Legends 2: Also if you remember in Heb. 13:2 that people have intertained angels unaware. Another classic illustration would be in the 18 chapter of Genesis where Abraham serves a meal to three visiting angels and one of them even the theophay of God, all three took human form. If angels can eat a meal, then angels can take on a physical form. It could be that at that time there were human beings who were so totally possessed by demons that they, in fact, were the ones who were engaged in that. Another thing to mention is that all angels that appear as humans are males. In fact in Luke 24:4 it mentions two angels at the resurrection, both are mentioned as men. In Matthew 28:3 the same thing.
---MarkV. on 8/4/09|
Lynda: No the Nephilim (giants, bullies) weren't offsprings of angels & women. This notion is mythological & gotten from the spurious, unbiblical, Book of Enoch.
What makes sense is what the Bible says, i.e., some of Seth's sons (men obedient to God, sons of God) disobediently took (married) pagan women (daughters of men from Cain's lineage) & untold numbers of their children did wickedness in the eyes of & against God.
Apparently, not all of Seth's sons took pagan (Jezebel-type) wives. So, God determined to purge the earth of "wicked people" & to spare a remnant of "obedient people". This brings us to Noah, his wife, sons & daughters inlaw...
---Leon on 8/4/09|
Char, (With respect due you and other bloggers)
"Only by the Divine specific act of creation, any created being can be called son of God... This is why Angels are called sons of God."
Sounds religiously logical BUT...
You oppose the "apostle" that wrote Hebrews chapter 1.
(1)At no time or place in the Bible does God ever call ANY angel His son.
(2)God will not be a Father to ANY angel.
"For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son"?
Am I missing something here? Seems pretty plain to me.
---Legends on 8/4/09|
Only by the Divine specific act of creation,any created being can be called "son of God"
For that which is "born of flesh is flesh".
God is spirit,and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit"(John 3:6)
Adam is called a "son of God" Luke 3:38
Those "in Christ" having "the new nature by the direct creation of God(2Cor.5:17/Eph.2:10)are called "sons of God"
This is why Angels are called "sons of God"
in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament.Job1:6,2:1,38:7,Ps29:1.
Gen 6:2 "sons of God"(Angels).
---char on 8/3/09|
"AMEN" to: Angels can't physically reproduce or procreate. This is confirmed by Jesus Himself.
"OH ME-OH MY" to: Angels are called sons of God in three scriptures found in the Book of Job. This is not confirmed by Jesus or any apostle.
In fact quite the opposite is true. According to the apostle that wrote Hebrews chapters 1:
(1)At no time or place in the Bible does God ever call ANY angel His son.
(2)God will not be a Father to ANY angel.
KEY! Reexamine Job chapter 1.
In the same way that Job had (1)"sons" that both ruled and served his house and (2)"servants" that served but did not rule, God has human sons that rule and angelic servants.
Check it out yourself
---Legends on 8/3/09|
John II the source I used for the Bible Quote was online and the coma was there in that Bible verse,in fact I copied that part of the verse as it was online. I will never omit any verse or word or punctuation mark, from the Bible because frankly I'd guess old Moses was just a little bit closer to God than any of us and it was a God given verse. I will never accept that God would go against his own word and let humans and angels mate,,he said Angels in Heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage and when we are resurrected we'll be like them Matthew 22:29. Bible tells us Jesus is the same today,yesterday,and forever Hebrews 13:8. There is just too much evidence to prove it wasn't angels taking wives,to think they could. God Bless
---Darlene_1 on 8/3/09|
In Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, sons of God refer to Angels because they were created by God, had a Spirit, and could make decisions in a rational and superior way to animals. Luke 3:38 calls Adam a son of God for the same reason (the singular is used here because he was the first man). Jesus is called the son of God due to his divine nature as he is God. In the Old Testament, sons, or children, are occasionally used to refer to Israel. In the New Testament, Christians are adopted and become the sons of God due to our receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior, Galatians 4:5.
Angels cant reproduce, Matthew 22:30, Colossians 2:18, 2Timothy 2:23.
---Glenn on 8/1/09|
Darlene: Genesis 6:4 is an introduction to the Nephilim, what period they came about, how they came to be and some accolades to boot. If Moses had omitted the clause 'and even after that' then this whole issue brought on by the acute literalistic wouldn't exist. Try saying this verse without that clause, it is completely arbitrary. The clause is delimited by either commas or dashes to subordinate it within the sentence. Now you have put a comma after the word 'men' to give the same affect as your argument but there isn't one there in any of my bibles. This is surely a moot point in biblical terms but I believe the warning is here, I have noticed that other sentences can become just as obfuscated by setting this precedence.
---John_II on 8/1/09|
Larry,thanks I love words and am always glad to hear something which is new to me and I know no Hebrew. I must remind you God created the heavens and earth Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form and void,and darkness was on the face of the deep. God created everything,no matter what it was. Which means he had to create giants but not like us. He formed man/Adam and breathed life into his nostrils and Adam became a living soul. That is the difference in man and all other creatures God created,man is the only one God personally gave life to through direct contact and breathing life into him. So mans creation doesn't mean God couldn't have created giants as any other animal thus they din't become living souls like Adam but like animals.
---Darlene_1 on 7/31/09|
Darlene, interesting. "Bene HaElohim" in Hebrew refers to those directly created by God and would have to be Adam or Angels or other creatures created by God outside of Adam. This has led to wild theories that while Adam was the first man created by God he may not have been the only created human or that God had other creatures from other planets. Clearly the offspring was so evil it was a large part of the flood and God's repentance that he made man.
Angels are celestial bodies and the bible clearly suggest they are males but not men in the biological sense.
Even then their appearance is so strikingly beautiful and bright the suggestion of simple intercourse is preposterous.
---larry on 7/29/09|
What is wrong about the whole theory of Giants coming from the union of Sons of God and daughters of men,is that the Bible plainly says the giants were in the land before that happened and at the time it happened. Genesis 6:4 There were Giants in the earth "in those days,and also after that",when the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of men,and they bare children to them,the same became mighty men which were of old,men of renown. Verse 6:1 tells when,and it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,-. There were Giants in the earth in those days,What days,when men began to multiply,and also after that,when SONS came in unto Daughters. Sorry but,Giants didn't happen from any union,they were already there.
---Darlene_1 on 7/29/09|
Darlene: The sons of God are those already in the incorruptible body (the sons of men are transformed by Christ) and when not on parade before the Lord they were taking the daughters of the Anakim. The resultant offspring were the famous giants called the Nephilim. Doesn't it stand to reason that the seed from the glorious body would be more vital than that of the lowly body? And this is how a giant is a descendant of Anak, via its mother, and for it be of (from, with, part of) the Nephilim (kind, genre). If the giants weren't sterile then how long before they'd rule the world? I reckon the sons of God paid whimsical visits and were even sought after by the power-conscious leaders of the tribe, possibly the three named lineage of Anak.
---John_II on 7/29/09|
If I understand JohnII correctly,you're saying normal size Sons of God,took wives of Anakite,giants,daughters. If thats what you mean I must remind you of size. Not to be indelicate,it would have been with normal size men,like a Chihuahua trying to have puppies with a Saint Bernard. Giants weren't like modern tall men,over 7 feet,they were over 14 or even 15 feet tall,their women were probably 12 feet or more tall. Now take into account size of most modern Jews are under 6 feet tall,average being 168,8 Centemeters which is approximately 5 feet 6 1/2 inches. Those Giant women wouldn't have taken up with those puny Sons of God,on a Silver Plater with a trunk full of gold. That makes a 12 foot woman with a man less than half her size. No way.
---Darlene_1 on 7/28/09|
As an afterthought, the unadulterated (by the sons of God) Anakite males must have stayed around to provide the daughters for them, albeit with the women not fancied by the sons of God or their cast-offs, and seeing as they had to give them up to their glorious rivals I should suppose that they weren't best pleased about the deal. Maybe the sons of God's punishment was seeing their own sons annihilated by the lowly men whom they were taking advantage of, Who knows!
---John_II on 7/24/09|
MarkV: "...why there was no mention of the daughters of God...?"
The lack of mention does not indicate that there weren't any holy 'daughters of God'. In my last post, I tried to make the point that the way the intermarriage is described in Ge6 is similar to what is stated in Ex34, which prohibited Israel's 'sons' from marrying pagan 'daughters'. Also of note is the fact the Bible indicates that the ancients used marriage ('giving/taking of daughters') in treaty-making. Think about Solomon and all of his wives. Given the data, what is stated in Ge6 communicates an unholy mingling of the two groups of people.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
---Bobby3 on 7/24/09|
That's not conclusive, Darlene. They saw the Nephilim and the descendants of Anak and even recognised three of them. These three were obviously not the result of the union of the sons of God and the descendants (daughters) of Anak who would have been of the giant kind (Nephilim). Though the giants would also be the descendants of Anak maternally. It seems then that the tribe of Anak had the beautiful daughters and was therefore selected by the sons of God for their trophies. Now did some smart Anakites, namely these three, collaborated with them for their faces to be so recognisable? A providence of daughters for the breeding of might men? I can't say that many Anakite men would have waited around!
---John_II on 7/23/09|
John II, mule was neat example,but Giants could reproduce,Numbers 13:33 speaks of the sons of Anak. Deuteronomy 2:10 speaks of two different races of Giants,the Anakim and the Emin.
---Darlene_1 on 7/23/09|
Bobby 3, I agree with you that when "sons of God" are mentioned they are mentioned in three categories just as you discribe. And I also agree they had to be the sons of Seth in Gen.6:4. Why I never looked at the passages closer was that I never had any interest in finding out for sure to make up my mind. So many other things to check.
On the reason you gave for why there was no mention of the daughters of God I did not understand your statement, because Seth had daughters and if the sons were holy, why no mention of daughters been holy? Another thing, if the sons of Seth were considered holy, why did Scripture mention no one was righteous but Noah?
Thank you so much for answering. The picture is getting clearer.
---MarkV. on 7/23/09|
"Others also question why only sons and not daughters are associated with the line of Seth?"
Consider Ex34:15-16, which says, "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land...And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same." Notice the lack of mention of Israel's daughters, which is very similar to what is described in Ge6 regarding the 'sons of God' taking the 'daughters of men'. The mystery goes away, then, when we consider the way intermarriage between peoples is described in the OT.
---Bobby3 on 7/22/09|
ii). So the glorious bodies [Phil 3:21] of the sons of God inseminated the lowly bodies of the daughters of men and produced issue that stood head, shoulders and chest above their earthly half-brethren. It became, not surprisingly, God's glory that they were mighty men of renown but this was not going to be the way to elevate man, he was languishing in sin and together corrupt and our dim light was to be snuffed out (nearly)! The flood was for ridding the Earth of man, not the giants. God has safeguards against procreation running amok and if you read on why mules can't procreate then you might just believe that the giants couldn't procreate neither. It just needed the sons of God to stop impregnating any more daughters of men.
---John_II on 7/22/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages
MarkV: "And why is the term 'sons of God' not used with this meaning in any other place?"
I know the questions were directed at Larry, but...
The term is used throughout the Bible, it seems, in three ways: (1)angels, (2)God's people, (3)judges/rulers. It refers to angels ONLY (correct me if I'm wrong) in Job. It refers to judges/rulers in Ps82 (cf Jn10:34,35), and the context clearly speaks of 'sons of God' as being men. However, overwhelmingly, the term corresponds to God's people, and Deu14:1 is an example of such a correspondence (which strongly supports the interpretation of 'sons of God' in Ge6 given the fact that Moses authored both passages).
---Bobby3 on 7/22/09|
Sadly Marvel Comics' Incredible Hulk has a more biblically based explanation for giants than most sermons/studies. Giants come as judgment for parent's bodily passions growing out of control i/e rage,lust.
Sons of God acted like worldly pop singer LamechGen 4. As Lamech married multiple wives and murdered multiple men, the "sons" took multiple wivesGenesis 6:2. Earth filled with violence and filth6:5,13.
3 manifest(obvious) Judgements: 1)BIG BODIED' HUMAN CHILDREN grew out of control in size.
Parents: When you sow an out of control life in your body, in judgement you reap children whose bodies grow OBVIOUSLY out of control".
2)2by2 entrance into God's protective ark. No threesomes!
3)All FLESH destroyed.
---Legends on 7/21/09|
"Where at ANY time has God ever called an angel... Son" --Apostle that wrote Hebrews.
Chapter 1 and 2 of Hebrews is a really simple explanation of how angels are incapable of being sons of God, only servents to God and His heirs. His heirs are his "sons"... namely Jesus and all humans(male and female) that are under the "ark" of protection through His blood.
Dispite what is expounded in sermons by great teachers and despite what excellent Biblical study guides suggest, the apostle's words in Hebrews still stand as truth. Opposing views are accursed.
This also includes any reference in the book of Job that we have incorrectly presumed that the term "sons of God" means angels.
---Legends on 7/21/09|
Larry, one of the questions against, "The "sons of God" who are reckoned to be the godly line of Seth while the "daughters of men" are of the line of Cain"
is, "how can these men be considered holy when the Bible states that only Noah was holy (Gen. 6:8,9)? And why is the term "sons of God" not used with this meaning in any other place? Others also question why only sons and not daughters are associated with the line of Seth?
Just something to think about.
---MarkV. on 7/21/09|
Bobby/Darline, thanks for your responses. I have looked into the three views or theories and all three have questions against them but the second theory is the one most often held within conservative scholarsip. The "sons of God" are reckoned to be the godly line of Seth while the
daughters of men" are the line of Cain. Thus the sin with which they are charged is one which is common to the whole of Scripture, and especially to the Pentateuch, the intermarriage of the chosen people of God (the believers) with those who are unholy, unbelievers. In either of the three theories, the indentity "sons of God" is uncertain. All three theories carry a lot to them but all three have questions about them.
---MarkV. on 7/19/09|
iii). Beware of the acute literalistic, they'll have you worried about stepping outside of two punctuation marks and you'll miss the message, they take great pride in showing you their strict adherence but you'll risk the word of God remaining on paper and not being conveyed to your heart. Sentences have main and dependent clauses and sometimes they are literally obtuse or ambiguous, so the answer is to meditate. God gives discernment if we are willing to deliberate on His word, consider that God gives limited disclosure on this subject with good reason, to keep our heads in situ! But if you decide to go extra-biblical regarding the Nephilim then be mindful of this: the sons of Satan are ready to take you on a very long fantastical ride.
---John_II on 7/19/09|
i). Are there days in Heaven? Satan had certainly come from the Earth and there is without doubt a display before the Lord by the sons of God away from this world at least. One day the sons of God from this age will be revealed and will cease to be sons of men, so from what age were they revealed? Were they like Enoch and Elijah and taken up into Sonship? The daughters of men would have had no resistance to the charm of the sons of God (not that they would try), and that's where the crime is in the taking of liberty, they simply took whom they chose. So why did God allow this? Wasn't it to make known His glory? By His mighty arm the 'grasshopper' Israelites routed giants leaving no doubt as to Who the Lord is and how far His message would go.
---John_II on 7/19/09|
Darlene, what I have been able to surmise from commentaries is the evil described in Genesis 6 is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all, that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. Whom they chose, not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks.
You are correct that Angels have no lustly passions for they are not of the flesh and we are reminded they do not marry, were not created as a race and therefore to not pro or recreate.
We do know Nephilim were mentioned after the flood and were rather large and I guess prone to be abusive. Even back then sized mattered.
---larry on 7/18/09|
Bobby/Darline, thanks for responding. Both of your view points have merit. As I have studied this event I have found out there is three theories on the sons of God. In which really, the indentity of the "sons of God" is still uncertain. My Complete Wordstudy of the Old Testament the word "son" when connect to God in Gen. 6: is probably refering to the godly lineage of Seth. Other occurences of "sons of God" generally signify heavenly creatures. But not in Gen. 6.
while there are three theories, the one that looks more likely is the second, which refers to the sons of Seth, who were chosen (believers)by God, marrying the daughters of Cain, who were (unbelievers). But this theory has questions.
---MarkV. on 7/17/09|
If the Word of God is true... Then it is true. You can throw words around, all day... When your'e done... Do you believe that the bible is inerrant? You see if you ask the Lord for wisdom, He will give it without prejudice... If you ask, seek and or knock... You will get the answer, find what you are looking for and the door will be opened to you... BECAUSE YOU DRAW NEAR TO GOD... Which, by the way is where the answers are... Not in your theology... or any other ology... Dude. Your most intelligent hypothesis is foolishness to Him...
---Rick6374 on 7/18/09|
MarkV since wrong theology of thinking angels can mate with humans has been preached,even from pulpits,I was showing why that cannot be correct.In Bible verses from New Testament it shows no matter what man called angels,God never called them his sons. When Jesus,Gods only son,was born he told the angels to worship Jesus. It goes on to show angels are ministering spirits,not flesh and blood,common sense dictates,therefore,unable to mate with humans. I'll add,which I didn't say there,fallen angels are reserved in chains of darkness until Judgement Day,not free to roam. Also the view they are demons is wrong,so they did not go into men and mate with women,its not in Bible. Satans and Angels power is only what God allows,he wouldn't allow that.
---Darlene_1 on 7/17/09|
The term 'sons of God' need not exclusively refer to angels, fallen or otherwise (as in Job). We need not look beyond the Pentateuch to find an example. "You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not..." (Deut 14:1). Here, the 'sons of God' are the Lord's people, Israel, not angels. The Bible elsewhere employs this phrase when referring to God's people. Check out these verses:
---Bobby3 on 7/14/09|
It was explained to me that angels, who whenever they appeared, were men and quite large instilling great fear.
The angels or demons that fell from heaven possessed evil men and thus created the large offspring. Scipture says they were around after the flood but God got rid of them somehow.
Angels of course are not biological organisms and incapable of procreation so they had to occupy(demonic possession) and have their way with daughters of earth.
I'm not sure where the evidence is but theologians seem to collectively suggest the Nephilim and giants such as Goliath were about 9 feet in height. Yipes!
A penny for my thoughts.
---larry on 7/14/09|
There are various books like Jubilees, Enoch, and other Jewish books that were well read in 1st century and ancient times as Midrashes on the Pre-flood subject.
However, one must take it all with a grain of salt and line it up with what is called the modern translated versions of main stream and traditional Christianity. There are also fake books of Enoch and Jasher circulated.
R.H. Charles did well respected translations of some of the books.
Ethiopian Christianity still uses some of the books to ascertain Pre-flood information.
---Yochanan on 7/14/09|
MarkV: I apologize for the lack of clarity. The 'descendants of Seth' interpretation makes sense, I believe, given the broader context of the passage. Genesis 4-5 details the brothers' lineages, contrasting wicked descendants of Cain with godly descendants of Seth. Note what is mentioned of each in chapter 4. Lamech follows in Cain's footsteps, while it is said of Enos, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" (v26). A curious statement follows this: "...the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him...And Adam...begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth" (5:1,3). The point, I believe, is to link Seth (and his descendants up to Noah) with God's image/likeness.
---Bobby3 on 7/14/09|
Darline, I only got a very small part of your statement. I am sure you have a lot to tell by your statement but I was not able to grasp it all. Can you provide more into your explanation about angels a little better? This way I don't make a mistake in reading it wrong. I thank you for answering, and would like to hear all you have on what you said.
The reason I ask is, whenever someone says something about God which I believe is wrong, I compare it to the nature and attributes of God to see how it hold against it. In your case you mention it could not be angels, but spirits and not human. Can you explain a bit more?
---MarkV. on 7/14/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays
MarkV,Sorry,I know nothing about Seth. I know this,Hebrews 1:4,5,6,7,14 (Jesus)Being made so much better than the angels,as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellant name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time,thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee? And again I will be to him a Father,and he shall be to me a Son. And again when he bringeth the first begotten into the world he saith,and let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith,Who maketh his angels spirits,and his ministers a flame of fire. Are they(angels)not all ministering spirits,sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. God didn't call angels sons and they are spirits,not ever flesh,who minister to saved.
---Darlene_1 on 7/14/09|
You're welcome MarkV. :) (Ro. 10:17, Heb. 11)
---Leon on 7/14/09|
Leon, thank you very much for answering me. Sorry you will not go further. The topic is very interesting. And there is nothing wrong with discussing material.
Bobby 3, you gave an explanation but I did not get what you were putting together with Seth. If you don't mind answering I would love to hear how you came out with your account, thank you brother for your answers too. As I told Leon, I am here to learn and if someone has something to help me it would be great. If not its ok.
---MarkV. on 7/14/09|
Eric1968 & Bobby3 - 1st Eric1968, I am not saying that scripture teaches that men took dictation for God, this is just a word picture (parable) of how it happened - God told (spoke His Word) them what to write (boss), and man wrote down what God said (secretary) - This IS in the Bible. 2nd Bobby3 you are looking at scripture from a Greek perspective (man's opinion), NOT a Hebrew perspective (God's opinion) - study the word Nephilim in the Hebrew, and you will see that they were indeed the offspring of Satan.
---Leslie on 7/13/09|
Leon, your argument that Satan has fallen from heaven does not mean he cannot go back and forth. What that meant was that he had lost his place from within the group of angels that didn't sin against God. He fell with those others who left with him.
Job 1:7 when God asked him "from where have you come from" and he answered back and forth on the earth, meant he was not on the earth at the time. Otherwise he would have said, here on earth.
And Rev. 12:7 is something that has not happened yet, but is to come, "And war broke out in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragons and his angels fought, but they did not prevail nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer."
---MarkV. on 7/13/09|
MarkV: Like I said, it's your choice to believe as you like no matter how wrong. Peace! :)
---Leon on 7/13/09|
Leon, you gave me a lot of stories but no passages to go with your account. That is why I said if you know something I don't please put it down so that I can read them. I don't see anything to whether they were in the angelic realm or earth. No passages that say they were from Seth. Or whether they were humans and how you know that. There has to be something to that effect so that the account can have some authenticity. Otherwise it is just something made up. You can believe the Bible but show where in the Bible it says what you say. We are suppose to be sharing information.
---MarkV. on 7/12/09|
MarkV: It's your choice to believe as you like. But, where does Scripture say Satan had/has the perogative to reenter heaven after being kicked out? The Bible says he comes & goes, "in the earth...walking up & down in it." (Job 1:7 & 2:2) Doesn't that mean on the ground?
The talks were between God & Satan ONLY. Not God, Satan & the sons of God.
True, i.e., Satan isn't omniscient. Did you mean omnipresent (everywhere at all times)? He's not omnipresent nor is he omnipotent either. Let me fill in your blanks. I said Satan was "likely" summoned by God. That's why he was in the land of Uz. He had no choice!
Commentaries? Sorry, I'd rather believe the Bible. :)
---Leon on 7/12/09|
Darline/Bobby 2: I would have liked to see some passages stating they were sons of Seth. None are found to conclude they were the same as on the Passage Gen. 6:4. Leon says that Satan does not have the perogative to enter heaven but he is wrong, Satan is able to come and go. He is not omniscience only God is. So to say that the talks that God and Satan and the sons of God had was on earth is not written anywhere. Most commentaries say they were in heaven, and the sons of God were there. I was hoping that many of you would provide Scripture to what you understand. I have gave 2 Peter, 2:4,5, Jude 6.
---MarkV. on 7/12/09|
Leon, I heard of the account Gen. 6:4 you just gave, Though you said alot, you didn't provide passages that say they were children of Seth. Are that they were not angels. Can you show where they came from? And when they were with God, and Satan, you say they were on earth. On the ground. How is that possible since God and Satan are spirit, and God is omniscience but Satan is not. Can you show passages that Satan was on the ground when they got together? Maybe you have something I need to know or learn.
I thank you for responding on your account. I had read about that account and the other on a hermeneutics book. The book I have has all three accounts of Gen 6:4, the two accounts of the flood, and the three of the end times.
---MarkV. on 7/10/09|
Very important fact we need to remember,Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry,nor are given in marriage,but are as the Angels of God in Heaven. God created the Angels and He set the rules for them,no marriage. Now God didn't allow the "good Angels" to marry or have intimate relationships,does it make any logical sense to think He would allow the "fallen Angels" to take that liberty especially with humans. When God makes a rule for Angels in Heaven there is no way He would ignore that rule,for the rule was made on the Angel Creatures not on the location so no matter where the Angels were they are still under God's Rules. God doesn't reward disobedience he punishes it.
---Darlene_1 on 7/10/09|
Leon: "...descended from the line of Seth..."
I also favor this interpretation given the broader context of the passage. The preceding chapters focus on the lineages of Cain and Seth (leading up to Noah), respectively. The intermarriage and subsequent production of offspring contaminated Seth's line, making necessary the need to 'start from scratch' (the Flood).
It is also interesting to note what is said of Seth in chapter 5: "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him...And Adam...begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth" (vv1-3). I think this in particular emphasizes Seth's being the 'godly' line.
---Bobby3 on 7/10/09|
MarkV: Okay friend, let's get it straight. :) I think it's wrong to assume the sons of God mentioned in G6:4 were fallen angels. Angels are spirit beings without physical bodies. They can't create physical bodies for themselves. Only God gives His ministering spirits (angels) physical presence for His "good purposes".
I see the sons of God as men descended from the line of Seth -- God worshippers -- who yoked themselves together with unbelieving women (likely from the line of Cain). God displeasing wickedness followed.
Jesus saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. (Lk. 10:18) Rev. 12:7-9 also shows how Satan fell to earth. As an exile he doesn't have the perogative to enter heaven as he pleases.
---Leon on 7/10/09|
MarkV, continued: So, it's not that Satan was in Heaven -- he wasn't. Rather, he was going to & fro in the earth. (Job 1:7) In other words, he was wandering around in it seeking to destroy... (1 Pt. 5:8)
Now, God descended to earth & was in the midst of His earthly worshippers (sons of God), i.e., Job, etc. (Matt. 18:19-20) The dialogue between Spirit God & Satan (a spirit) happened unbeknownst to Job & the other gathered worshippers. Likely, Satan was summoned then challenged by God.
The misconception many people have is in thinking the book of Job shows the sons of God are angels. Therefore, God, angels & Satan must be in Heaven. Not so! It happened on earth, in the land of Uz.
---Leon on 7/10/09|
Leon, Lets get something streight, the events that happened in Gen. 6:4 give us three interpretive accounts that are known by many. Many of you have your views and so do I. Not that my view is better or right, but the one that I came together with other passages. The conclusion I came out with is that they were angels. They are mentioned in Job 1:6 where it mentions the sons of God together with God and Satan, Job:2:1 mentions again the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together all the sons of God shouted with joy. This happened at the beginning of creation for God tells Job, where were you? All this is happening in the angelic realm.
---MarkV. on 7/9/09|
Leon #3, I meant Numbers 13:33 sorry.
---MarkV. on 7/9/09|
Leslie, there is no place in the Bible where it is claimed or taught that the writers were like secretaries taking God's dictation. That is absurd. Whoever told you that was pulling your leg! I may not be a Christian, but that doesn't prevent me from knowing when Christians don't know what they are talking about.
---eric1968 on 7/9/09|
SusieB,you're more than welcome. I love doing research anyway. Yes there are so many myths which sadly even get preached on from the pulpit as if they were Bible. I sure would hate to hang the sheets to that bed on the clothesline! My big question about the giants isn't if they existed,glad I answered that for you though,but I saw they were in the earth before the flood and they were in the earth after the flood. I don't think they were in the Gene pool either to pass down,because once they were gone none showed up on earth. The people we have as Giants now don't need a bed that size and next to a real Giant they would look normal or even short.
---Darlene_1 on 7/9/09|
Nephilim 2: this individuals "fell" on others in the sense of overpowering them ,( the only other use of this term is in Num. 13:33. The were already in the earth when the 'mighty Men' and men of renown were born. The fallen ones are not the offspring from the union in 6:2. Jude 6 speaks of this angels "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode." God reserve them in everlasting chains under darkness.
---MarkV. on 7/9/09|
Leslie: "Nephilim were NOT heros but seeds of Satan."
Really? Where does it say 'seeds of Satan'?
Again, the verse in question (Gen 6:4) does not explicitly state the Nephilim were the offspring of 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men'. The most we can say is that the Nephilim were contemporaries of the 'sons of God'.
Leon: "...the physical off-springs would be human..."
I agree completely.
---Bobby3 on 7/9/09|
Eric1968 & Larry - 1st Eric1968 - Genesis and ALL of the Bible were written by God. It is like a secretary transcribing a letter for her boss. God spoke the words, and man wrote down God's words (word for word). A myth is also false, which the Bible is NOT. 2nd Larry - It seems like you and Eric1968 are on the same page - You are NOT Christians, but deny God and His Word to be TRUTH.
---Leslie on 7/9/09|
"To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies."
What do you mean by your statement MarkV. Are you saying somehow fallen angels (demons) were/"are" capable of making human male bodies to live in or are you saying they possessed (controlled) the bodies of already existing human males?
While demon possession is very real, even if demon spirits possessed men, the physical off-springs would be human -- not some kind of procreated half demon angel-human hybrid as many wrongly believe.
Please explain. Thanks.
---Leon on 7/9/09|
Very interesting Leslie, but are you sure God made the all-male angels capable of reproduction?
I found this...
The Nephilim were an antediluvian race (pre-flood) race which are referred to in the Bible as giants. They were reportedly the children born from the "daughters of men'', and the "Sons of God''. It is most important to note that they are mentioned almost simultaneous to God's statement that He would destroy the earth by flood, and it seems from this association that their affect upon mankind was one of the primary justifications that brought the destruction.
---larry on 7/9/09|
The sons of God identified elsewhere almost exclusively as angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). They took wives of the human race. This produced an unnatural union which violated the God-ordained order of human marriage and procreation (Gen. 2:24). The passage puts strong emphasis on the angelic vs human contrast. The N.T. places this account in sequence with other Genesis events and identifies it as involving fallen angels who endwelt men (2 Peter 2:4,5, Jude 8). Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies. The word "Nephilim" is from a root meaning "fell"
---MarkV. on 7/9/09|
Leslie and Betty, myths are not lies. They are stories written to make a point. But in any case God didn't write Genesis, humans did. I have no idea whether there was a disciple Thomas. But it makes a for interesting reading.
---eric1968 on 7/8/09|
Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33. Nephilim were cruel and oppressive men. Some people believe that the Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) makes reference to them being physically large. There are others that incorrectly believe that the sons of God were Angels, but here they are Sethites. The two lines of men mentioned are through Cain, Genesis 4:17 and Seth, 5:6. 6:2,4 says that the sons (human) of God had children with the (ungodly) daughters of men. It wasn't proper for the men to do so, (1Corinthians 7:15, 2Corinthians 6:14-18). In Numbers most commentators would say that they are both tyrants and very tall.
---Glenn on 7/8/09|
Bobby3 & Eric1968 - 1st Bobby3 - Nephilim were NOT heros but seeds of Satan. If you look at what God called the angels (sons of God) you will see that fallen angels had Nephilim (giants) as offspring. 2nd Eric1968 - What you have said about Nephilim being myth you are saying that God is a myth and a liar, and that God's Word is myth and a lie. God and His Word are very much NOT myths and very much TRUTH.
---Leslie on 7/8/09|
Darlene...Thanks so much. I could have looked it up myself, but, hey, I got you to do it for me. Actually, I did look up the scriptures that have been used here. Can't say that there are any scriptures that support this question fully. It seems that there is always so many myths or personal opinions that are mixed into so-called Biblical teachings. Your post was the only one that verified that the giants did exist because that was one big bed.
---SusieB on 7/8/09|
eric- Maybe you're not real either. After seeing some of the posts you make on these blogs, I think you're worse than doubting Thomas. Ooops - let me ask you this: did Thomas exist?
---Betty on 7/8/09|
Betty: "Yes...The Bible said so."
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (Gen 6:4).
An explicit identification of the Nephilim with such offspring is lacking. The most we can say about the Nephilim is that they lived 'on the earth in those days' and were 'heroes of old'.
The idea in question develops from the assumption that the 'sons of God' were fallen angels. However, other interpretations are possible (and more likely): The 'sons of God' were descendants of Seth, or perhaps could be the sons of individuals of authority (rulers).
---Bobby3 on 7/7/09|
SusieB, you must be joking I'm awful at math,but ha ha, I'm good at looking things up. Here's what I found, Current World Almanac Cubits,the bed is 13'25" Long, & 5'8" wide. Biblical Cubits,L 13'25",W 5'83". Ancient Israli Cubits,L 13'20",W 5'86".Noahs L 15'22",W 5'76". Hope this helps,I gave so many because I don't know which one was used at that time. You can see whichever one was used they are all pretty close anyway.
---Darlene_1 on 7/7/09|
The Nephilim are just characters in Jewish mythology. They are no more real than cyclopses or unicorns.
---eric1968 on 7/7/09|
I believe that what the bible says it is. No parable needed.
---candice on 7/7/09|
Darlene wrote: "Deuteronomy 3:11 tells size of giant king's bed, 9 cubits long & 4 cubits wide."
Darlene...Could you please tell us mathematically challenged people how big this is?
---SusieB on 7/7/09|
Yes, they were offspring of (fallen) angels and humans. The Bible said so. The fallen angels were demons.
---Betty on 7/7/09|
I agree with Leslie and Gabby.
---mima on 7/7/09|
Lynda,no the Nephilim weren't the offspring of angels and humans,but there were giants. In Genesis 6:4 you will see the giants were alreaady in the land before the Sons of God married the Daughters of men,There were giants in the earth in those days,and also after that,when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,and they bear children to them,the same became mighty men which were of old,men of renown. In the Bible people who love and serve God have been called sons of God,and sinners would be daughters of men,not saved. Deuteronomy 3:11 tells size of giant king's bed, 9 cubits long & 4 cubits wide.
---Darlene_1 on 7/6/09|
The Nephilim were indeed an offspring of angels and humans. They are the race of giants, and offspring of Satan. This is NOT myth, but is Biblical. Since angels are very massive (large) in size (according to the Bible), this is how it becomes possible.
---Leslie on 7/6/09|
Why did God send the flood? God sent the flood because of the fallen angels that left heaven and came to earth to have children with the daughters of Adam and Eve. The offspring of this union were the Nephilim or giants (Genesis 6:1-4 and Jude v6). This was an attempt by Satan to pollute the blood line of Adam and Eve which is the same blood line that Jesus Christ came from (Luke 3:23-38).
---Gabby on 7/6/09|