Nephilim

[Phoenix]

In my opinion there are 3 different characters in the first 5 verses of Genesis 6. God, sons of God, men.

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

men notice it didnt say sons of God.

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

sons of God there is obviously a reason why this title was stated because it differs in character from the title men in the first verse. right?

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

flesh The NIV states that this can also mean corrupt. The 120 years.. I put that down to the length of time Man has on earth till the Flood. I could be wrong though.
Edit: I am also one that isnt into sorting things out mathematically.. i hate maths to be honest.

4There 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.

and also after that, This, to me, is stating that there were giants on earth after “those days”. Which makes sense since Goliath was around way after the days of the Flood. Also the comma “;” defines a break in the purpose of the sentence where the writer briefly states that there was another time these giants existed, then he moves on back to the purpose of the sentence. Did I make sense then?

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And then, of course, this is when the story moves on towards Noah and the Ark then the Flood.

Again this is my opinion or how I see it.

Hugs
Phoenix

[Phoenix]

Quote (Mercy @ Aug. 03 2006,20:52)

Jude v.14 14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” You are right that it does not say “the book of Enoch” it simply states Enoch prophesied.   Jude v. 4 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Where was this condemnation written about? Enoch 1:9 9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. No matter how you slice Jude quotes this book.  What are you basing your belief on? I am basing it on the affirmations found in the very same bible you have.  This affirmation is then confirmed by actual history. I do want you to know that I admire your stance to protect God's word from false teachings.  I also know that our salvation is not dependent at all on agreeing about this.  I also don't want you to think I believe that you have to agree with me.  Because I don't think that.   It boils down to me believing that this world is wrapped in darkness by spiritual forces.  I believe that these spiritual forces will do anything to keep man from understanding the full impact of their dark activities.  I believe that honest scrutiny of scripture confirms what Enoch teaches and agrees with it. These spiritual forces are active and want these truths to remain hidden. It will do neither one of us any good for me to keep “trying to convince you” so I will stop.  But I would suggest to you to read Enoch and compare it to what your bible says and then realize that it predates the new testament.  Some say that they won't touch another book so that they won't be led astray.  I believe we are to test the spirits and you can't test something that you won't at least consider. I will leave off with this: II Timothy 2:23 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. So I won't argue you with ya about it. Instead I will build you up by admiring your commitement to the revelation you have in the canon you hold. And I John 4:7-8 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. I love you in Christ

Excellent notion!

Also, to those that say the Book of Enoch is not biblical, I would prefer to say not canonical.

Just because the scholars removed the book does not mean that they were 100% correct. IMHO

[NickHassan]

topical

[NickHassan]

Topical

[Wakeup]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 30 2007,11:17)

Quote (Mercy @ Aug. 03 2006,20:52) Jude v.14 14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” You are right that it does not say “the book of Enoch” it simply states Enoch prophesied.   Jude v. 4 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Where was this condemnation written about? Enoch 1:9 9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. No matter how you slice Jude quotes this book.  What are you basing your belief on? I am basing it on the affirmations found in the very same bible you have.  This affirmation is then confirmed by actual history. I do want you to know that I admire your stance to protect God's word from false teachings.  I also know that our salvation is not dependent at all on agreeing about this.  I also don't want you to think I believe that you have to agree with me.  Because I don't think that.   It boils down to me believing that this world is wrapped in darkness by spiritual forces.  I believe that these spiritual forces will do anything to keep man from understanding the full impact of their dark activities.  I believe that honest scrutiny of scripture confirms what Enoch teaches and agrees with it. These spiritual forces are active and want these truths to remain hidden. It will do neither one of us any good for me to keep “trying to convince you” so I will stop.  But I would suggest to you to read Enoch and compare it to what your bible says and then realize that it predates the new testament.  Some say that they won't touch another book so that they won't be led astray.  I believe we are to test the spirits and you can't test something that you won't at least consider. I will leave off with this: II Timothy 2:23 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. So I won't argue you with ya about it. Instead I will build you up by admiring your commitement to the revelation you have in the canon you hold. And I John 4:7-8 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. I love you in Christ Excellent notion! Also, to those that say the Book of Enoch is not biblical, I would prefer to say not canonical. Just because the scholars removed the book does not mean that they were 100% correct. IMHO

Phoenix.

For what reason was enoch taken?

wakeup.

[terraricca]

ALL

6:1 And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth.

2 And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 5 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.lxx VERSION

6 And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, 7 then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. 8 And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle, and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them.LXX VERSION

DOES VERSE 4 (VERSE 5 IN LXX) MEANS THE SAME THING THAN IN THE niv

Ge 6:4 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.

[Proclaimer]

This teacher holds to the “Sons of Seth” theory.

[kerwin]

t8,

There is certainly a stronger though circumstantial case the offspring of the sons of Seth and daughters of Cain were called Nephilim.

I think the Seventh Day Adventist taught me that Seth and his line were Nephilim.

[GeneBalthrop]

T8……HE HAS SOME GOOD POINTS ABOUT THE GIANTS OR NEPHILIM OF THE EARTH, AND ABOUT HOW PEOPLE TAKE SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT, without “SPECIFIC” scriptures that back up their hypothesis. ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE MISLEADING and have created all kinds of false teachings. IF WE MAKE A CLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING WE DO NEED CLEAR AND SPICIFIC SCRIPTURES TO MAKE THE POINTS WE ARE TRYING TO GET ACROSS. IMO

peace and love to you and yours. ……..gene

[Ed J]

Hi T8,

I assume you are looking for feedback since we are all well studied.
After listening to just the first 1:23 I noted that he said there is
clear scripture for Everything he believes. Yet the Scripture
that he cited for his first belief is interpretive at best.

So his premise is not at all established by his first example.
Looking forward to hearing his interpretive assessment of Gen 6:2,4.
But here is a verse that I would like to cite as to a comparative assessment.

“But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn,
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than that of Abel.” (Heb 12:22-24)

Did you know the Greek Septuagint Bible calls Beni ha-Eloheem (Son(s) of God) in Job Angels?
But nevertheless I look forward to hearing “his interpretive views” of the Gen 6:2,4 story.

____________
God bless
Ed J

[Ed J]

Hi Everyone,

That brings to light an important point that I would like to expound upon.
Is it best to give an interpretive assessment to get the point across?

What I mean is, the usage of less accurate wording,
yet more accurate to the intended meaning
To make my point I cite two examples:

Example #1:
“But here is a verse that I would like to cite as to a comparative assessment”

Here I used the word “VERSE” instead of the word ‘verses’,
yet what I cited was “THREE VERSES” (instead of just one).

Q1. Why did I use an interpretive wording (verse) instead of a more accurate wording (verses)?
1A. Because the word “verse” implies one idea contextually, while the word ‘verses’
implies multiple contextual usages. Therefore the word “VERSE” is more accurate
to the intent of the meaning, while the word VERSES can be misconstrued.

Example #2.

Q2 Why does the “AKJV Bible” uses the term “LORD of Hosts”
while the ‘NWT Bible’ uses the term “JEHOVAH of Armies”.
This is a replicative example of my first example.

A2. The term “LORD of Hosts” invokes the idea of “a spiritual based collective enterprise”,
while the term “”JEHOVAH of Armies” invokes the idea of “a physical based fighting force”.
Therefore I believe the phrase “LORD of Hosts” is more accurate to the intent God meant,
while “JEHOVAH of Armies” is a more accurate wording scheme – it can be misconstrued.

[Ed J]

Example #3:

Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (in the AKJV Bible) from this generation for ever.

…..1. The Greek Septuagint Bible (first Greek bible)
…..2. The Latin Vulgate Bible (first Latin bible)
…..3. The Wycliffe Bible (first English bible)

…..4. The Tyndale New Testament
…..5. The Great Bible
…..6. The Geneva Bible
…..7. The Bishops Bible

………[b]“AKJV Bible”[/b]

Here is yet another replicative example of my point. It has been pointed
out to me that The Latin Vulgate Bible was not the first Latin bible.

I’m not sure if that is true or not, but the Latin Vulgate Bible was
the first Latin bible in wide-scale usage used in orthodoxy.
The Latin Bible was the first usage of the name ‘Lucifer’
and essential to critical Biblical doctrine of satan.

Lucifer means: ‘to boast or make a showing and selfish rage or praise’.
The name Lucifer also means ‘giver of light and bright morning star’.

2Thess. 2:4 says: {Lucifer} opposes and exalts himself above all
that is “called God=63” (YHVH=63), or that is worshipped;
so that he {Lucifer} as ‘I AM god’ sits in the temple
of God, showing himself that he is God.

_____________
God bless
Ed J

[Ed J]

Hi Everyone,

Sorry for the slight derivation,
but I believe it relative to the topic.
Now back to the specifics of the thread:

I believe Beni ha-Eloheem (Son(s) of God) in Gen 6:2
are indeed Angels rather than merely the sons of Abel.

After all, the term Beni ha-Abel could have just as easily been used, which could
not be misconstrued to be Angels, if Angels were the wrong interpretive meaning.

I hope my four posts collectively make the case that it was the Angles that took to wive
daughters of men. The term Beni ha-Cain was not used either, but easily could have been.

____________
God bless
Ed J

[Ed J]

Hi Everyone, context, context, context!

Here we see contextually written just 4 to 6 verses later the term “perfect in his generations”
The interpretive meaning here is DNA, which implies Beni ha-Eloheem were indeed Angels.

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah
was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” (Gen 6:8-9)

…OK, back to video…

[kerwin]

Ed,

Genetics is not the perfect that is most important to God.

Seth’ line is traced back to God’s creation of humanity (Genesis 5) while Cain’s line is not. Instead his line is traced to the results of his crime. (Genesis 19:24)

Even in Cain’s birth 23 verses earlier the creation of humanity is not reiterated. God does the same thing when speaking of Seth’s birth but in the later case he states it was only after Seth’s birth that humanity began to call on the name of the Lord.

It is those that adhere to the word of God that are perfect in his sight. By the time man began to call on the name of the Lord Cain had already departed from God’s presence.

[kerwin]

Ed,

Q2 Why does the “AKJV Bible” uses the term “LORD of Hosts”
while the ‘NWT Bible’ uses the term “JEHOVAH of Armies”.
This is a replication example of my first example.

They mean the same thing but the translators of the LXII translated Yawheh to the Lord and AV of the KJV followed that convention.
Hosts and Armies are a synonyms as is Legions which Jesus himself used.

[Ed J]

Ed,

Genetics is not the perfect that is most important to God.

Seth’ line is traced back to God’s creation of humanity (Genesis 5) while Cain’s line is not. Instead his line is traced to the results of his crime. (Genesis 19:24)

Even in Cain’s birth 23 verses earlier the creation of humanity is not reiterated. God does the same thing when speaking of Seth’s birth but in the later case he states it was only after Seth’s birth that humanity began to call on the name of the Lord.

It is those that adhere to the word of God that are perfect in his sight. By the time man began to call on the name of the Lord Cain had already departed from God’s presence.

Hi Kerwin,

OK, why then did God command Joshua’s army to kill ‘the giants’,
all the women and all the children. Is this not called Genocide?

____________
God bless
Ed J

[Ed J]

Ed,

Q2 Why does the “AKJV Bible” uses the term “LORD of Hosts”
while the ‘NWT Bible’ uses the term “JEHOVAH of Armies”.
This is a replication example of my first example.

(A) They mean the same thing but the translators of the LXII translated
(B) Yawheh to the Lord and AV of the KJV followed that convention.
(C) Hosts and Armies are a synonyms as is Legions which Jesus himself used.

Hi Kerwin,

A) What you are giving is an “interpretive assessment” that they mean the same thing.
Though I happen to agree with you, you may not be agreeing with me. Which is:
“JEHOVAH of Armies” can be misconstrued, while “LORD of Hosts” cannot.
Do you agree with me or not? But I agree that they mean the same.

B) …[b](Link)[/b]

C) I disagree that Legions can be interchanged, because that
would certainly be misconstrued while Armies may or may not be.
You don’t even know what God’s name is because of misconstrusion

____________
God bless
Ed J

[Proclaimer]

Archaeological Evidence for Giants in the Bible

The Bible talks about giants, but has any archaeological evidence for giants been found? Genesis refers to the Nephilim and their descendants. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles mention other giants, like Goliath, describing their height and the size and weight of their weapons.

Does archaeology correlate with these accounts?

[Proclaimer]

North American Mythology and the Nephilim

Is there such mythology?

[Author]

Posts