Genesis 6: The sons of God and the Nephilim
Just did a lengthy study on this. Iron sharpens iron. What is the your viewpoint and what is the evidence of your claims?
Charity · 61-69
And I'm adding my other belief to your post when you speak of iron sharpens irons, concerning the header topic Nephiliums.
Daniel 2:43 tells us that they will mingle themselves with the seed of man, and it tells us that iron and clay don't mix. The "they" are heavenly beings mixing their DNA with the DNA (seed)of man, isn't the woman's egg is considered a seed and the male sperm is considered a seed. Which also refers to Matthew 24:38 when it says they will be eating and drinking and Marion and giving it to marriage like it was in the days of Noah.
The iron is the angels and the clay is man, man is made from dirt / from clays the angels will who knows but not of the elements of the Earth.
Matthew 24:38 KJV - For as in the days that were before the - Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024%3A38&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202%3A43-45&version=KJV
Most of Christian pastors teach that they are referring to people which doesn't make any sense. People mingling themselves with the seed of man!!! And it's natural for people to eat to drink to marry and to be given into marriage in respect ordained by God to do so.
And when you hear educated, good sense, people with good reputations speak of abduction and those who are doing the abducting or taking their DNA and creating alien / human hybrids all you have to do is look into the Bible and see that people thousands of years ago wrote of the same thing.
Abductions I have to touch on that - Enoch and Elijah were taken from the Earth what would be called in these modern days alien abduction.
Whether you believe in scripture or not that's your concern, yet I asked how can one ignore what is written in the Bible and what is going on in these modern days that is prophesied to occur.
Thanks for the conversation!
Daniel 2:43 tells us that they will mingle themselves with the seed of man, and it tells us that iron and clay don't mix. The "they" are heavenly beings mixing their DNA with the DNA (seed)of man, isn't the woman's egg is considered a seed and the male sperm is considered a seed. Which also refers to Matthew 24:38 when it says they will be eating and drinking and Marion and giving it to marriage like it was in the days of Noah.
The iron is the angels and the clay is man, man is made from dirt / from clays the angels will who knows but not of the elements of the Earth.
Matthew 24:38 KJV - For as in the days that were before the - Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024%3A38&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%202%3A43-45&version=KJV
Most of Christian pastors teach that they are referring to people which doesn't make any sense. People mingling themselves with the seed of man!!! And it's natural for people to eat to drink to marry and to be given into marriage in respect ordained by God to do so.
And when you hear educated, good sense, people with good reputations speak of abduction and those who are doing the abducting or taking their DNA and creating alien / human hybrids all you have to do is look into the Bible and see that people thousands of years ago wrote of the same thing.
Abductions I have to touch on that - Enoch and Elijah were taken from the Earth what would be called in these modern days alien abduction.
Whether you believe in scripture or not that's your concern, yet I asked how can one ignore what is written in the Bible and what is going on in these modern days that is prophesied to occur.
Thanks for the conversation!
dcba9876 · 41-45, M
Let me pose this and get some feedback. I will only be referring to the "sons of God" in this message.
The identification of the "sons of God," depending on context will either be human or angel.
The proof-text passage for the "sons of God" in (Gen.6:2,4) as angels comes from (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The argument is, because the sons of God are identified as angels in Job based on context, then the sons of God in Genesis are also angels. One of the obvious problems with this interpretive method is taking the words and context in Job and inserting it into Genesis. Why is this a problem?
The phrase "sons of God" in majority usage doesn't refer to angels, but to believers (Ps.82:6/ Mal.2:10/ Lk.20:36/ Jn.1:12/ Rom.8:14-23/ Phil.2:15/ Gal.3:26/ Heb.2:10; 12:7/ 1 Jn.3:1-2); There's just not enough context in Genesis 6 to substantiate a definitive angelic interpretation
Genesis—Deuteronomy (written by Moses) always designates "sons of God" to the nation of Israel (Ex.4:22-23/ Deut.14:1; 32:5-6, 18-20.... see also Ps.73:15; 80:15/ Is.43:6/ Hos.1:10; 2:1; 11:1)
When Moses uses the word "angel" it's the Hebrew word "mal'ak" which is used 40x's in the Penteteuch, with around 15-20x's in Genesis depending on translation; the very first occurrence is found in (Gen.16:7) where it refers to a Theophany. Each reference when it refers to angels always calls them angels, not sons of God. The author of Job was aware of the term "angel" (mal'ak) in (Job 4:18).
Why would Moses use the phrase "sons of God" to refer to angels in (Genesis 6) when everywhere else he uses the term "angels" if he had spiritual beings in view?
If you carefully read (Gen.6-9) you'll consistently find the terms "he, his, flesh, man" but not once do we find any address, fault, nor judgment to any angles or angel-hybrid offspring; keep in mind when Adam/Eve sinned in the Garden, everyone involved was addressed, that includes the spiritual power behind the serpent, so it would only make sense if angels breeding with women was the cause for the flood, then the angels should also have been mentioned here in Genesis.
We know the sons of God are angels in Job, not because of the phrase itself, but because of the context.
The Greek equivalent of the Hebrew phrase "bene ha Elohim" (only found exactly in Gen.6:2, 4/ Job 1:6; 2:1) is "huioi tou Theou" which is the plural form; in (Rom.8:19), the singular form "huion tou Theou" is used of believers in Christ
The Greek equivalent of the Hebrew phrase "bene elim/Elohim" which is found in (Job 38:7/ Ps.29:1; 89:6) is "huioi Theou" plural while (Ps.89:6) is singular referring to angels....which is also found in (Mt.5:9/ Gal.3:26) describing believers in Christ. (Mt 5:9) Is especially of interest since the application of the term "sons of God" to humans is made prior to the coming of the SPIRIT and regeneration of truly born-again believers.
In (Job 38:7), the definite article is dropped. In (Hos.1:10) it's Bene El Chay and in (Ps.82:6) is Bene Elyon. So, the sons of God, sons of the Living God, and sons of the Most High God are all synonyms; all same difference with different phrases. We have the same examples with (Num.6:32) "bene Yisrael," (2 Kn.17:20) "zera Yisrael," and (Ex.16:31) "beyth Yisrael"; all three being synonyms. They are just different ways to say the same thing. So, "sons of God" is not an exclusive reference to angelic beings.
One rebuttal is that the Septuagint (LXX) in (Gen.6:2, 4/ Job 1:6; 2:1) uses the phrase "angels of God" and "My angels" in (Job 38:7) and the problem with this is that it's an interpretive translation based of the translators understanding, not an actual translation from the Hebrew into Greek
In the N.T. (e.g. Mt.5:9/ Rom.8:14/ Gal.5:26), if you take "sons of God" in Greek and translate it back into Hebrew, it actually translates back to what people are saying are the angels in Genesis.
While Angels do appear in the N.T., they are usually referred to in the Greek singular form aggelos or aggeloi, the plural form
Why am I saying all of this? Because the context of Genesis 6 does not point nor refer to angels, but to people. Nothing in Genesis whatsoever even hints to angels. The pattern of those who hold to the angelic position always go outside the writings of Moses (internal evidence in Job) and (external evidence in the pseudepigraphal works of the book of Enoch).
What say you all?
The identification of the "sons of God," depending on context will either be human or angel.
The proof-text passage for the "sons of God" in (Gen.6:2,4) as angels comes from (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The argument is, because the sons of God are identified as angels in Job based on context, then the sons of God in Genesis are also angels. One of the obvious problems with this interpretive method is taking the words and context in Job and inserting it into Genesis. Why is this a problem?
The phrase "sons of God" in majority usage doesn't refer to angels, but to believers (Ps.82:6/ Mal.2:10/ Lk.20:36/ Jn.1:12/ Rom.8:14-23/ Phil.2:15/ Gal.3:26/ Heb.2:10; 12:7/ 1 Jn.3:1-2); There's just not enough context in Genesis 6 to substantiate a definitive angelic interpretation
Genesis—Deuteronomy (written by Moses) always designates "sons of God" to the nation of Israel (Ex.4:22-23/ Deut.14:1; 32:5-6, 18-20.... see also Ps.73:15; 80:15/ Is.43:6/ Hos.1:10; 2:1; 11:1)
When Moses uses the word "angel" it's the Hebrew word "mal'ak" which is used 40x's in the Penteteuch, with around 15-20x's in Genesis depending on translation; the very first occurrence is found in (Gen.16:7) where it refers to a Theophany. Each reference when it refers to angels always calls them angels, not sons of God. The author of Job was aware of the term "angel" (mal'ak) in (Job 4:18).
Why would Moses use the phrase "sons of God" to refer to angels in (Genesis 6) when everywhere else he uses the term "angels" if he had spiritual beings in view?
If you carefully read (Gen.6-9) you'll consistently find the terms "he, his, flesh, man" but not once do we find any address, fault, nor judgment to any angles or angel-hybrid offspring; keep in mind when Adam/Eve sinned in the Garden, everyone involved was addressed, that includes the spiritual power behind the serpent, so it would only make sense if angels breeding with women was the cause for the flood, then the angels should also have been mentioned here in Genesis.
We know the sons of God are angels in Job, not because of the phrase itself, but because of the context.
The Greek equivalent of the Hebrew phrase "bene ha Elohim" (only found exactly in Gen.6:2, 4/ Job 1:6; 2:1) is "huioi tou Theou" which is the plural form; in (Rom.8:19), the singular form "huion tou Theou" is used of believers in Christ
The Greek equivalent of the Hebrew phrase "bene elim/Elohim" which is found in (Job 38:7/ Ps.29:1; 89:6) is "huioi Theou" plural while (Ps.89:6) is singular referring to angels....which is also found in (Mt.5:9/ Gal.3:26) describing believers in Christ. (Mt 5:9) Is especially of interest since the application of the term "sons of God" to humans is made prior to the coming of the SPIRIT and regeneration of truly born-again believers.
In (Job 38:7), the definite article is dropped. In (Hos.1:10) it's Bene El Chay and in (Ps.82:6) is Bene Elyon. So, the sons of God, sons of the Living God, and sons of the Most High God are all synonyms; all same difference with different phrases. We have the same examples with (Num.6:32) "bene Yisrael," (2 Kn.17:20) "zera Yisrael," and (Ex.16:31) "beyth Yisrael"; all three being synonyms. They are just different ways to say the same thing. So, "sons of God" is not an exclusive reference to angelic beings.
One rebuttal is that the Septuagint (LXX) in (Gen.6:2, 4/ Job 1:6; 2:1) uses the phrase "angels of God" and "My angels" in (Job 38:7) and the problem with this is that it's an interpretive translation based of the translators understanding, not an actual translation from the Hebrew into Greek
In the N.T. (e.g. Mt.5:9/ Rom.8:14/ Gal.5:26), if you take "sons of God" in Greek and translate it back into Hebrew, it actually translates back to what people are saying are the angels in Genesis.
While Angels do appear in the N.T., they are usually referred to in the Greek singular form aggelos or aggeloi, the plural form
Why am I saying all of this? Because the context of Genesis 6 does not point nor refer to angels, but to people. Nothing in Genesis whatsoever even hints to angels. The pattern of those who hold to the angelic position always go outside the writings of Moses (internal evidence in Job) and (external evidence in the pseudepigraphal works of the book of Enoch).
What say you all?
Charity · 61-69
@dcba9876
The New Testament tells us that we are adopted into being sons and daughters of God
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Adoption/
God tells David and the Israelites in various places in the Old Testament that they are his children - they are his son - referring to humans but they are not the same as being called the """Sons of God""" which the phrase mentioned around 11 times in the Bible, five times in the Old Testament and is referring in the Old Testament to the angels spiritual beings and in the New Testament humans becoming sons of God or will be called sons of God.
Sons of God: From OT to NT https://share.google/ETBTxopKRpyOMBWQf
The New Testament tells us that we are adopted into being sons and daughters of God
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Adoption/
God tells David and the Israelites in various places in the Old Testament that they are his children - they are his son - referring to humans but they are not the same as being called the """Sons of God""" which the phrase mentioned around 11 times in the Bible, five times in the Old Testament and is referring in the Old Testament to the angels spiritual beings and in the New Testament humans becoming sons of God or will be called sons of God.
Sons of God: From OT to NT https://share.google/ETBTxopKRpyOMBWQf
Adstar · 56-60, M
Well Some Angels departed from Heaven and came down to earth and took human woman as wives and had hybrid children with them.. These descendants are called Giants in the Bible.. God then flooded to world to wipe the hybrids out and had the angels who left their first estate ( heaven cast into the bottomless pit.. They have a leader in the pit over them called Abaddon.. Later it happened again to a lesser extent and that's why the Hebrews where sent to the land of Canaan to wipe out The Giants who where sons of Anak..
The evidence for me is the Holy Bible.. But there has been some claims of Giant skeleton remains being discovered over history and indications of a more advanced civilization existing before the flood in places like Egypt and South America and Asia.. But i do not rely on those other claims..
The Angels in the bottomless pit will be released from it in the end times and they will go out with great anger to smite people with great pain.. People will wish they could die but they will be unable to die.,.
The evidence for me is the Holy Bible.. But there has been some claims of Giant skeleton remains being discovered over history and indications of a more advanced civilization existing before the flood in places like Egypt and South America and Asia.. But i do not rely on those other claims..
The Angels in the bottomless pit will be released from it in the end times and they will go out with great anger to smite people with great pain.. People will wish they could die but they will be unable to die.,.
Charity · 61-69
Mutation
Trick questions how do we feel about it and then how can we prove it / knowing Darn well what's written in the Bible concerning God and the angels cannot be proven by scientific means but it can't be disproven either.
Just one doesn't accept the words written
In the Bible by those who experience what is written, science is the only means of proof.
And the thing is every single ancient culture talked about Gods from the sky who created the heavens and the Earth and old life upon it.
Then it'll be said they come up with these gods to explain okay / what are they doing now
[media=https://youtu.be/Z5tzv0Mk7as?si=1dHYK5mGj39tMCvF]
[media=https://youtu.be/DagOq0MPig8?si=GemGN3kC6qVqK5RP]
.
Trick questions how do we feel about it and then how can we prove it / knowing Darn well what's written in the Bible concerning God and the angels cannot be proven by scientific means but it can't be disproven either.
Just one doesn't accept the words written
In the Bible by those who experience what is written, science is the only means of proof.
And the thing is every single ancient culture talked about Gods from the sky who created the heavens and the Earth and old life upon it.
Then it'll be said they come up with these gods to explain okay / what are they doing now
[media=https://youtu.be/Z5tzv0Mk7as?si=1dHYK5mGj39tMCvF]
[media=https://youtu.be/DagOq0MPig8?si=GemGN3kC6qVqK5RP]
.
saintsong · 41-45, F
1490wayb · 56-60, M
i like r.c. sproul's explanation of the term...sons of god and the nephilium race
wrule · F
Just wonder how these giants mated with human woman
View 1 more replies »
dcba9876 · 41-45, M
@Charity Hi, Charity. I want to throw this out there and get your feedback....
As for the "nephilim"...:
It is argued that the "nephilim" were giant angel-human hybrids. It's said that the word "nephilim" is related to the verb series meaning "to fall" in Hebrew, giving support to "fallen angels."
It is correct that the word "nephilim" is related to the verb series "to fall." "fallen angel," however, is eisegetical. The Hebrew word is "napal/ naphal" and gives strong support to the view that men had "fallen" from God, as we see from the entire context of chapters 6-9. Interestingly, if the sons of God were fallen angels, then why are they not termed the "nephilim", if nephilim means "fallen angel"? Instead, it's referring to their supposed hybrid children.
No one today really knows who the nephilim were. Many associate them with "giants"; the book of Enoch describes them as being 3000 ells = 4000ft which is impossibly large for living creatures, even larger than some mountains. No one has ever found fossils that big, especially a global population of them. One scholar changed it to 300 ells = 450 ft, still unrealistically large. But being large doesn't seem to fit as Goliath was realistically massive and was never referred to as a nephilim. The KJV version translates it as "giants" from the influence of the Latin Vulgate's term "gigantes," (early Latin translation by Jerome), as well as the context from (Num.13:33). Its likely that the Latin was influenced by or followed the Septuagint (LXX), which as already mentioned in my "sons of God" message, is simply an interpretive translation, not an actual translation. But the context of Genesis 6 doesn't really indicate that they were giant beings at all, especially that of the book of Enoch. Contextually, nothing supports freakishly giant hybrids either. Let's say hypothetically they were giants, could the nephilim not have repented? Noah did preach for 120yrs, so they had time. We do know Christ did not die for angels, but He did die for humanity; genetic mutations included, i.e., impaired, mental, deformities, etc.
One commentator noted, "The word 'nephilim' doesn't necessarily means 'giants.' The word may be derived from the Hebrew 'naphal' meaning 'to fall upon others' (e.g. Josh.11:7/ Job 1:15/ Jer.46:16). Therefore, it could refer to those who attack others. This word could also be derived from the Hebrew 'palah,' meaning 'extraordinary,' a word used to describe Antiochus (Dan.8:24) and Johnathan (2 Sam.1:26)."
But look carefully in Genesis 6. We are told the nephilim were actually present during this entire scenario; before and after the marriages and did not arise out of them. Had (v.4) preceded (v.3), the likelihood would have increased that the nephilim were the offspring of these two unions, but the present order of these verses argues the contrary.
Another commentator, "In a parathentical phrase we are told that the nephilim were present during the scenario....Such explanatory, perhaps pedantic, asides may be compared to the phenomena in (Deut.2:10-12; 2:20-23; 3:9, 11, 13-14). Almost all modern versions of the Bible put these five passages in parentheses. The sentence structure and content of Genesis 6:4 interrupt the flow of the narrative, which has led many scholars—both Jewish and Christian—to view this verse as a parenthetical or explanatory note inserted by Moses to clarify who these 'sons of God' and their offspring were."
That the nephilim reappear in (Num.13) presents problems also. Some claim this is a second incursion of angelic sex inserted into the text, but this is mere conjecture. Others claim "the nephilim name lives on" which is easily dismissed as a desperate attempt to save the viewpoint. Still, if the angels in Genesis 6 are the angels in (2 Pt.2:4) that are locked up, the how did the nephilim reappear in Numbers 13? If the angels were having sexual relations with women before and after the flood, then there's nothing stopping them from having sexual relations with women today, but this is not possible.
The Book of Numbers uses "nephilim" to describe human parents (sons of Anak; Num.13:33). If "nephilim" denotes offspring of human parents in (Num.13), then why not in (Gen.6:4), especially when the context points to humanity?
Another commentator, "Also, a theological problem presents itself for the fallen angel view if we look at the Anakites (descendants of Anak), descendants of the nephilim according to (Num.13:33). The Anakites we're not completely wiped out (Josh.11:22). Thus, The Bible never records their line ending and no reason to assume the descendants of Anak are still not living today. In fact, they may have interbred with many other people groups since then [but we don't see giants today as supposed by Gen.6/ Num.13]. Being sons of Anak also shows they can exist without being the sexual union of the "sons of God."
Therefore, the nephilim can not to be identified as the offspring of the sons of God. They were already present prior to their offspring.
What say you?
As for the "nephilim"...:
It is argued that the "nephilim" were giant angel-human hybrids. It's said that the word "nephilim" is related to the verb series meaning "to fall" in Hebrew, giving support to "fallen angels."
It is correct that the word "nephilim" is related to the verb series "to fall." "fallen angel," however, is eisegetical. The Hebrew word is "napal/ naphal" and gives strong support to the view that men had "fallen" from God, as we see from the entire context of chapters 6-9. Interestingly, if the sons of God were fallen angels, then why are they not termed the "nephilim", if nephilim means "fallen angel"? Instead, it's referring to their supposed hybrid children.
No one today really knows who the nephilim were. Many associate them with "giants"; the book of Enoch describes them as being 3000 ells = 4000ft which is impossibly large for living creatures, even larger than some mountains. No one has ever found fossils that big, especially a global population of them. One scholar changed it to 300 ells = 450 ft, still unrealistically large. But being large doesn't seem to fit as Goliath was realistically massive and was never referred to as a nephilim. The KJV version translates it as "giants" from the influence of the Latin Vulgate's term "gigantes," (early Latin translation by Jerome), as well as the context from (Num.13:33). Its likely that the Latin was influenced by or followed the Septuagint (LXX), which as already mentioned in my "sons of God" message, is simply an interpretive translation, not an actual translation. But the context of Genesis 6 doesn't really indicate that they were giant beings at all, especially that of the book of Enoch. Contextually, nothing supports freakishly giant hybrids either. Let's say hypothetically they were giants, could the nephilim not have repented? Noah did preach for 120yrs, so they had time. We do know Christ did not die for angels, but He did die for humanity; genetic mutations included, i.e., impaired, mental, deformities, etc.
One commentator noted, "The word 'nephilim' doesn't necessarily means 'giants.' The word may be derived from the Hebrew 'naphal' meaning 'to fall upon others' (e.g. Josh.11:7/ Job 1:15/ Jer.46:16). Therefore, it could refer to those who attack others. This word could also be derived from the Hebrew 'palah,' meaning 'extraordinary,' a word used to describe Antiochus (Dan.8:24) and Johnathan (2 Sam.1:26)."
But look carefully in Genesis 6. We are told the nephilim were actually present during this entire scenario; before and after the marriages and did not arise out of them. Had (v.4) preceded (v.3), the likelihood would have increased that the nephilim were the offspring of these two unions, but the present order of these verses argues the contrary.
Another commentator, "In a parathentical phrase we are told that the nephilim were present during the scenario....Such explanatory, perhaps pedantic, asides may be compared to the phenomena in (Deut.2:10-12; 2:20-23; 3:9, 11, 13-14). Almost all modern versions of the Bible put these five passages in parentheses. The sentence structure and content of Genesis 6:4 interrupt the flow of the narrative, which has led many scholars—both Jewish and Christian—to view this verse as a parenthetical or explanatory note inserted by Moses to clarify who these 'sons of God' and their offspring were."
That the nephilim reappear in (Num.13) presents problems also. Some claim this is a second incursion of angelic sex inserted into the text, but this is mere conjecture. Others claim "the nephilim name lives on" which is easily dismissed as a desperate attempt to save the viewpoint. Still, if the angels in Genesis 6 are the angels in (2 Pt.2:4) that are locked up, the how did the nephilim reappear in Numbers 13? If the angels were having sexual relations with women before and after the flood, then there's nothing stopping them from having sexual relations with women today, but this is not possible.
The Book of Numbers uses "nephilim" to describe human parents (sons of Anak; Num.13:33). If "nephilim" denotes offspring of human parents in (Num.13), then why not in (Gen.6:4), especially when the context points to humanity?
Another commentator, "Also, a theological problem presents itself for the fallen angel view if we look at the Anakites (descendants of Anak), descendants of the nephilim according to (Num.13:33). The Anakites we're not completely wiped out (Josh.11:22). Thus, The Bible never records their line ending and no reason to assume the descendants of Anak are still not living today. In fact, they may have interbred with many other people groups since then [but we don't see giants today as supposed by Gen.6/ Num.13]. Being sons of Anak also shows they can exist without being the sexual union of the "sons of God."
Therefore, the nephilim can not to be identified as the offspring of the sons of God. They were already present prior to their offspring.
What say you?
Charity · 61-69
@dcba9876
1) fallen / naphal a word which applies to Angels - their offspring - humans. Not specifically to Angels.
Strong's Hebrew: 5307. נָפַל (naphal) -- To fall, to lie, to be cast down, to fail https://share.google/pk2SqETdBTJrWsHy1
2) Nephilium is defined as to Giants also / one and the same.
Strong's Hebrew: 5303. נְפִילִים (Nephilim) -- Giants https://share.google/CMRZhD8IiXqweN3Oo
3) There is strong a possibility that in the Book of Enoch whosoever wrote it actually meant 40 cubits. Which would make them 59' tall. Now if herds of dinosaurs can exist on this Earth 60 feet tall there is a strong possibility genetic splicing mixing DNA could produce such humans. And it's a strong possibility much of that DNA is still here
The sons of Anak in which Goliath was one, who were The offspring of the Giants / Nephilims. Goliath 6 cubits and a span, close to 10 ft tall. And we do have people from time to time that are extremely tall, 8 ft 11 in is the record.
Numbers 13:33 / Deuteronomy 9:2 / Joshua 12:4 refers to the Giants. And in Numbers 13:33 in the Hebrew Bible the word nephilims is used
Numbers 13:33 Hebrew Text Analysis https://share.google/rDl5x4ivg3yQ39463
Deuteronomy 9:2 Hebrew Text Analysis https://share.google/RuswUYe9W8HSQkEBE
3) No evidence of Giants found / evidence of dinosaurs may have been seen by the ancients, but they knew truths but not recognized and studied and recorded until these modern times and they are still finding fossils. So who's to say at some point they won't discover if you put human fossil. Then there is always the possibility that God took them. Their place is not earth, and they are being held somewhere and his kingdoms, with an s.
4) As it was in the days of Noah social would be in the coming of the Son of Man. And it is clear in Genesis 6 when it says "and after that", the mixing was still being done but not openly and widely abundantly. In the days of Noah humans knew exactly what they were doing and it's going to be that way again they will be deliberately mixing their genes with Angela genes before the end of time.
I have touched on all you wrote of that I care to touch on, you see I am not trying to change your views. I as well as millions of others Christians believe differently. And as time continues to pass many Christians are beginning to believe as I do. Throughout much my life most ministers before the 1970s taught that the sons of God was referring to Seth. The thing is and most of the Old Testament when the sons of God was reverted to it was referring to those we call angelic beings.
Food for thought : You see the Canaanites served, worshiped Elohim / El. Melchizedek was a Canaanite, king of Salem and he was the servant of the most high God whom the Hebrews through Abraham began to serve and was chosen to be by Elohim to be his chosen people. The name of the city did not change until David changed it to Jeru-salem almost 2,000 years later. And the Canaanites taught that Elohim had 70 sons, not Angels Angels were the servants. So those 70 sons could be the ones that are being spoken of in Genesis 6.
I don't know ancient Hebrew nor does anyone alive, and even those who translated scriptures didn't know the ancient Hebrew languages and the meanings of their words. Words change over thousands of years some cease to exist. now those who are writing / translating scripture, even from the Dead Sea Scrolls are translating Nephiliums to mean Giants / the sons of Anak / the offspring of the Nephilium. why don't you find these translators and voice your disagreements.
After all the only thing that we can go by is what they put in front of us already, it's the teachings that has been passed down is the only thing we can use. Unless you come from 4,000 years ago no one knows the ancient Hebrew language.
1) fallen / naphal a word which applies to Angels - their offspring - humans. Not specifically to Angels.
Strong's Hebrew: 5307. נָפַל (naphal) -- To fall, to lie, to be cast down, to fail https://share.google/pk2SqETdBTJrWsHy1
2) Nephilium is defined as to Giants also / one and the same.
Strong's Hebrew: 5303. נְפִילִים (Nephilim) -- Giants https://share.google/CMRZhD8IiXqweN3Oo
3) There is strong a possibility that in the Book of Enoch whosoever wrote it actually meant 40 cubits. Which would make them 59' tall. Now if herds of dinosaurs can exist on this Earth 60 feet tall there is a strong possibility genetic splicing mixing DNA could produce such humans. And it's a strong possibility much of that DNA is still here
The sons of Anak in which Goliath was one, who were The offspring of the Giants / Nephilims. Goliath 6 cubits and a span, close to 10 ft tall. And we do have people from time to time that are extremely tall, 8 ft 11 in is the record.
Numbers 13:33 / Deuteronomy 9:2 / Joshua 12:4 refers to the Giants. And in Numbers 13:33 in the Hebrew Bible the word nephilims is used
Numbers 13:33 Hebrew Text Analysis https://share.google/rDl5x4ivg3yQ39463
Deuteronomy 9:2 Hebrew Text Analysis https://share.google/RuswUYe9W8HSQkEBE
3) No evidence of Giants found / evidence of dinosaurs may have been seen by the ancients, but they knew truths but not recognized and studied and recorded until these modern times and they are still finding fossils. So who's to say at some point they won't discover if you put human fossil. Then there is always the possibility that God took them. Their place is not earth, and they are being held somewhere and his kingdoms, with an s.
4) As it was in the days of Noah social would be in the coming of the Son of Man. And it is clear in Genesis 6 when it says "and after that", the mixing was still being done but not openly and widely abundantly. In the days of Noah humans knew exactly what they were doing and it's going to be that way again they will be deliberately mixing their genes with Angela genes before the end of time.
I have touched on all you wrote of that I care to touch on, you see I am not trying to change your views. I as well as millions of others Christians believe differently. And as time continues to pass many Christians are beginning to believe as I do. Throughout much my life most ministers before the 1970s taught that the sons of God was referring to Seth. The thing is and most of the Old Testament when the sons of God was reverted to it was referring to those we call angelic beings.
Food for thought : You see the Canaanites served, worshiped Elohim / El. Melchizedek was a Canaanite, king of Salem and he was the servant of the most high God whom the Hebrews through Abraham began to serve and was chosen to be by Elohim to be his chosen people. The name of the city did not change until David changed it to Jeru-salem almost 2,000 years later. And the Canaanites taught that Elohim had 70 sons, not Angels Angels were the servants. So those 70 sons could be the ones that are being spoken of in Genesis 6.
I don't know ancient Hebrew nor does anyone alive, and even those who translated scriptures didn't know the ancient Hebrew languages and the meanings of their words. Words change over thousands of years some cease to exist. now those who are writing / translating scripture, even from the Dead Sea Scrolls are translating Nephiliums to mean Giants / the sons of Anak / the offspring of the Nephilium. why don't you find these translators and voice your disagreements.
After all the only thing that we can go by is what they put in front of us already, it's the teachings that has been passed down is the only thing we can use. Unless you come from 4,000 years ago no one knows the ancient Hebrew language.