He assumes that because a spirit cannot lust, that a spirit in human form could not lust.

4. Smith once again assumes that because angels are spirit beings, it never occurs to him that they could take on human form.

5. Smith assumes that the (fallen) angels were not punished for this transgression. As I pointed out in II Peter 2:4, they were in fact punished. Genesis certainly reports God's displeasure with the situation and this does not rule out a punishment simply because Genesis is silent about specific judgement of the fallen angels.

6. Smith confuses the Nephilim (children of the union between sons of God and daughters of men) with their demonic fathers.
Of course the Nephilim were fully human, though affected by mutated genes.

The rest of Smith's argument is predicated on his straw man, so there's no need to go further.

[baresoul]

Times haven't changed much...
This guy is 6'9" and the giants of Gath (post-Deluge) were similar height
I wonder if Goliath and kin had Nephiliim blood?? Or was this a second invasion of Earth?
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 717741/pg1

Some references to polydactyly among these men indicate some weird genes. II Samuel 21:20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant.



Gonz Shimura, makes some very interesting points and seems to have done a good job comparing the text about the "sons of God" with other passages that use the same Hebrew word.

There is logic to the giants appearing, and such other genes tie in. The curse in the world spread, and mutations started occurring, this explains giantism too. The sons of god do not explain the giants, they were not the fathers as it is often interpreted, with just being born at that time when the sons of god took daughters of men. Angels, which are not human and not sexual beings, are not the explanation for the sons of god. It seems that men who would have been godly compromised the godliness that they should have still lived, taking who they wanted for wives, and no godly men were left ultimately when it was just Noah left.

[natman]

Angels, which are not human and not sexual beings, are not the explanation for the sons of god. It seems that men who would have been godly compromised the godliness that they should have still lived, taking who they wanted for wives, and no godly men were left ultimately when it was just Noah left.

This sounds like the same scenario that played out throughout Israel's history, where they would get right with God, then start bringing in women from foreign nations and foreign religions, allowing them to introduce their own religious practices, even in the Tabernacle and Temple. Solomon (the "wisest man to ever live"???) married LOTS of women from pagan nations. I believe that this is the primary reason for the divisions and fall of Israel and Judah.

[Ramblinman]

Angels, which are not human and not sexual beings, are not the explanation for the sons of god. It seems that men who would have been godly compromised the godliness that they should have still lived, taking who they wanted for wives, and no godly men were left ultimately when it was just Noah left.

Angels did not ordinarily take on human form, but those who did were severely punished after the atrocities they committed.
And after God put those wicked demon spirits in prison (after killing their mortal bodies, no demons dared take on human form again.
When the antiChrist comes he will take on human form, but that is just Satan and not the legions of demons who remained spirit beings.

It is also possible that they caused mutations in the zygotes of ordinary humans. And yes that may have been men from Seth's line and women from Cain's line, but that strikes me as odd that men from Cain's line did not likewise seduce women from Seth's line. AND there is nothing in the Bible about Cain's line being prone to giantism or multiple fingers and toes.
It seems more likely that "sons of God" were fallen angels who took on human form.
It is highly unlikely that aliens from another planet would be genetically compatible with humans, although it is possible that they genetically engineered human offspring with some of their DNA.

Doesn't really matter which of any of these scenarios was the root cause; the Nephiliim, with their gigantic size and multiple fingers and toes were clearly mutant flesh-and-blood humans.

[Bare_Truth]

Angels, which are not human and not sexual beings, are not the explanation for the sons of god. It seems that men who would have been godly compromised the godliness that they should have still lived, taking who they wanted for wives, and no godly men were left ultimately when it was just Noah left.

Who says that angels are not sexual beings ????? All I see that is even close to that is: Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:35 and Luke 20:35 which are speaking of angels and resurrected humans and only say that they do not marry, and those passages do not say that they don't have a sexual nature. Different times may have different rules, and none of thes passages address any issues of reproduction. Nothing says the the function of sex will still be the same or exist or not exist. If some form of sex still exists nothing says it still has to fulfil the roles it does now. Those scriptures only address marriage and not sex. To assert that marriage of humans will not exist is not the same as saying that sex wil also be abolished ! One must leap to an unsupported assumption to say that sex will be abolished.

Angels did not ordinarily take on human form, but those who did were severely punished after the atrocities they committed. What about Angels who appeared and interacted with humans and did according to God's will, by what evidence do you conclude that those angels were all extra ordinary?
And after God put those wicked demon spirits in prison (after killing their mortal bodies, no demons dared take on human form again. Who said that any angle or some angles ever had mortal bodies?

I think I see a lot of jumping to unsupported conclusions going on here.......... I am willing to believe what I read in the book but I think I am seeing eisegesis running rampant here.

I fully expect to find some here being horrified by the concept of a future in which there might be sex but without marriage. AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE, but what I am asking is can anyone here prove that there will NOT BE. As much as un-restrained sex does not fit in the world as we know it now, Is it not arrogant to say we fully understand all details of how the world will be then, remember there is much evidence that we will be changed very much by then.

Ok...... don't lynch the messenger for just saying that there is a whole lot about then that is at least a bit beyond our comprehension presently.

[natman]

Angels did not ordinarily take on human form, but those who did were severely punished after the atrocities they committed.
And after God put those wicked demon spirits in prison (after killing their mortal bodies, no demons dared take on human form again.

Where is this mentioned in Scripture?

When the antiChrist comes he will take on human form, but that is just Satan and not the legions of demons who remained spirit beings.

According to John, the Antichrist (actually "antichrists") have already come and are already here since John's day.

1 John 2:18
"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour."

1 John 2:22
"Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."

1 John 4:1-3
"1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."

[Bare_Truth]

Natman,
could we here be talking about different levels of Antichrist activity. That is to say
-- THE ANTI CHRIST
and
-- those under the influence of the sprit of antichrist,
and
-- those who are deceived and deluded into operating according to, or aiding and abeting the value system of antichrist, in the manner of antichrist?

If all the scriptures pertaining to antichrist encompass all the level of things that are of Antichrist, the term could be more flexible than just one and only one Antichrist entity.

[natman]

After doing several studies on "antichrist", I have come to the conclusion that "antichrist" is a "type" of person, or a description of people with certain attitudes, rather than a specific person.

I think many people try to say that "The Beast" mentioned in Revelation is "The Antichrist". However, in looking at the encoding of the name (the practice of gematiria) and the fact that Caesar Nero was openly referred to as "The Beast" at the time of the writing of Revelation, that "The Beast" is none other than Caesar Nero, who, based on his disdain for anything "Christian", was AN "antichrist".

People also confuse "antichrist" with the "Serpent" mentioned multiple times in Revelation. However, although the "Serpent", who is Satan, is against Christ, he is not a human "antichrist" and is not whom John is speaking of in 1John.

[OzTech]

Ok... so a basic study of 'sons of God' appears to indicate that they are any who have relationship with God. This will relate to either men (and women) who have committed themselves to God (as in John 1:12, Rom 8:14-19, 1 John 3:1-2) or those angelic creatures that are doing the will of God (as in Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7). The implication of the passages in Job 1:6 and 2:1 is that the angelic 'sons of God' were expected in appearing before the Lord but Satan was the interloper. Since Job 38:7 refers to a time at the beginning of creation it would probably include all angelic beings as being 'sons of God' but this would change when Lucifer (now Satan) fell and took a number of angels with him because they are no longer 'of God'.

I would infer from Gen 4:16 that Seth and his line remained within the presence of God (although not within the Garden) when Cain left God's presence to go to the land of Nod. As such, Seth's line probably still retained the classification as 'sons of God' because, being within the presence of God, they would have some form of relationship with Him.

There are no indications that I have found (so far) of angels taking on 'human' form. They appear to men at times but it is not defined if they have the same physical state as man or are merely a vision. The indications are within scripture that the spirits that fell with Satan will seek to possess men, i.e. enter into the mental control of any person that will allow them in (as in the case of the possessed man/men in the country of the Gergesenes Mat 8:28-34, Mar 5:1-17).

[baresoul]

Angels, which are not human and not sexual beings, are not the explanation for the sons of god. It seems that men who would have been godly compromised the godliness that they should have still lived, taking who they wanted for wives, and no godly men were left ultimately when it was just Noah left.

Who says that angels are not sexual beings ????? All I see that is even close to that is: Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:35 and Luke 20:35 which are speaking of angels and resurrected humans and only say that they do not marry, and those passages do not say that they don't have a sexual nature. Different times may have different rules, and none of thes passages address any issues of reproduction. Nothing says the the function of sex will still be the same or exist or not exist. If some form of sex still exists nothing says it still has to fulfil the roles it does now. Those scriptures only address marriage and not sex. To assert that marriage of humans will not exist is not the same as saying that sex wil also be abolished ! One must leap to an unsupported assumption to say that sex will be abolished.

Why would any created beings which would never marry to mate come to be manifest, or incarnate, and capable of taking women to marry and have even any human offspring, even giant humans? And we have nothing showing angels are human.

[Ramblinman]

After doing several studies on "antichrist", I have come to the conclusion that "antichrist" is a "type" of person, or a description of people with certain attitudes, rather than a specific person.

I think many people try to say that "The Beast" mentioned in Revelation is "The Antichrist". However, in looking at the encoding of the name (the practice of gematiria) and the fact that Caesar Nero was openly referred to as "The Beast" at the time of the writing of Revelation, that "The Beast" is none other than Caesar Nero, who, based on his disdain for anything "Christian", was AN "antichrist".

People also confuse "antichrist" with the "Serpent" mentioned multiple times in Revelation. However, although the "Serpent", who is Satan, is against Christ, he is not a human "antichrist" and is not whom John is speaking of in 1John.

Revelation mentions both a "beast" and an individual named "the False Prophet". That is why I believe that the anti-Christ was NOT Nero, but some future leader.
Nero was never paired with a "False Prophet".
Rather than "The Beast", I believe that the antiChrist is the "False Prophet" and "The Beast" is a more secular political leader.
Both are thrown into the Lake of Fire at the Judgement Seat of Christ.