Visitors from around the World

Translate blog:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Announcements

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

facebook: Discerning the World

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent Comments

General Comments Section:

Click here for the General Comments Section Discerning the World - General Conversation Section

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Article Archive

Click here to find a List of all Articles List of all Articles
Click here to find a List of all Categories to search by Categories / Keywords

Website Stats

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Nephilim – The Truth about the Sons of God, the Daughters of Men

The Nephilim - The Truth about the Sons of God, the Daughters of Men

NephilimA while ago I posted an article on the Nephilim stating that I did not believe that the Nephilim were demonic offspring.  I then deleted the article because I became uncertain if I was indeed correct.  Since then I have been searching for the truth and I am happy to say I have found the TRUTH.  The reason I am so passionate about the answer to this question is because of the rise in interest in the supernatural, i.e, aliens, trans-humanism etc.  There are stories running abound that during the tribulation demons will be free to do as they please on earth, producing offspring like the Nephilim.  The bible is very clear that we are to not let our minds be captured by occult imagination because when human minds get hold of unbiblical ideas it runs free and causes all sorts of havoc.

—————

Permission received by Anton Bosch to re-publish his article. Thank you!  
[** Emphasis added by DTW]
[** See DTW notes at bottom of article.]

Nephilim

By Pastor Anton Bosch – www.antonbosch.org

The Hebrew word Nephilim is translated “giants” in the Old Testament. It only appears twice in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.  A whole series of doctrines have been built around this word, in spite of the fact that the word only appears rarely. These doctrines on the Nephilim are based on Genesis 6:1-4.(It must be noted that most speculators lean very heavily on extra-biblical writings for most of their information.) The theories can basically be summed up as follows:

Demons / angels (sons of God) had illicit relationships with women (the daughters of men) and these perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as Nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the angles who did this and in order to purify the bloodline of man God brought on the Flood. Through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected, one of which will be the Antichrist[i]. To these people, the Nephilim are also connected to so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life.

Since these theories are gaining ground and a number of books have been published based on this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine Genesis 6 again and see what exactly it teaches. We will discover that the proponents of these theories break every principle of hermeneutics. Here is the text:

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown”. (Genesis 6:1-4)

Sons of God

The first problem revolves around who in the passage are the “sons of God”. Some make the connection with Job 1:6; 2:1. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6). It is obvious, and not contested, that the “sons of God” in Job were angels. But does that mean that this term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels?

First, the normal meaning of “sons of God” is “believers”. “But as many as received him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Job 1:6 (a poetic book) is the only place where angels are called “sons of God”. It is logical and reasonable therefore that the normal meaning be attached to the term here, rather than the exception, as found in Job, unless there were something in the text that made a connection between Genesis 6 and Job 1 – which is absent.

Second Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.

So here is the problem. Genesis is obscure about who had the relations. Jesus said angels do not have relations. So either Jesus was mistaken or the “sons of God” were not angels. You choose! It is really as simple as that – there are no other options.

Some try to get around this by saying that the angels inhabited (possessed) human bodies to do this. That sounds good. But here is the question: A Christian man has the Holy Spirit in him. When that man produces a child by his wife, what is the child? God or man? Clearly, it is a man. There are multitudes of people in the world who are demon possessed and who procreate. What do they produce? Human babies or mutants? Obviously human babies. So why should Genesis 6 be any different. If demons entered into men to produce offspring the children would be human, and only human.

One of the principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is interpreted in the light of the New Testament and not the other way round. In order to say that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels (or demons) we must discard the light of the NT and that should never happen.

The nature of the relationships

The next problem is that it is claimed that the angels had illicit relations with women. Yet the text is very clear: “they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2b). The phrase “took wives for themselves” only, and always, means marriage. It never refers to casual, illicit or adulterous relationships. (See Genesis 11:29 & Ruth 1:4). To suggest otherwise is reading into the text that which is simply not there.

Giants

The theory goes that the giants were the product of these illicit relationships. We have shown that the text does not refer to illicit relationships and that the fathers could not be angels.

Genesis 6:4, again is very clear: “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them.”  Notice that it says there were giants (fact number 1) and afterwards the sons of God came into… (fact number 2). There is NO connection between the fact that there were giants and the fact that people had children.

It is exactly like me saying: “There is milk in the supermarket and eggs are $1.50 a dozen” Milk has no effect on the price, or even the existence, of eggs and the other way around. I am simply stating two facts that describe things about food in the supermarket.

In Genesis 6 Moses is describing the state of the world before the flood. He makes no connection between the Nephilim and the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sentence had been reversed as follows: “The sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore Nephilim” then you could postulate some theory about the nature of this process. But the text does not give us any room to connect the Nephilim with these marriages.

Genesis 6:4 does say that the children that were produced “were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown”. “Mighty men” is a term which is used 154 times in the OT and simply refers to powerful men, either physically or politically. Just like there are many mighty men today and some are men of God and others are worldly and unsaved, so there were mighty men in those days, of which Noah was one.

“Men of old” also holds no mystique, these were simply the heroes of bygone days.

“Men of renown” is also used in Numbers 16:2 and Ezekiel 23:23. These are famous men, or well-known men. The Hebrew term literally means “men with a name” meaning they had “made a name” for themselves.

The descendants of these relationships were not monsters, mutants, or anything extraordinary. Some were ordinary people and some were powerful, some were little known and others had made a name for themselves. Genesis 6:5 (the next verse) goes on to describe these people as wicked and worthy of God’s judgment.

Furthermore, the translation of the word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary. There are many other possible ways this word could be translated here: “Bullies”, “mighty ones” or “tyrants”.  At least one dictionary states that the Nephilim in Genesis and in Numbers were two different peoples[ii]. Once again, we cannot build an entire doctrine on a word which we cannot translate or explain with any measure of certainty.

Genesis 6:4 is simply a description of life before the flood and not a commentary on mysterious genetic mutant life forms. Jesus obviously has this verse in mind when he says: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39) (note the reference to marriage in both verses).

One of the most important principles of hermeneutics is that the verse has to be read in its context. The context is clear, that life was going on as usual, people were becoming more and more self-absorbed and sinful but judgment was coming. This is the same point Jesus was making in Matthew 24 – people will be self-absorbed and fixated on every-day life and will not be ready for His coming.

The cause of the Flood

Those who speculate about the Nephilim, connect them with the reason for the Flood. Once again, there is no connection there. Genesis 6 describes life on earth. Yes, there were Nephilim, but more significantly, people were marrying and having children and becoming more wicked. Genesis 6:5-6 cannot be clearer. God’s judgment fell because of the wickedness of man. This had absolutely nothing to do with demons, angels or mutants. Look at these verses again: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”(Genesis 6:5-7).

If the flood had anything to do with anything other than man’s sinfulness, either Moses or Jesus would have said something in that regard, but both are silent about demons, angels and mutants. The flood had nothing to do with clearing the gene pool. It was all about clearing the earth of sinful and wicked people. Even Sunday school children should be able to tell you that.

If the flood had anything to do with God wanting to destroy the giants because they were “contaminated seed” or to purge the gene pool then, Noah and his sons should have been destroyed also. Noah and his sons carried the gene from which giants were formed. This is obvious since giants (Nephilim) are born after the flood and were present in the Land when the spies were sent to scout out the land (Numbers 13:33). These giants were descendants of Noah since all of humankind after the flood descended from Noah.

Extra-biblical evidence

These speculators quote the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) in support of their ideas as though they are Scripture. Yet, Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture for obvious reasons – they are not, and have never been regarded as inspired except by apostate churches and false teachers.

Once again they break one of the fundamentals of Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics: We hold only to Scripture and do not add, nor subtract from it (Revelation 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). It is especially reprehensible to formulate an entire doctrine on extra-biblical evidence as these people are doing.

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in very old writings that the Hebrew sages never regarded the “sons of God” as angels or demons. But we dare not use that as evidence lest we sink to the same level as these speculators.

Jude 6 is quoted in support of the theories. This verse says: “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6).

Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!

2 Peter 2:4-5

Verse 4 is similar to Jude 6: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:4-5).

To those who pluck verses out of their context there appears to be a connection between the sinning angels and the flood. But look at the context:

2Peter 2:1-3 There were, and will be, false teachers and they will “bring upon themselves swift destruction”.

2Peter 2:4 Angels sinned and God “reserved them for judgment

2Peter 2:5 The ancient world sinned and God judged them by the flood but spared Noah

2Peter 2:6-8 Sodom and Gomorrah sinned and God judged them but spared Lot

2Peter 2:9 Therefore in the future, the Lord will judge the unjust and save the godly.

The angels and the pre-flood world are simply two of four examples that Peter quotes to show that God will punish sin. The connections between the sinning angels and the flood are the same connection with false teachers and Sodom – the connections have nothing to do with gene mutation but is all about sin and the consequences thereof.

Conclusion

The purpose of this brief article is not to provide answers to all the questions that surround Genesis 6. In fact, we do not have all the answers and those who claim they have a full and detailed explanation for these verses are speculating. The point of the text in Genesis 6, and 2Peter 2 is to warn that God will not tolerate sin and will judge it.

But what we are certain of is that the theories about angels producing mutant life forms are not Biblical and that the conclusions derived from this theory are fictional, at best.

“…charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith”. (1 Timothy 1:3-4).

“But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.”(1 Timothy 4:7).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

—————

[i] This is a very brief and highly sanitized summary of some very extreme and bizarre teachings. But it must also be noted that those who hold to these teachings differ greatly amongst themselves as to how far they take their conclusions.

[ii]Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

—————-

[DTW notes with the help of Anton Bosch (thank you again for all your assistance):

1)  David and Goliath – 

Yes, there were giants but not in the sense of the pictures of Jack and the beanstalk. Goliath was anywhere between 6’9” to 10′ tall.  The oldest manuscripts — the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the first-century historian Josephus, and the fourth century Septuagint manuscripts — all give his height as “four cubits and a span”, about six feet, nine inches tall (two meters), but later manuscripts have it as “six cubits and a span,” which would make him almost ten feet tall (three meters). The average height of the LA Lakers basketball team is 6’4″, with a few of them at 6’9″.  Andre the Giant from the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) stood at 7’4″ while the Great Khali currently stands at 7’1″.  [Note that DTW has never referred to the dead-sea scrolls for information, but to help explain Goliath in this instance, it is very necessary.]

Saul stood “head-and-shoulders” above the rest of the people and David (it seems) could fit into his armour. David appears extra small to Goliath because he was just a youth when he fought and killed Goliath. However when David grew up he was able to use Goliath’s sword (1Sam 21). So as adults David and Saul were almost as big as Goliath! – now that’s a revolutionary thought!

The same goes for the Canaanites, they were giant men, but not from another world.  There is no possible way that these giants were of an extraterrestrial nature because the bible does not say so – the bible does say there were giants before the flood and their DNA must have been in Noah because the DNA is carried forward to beyond the flood. We need to remain silent on the things the Bible is silent on – we can’t go around and make wild speculations as many well known pastors are doing.  To again speculate that angels came down again to have relations with human women to produce more giants after the flood is just nonsense.

2)  Those giant skeletons they supposedly found in Greece and Middle East –

 

 

 

THERE’S A good reason we haven’t heard about this epic discovery in the New York TimesScientific American, or any other legitimate publication, and that is that these photos, like the one circulating since 2004 purporting to show a giant skeleton found in the Middle East, are fakes.

As if it weren’t preposterous enough to claim that one 15-foot-tall fossilized human skeleton had turned up without media fanfare, we’re asked to believe that archaeologists recently dug up four of them in a single location (Greece). In point of fact, each of the photos appears to have been taken at a different time and place.

So far I’ve only been able to locate the original of one of them, but it serves as clear proof that Photoshopping took place. Image #4 was created by inserting an outsized human skull into a photo of a 1993 University of Chicago dinosaur dig in Niger, Africa (see the original here). If you look at a blow-up of the doctored image, the skull appears flattened and unnatural (and one of the workers actually appears to be standing on it!).

Moreover, the same cut-and-pasted skull was used to create image #2 (see side-by-side comparison). A blow-up of image #2 with brightness and contrast enhanced reveals unnaturally dark “shadows” around the skull. The skull in Image #3 is marked by incongruously bright highlights on the teeth and around the edges of the gaping temple wound. And in image #5 the shadows coming off the skeleton fall more or less toward the camera, while the worker’s shadow falls due left, suggesting that elements of two different photos were combined.

Finally, despite frequent references to “giants” in ancient mythology and English translations of the Bible, there is no generally accepted scientific or historical evidence that such beings ever actually existed (unless you consider the Weekly World News a reliable source).

source:  http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/supernaturalwonders/ss/giants_in_greece_6.htm

NB!! See here for more giant skeletons and why they are a hoax as well:  http://yowcrooks.blogspot.com/2008/12/giant-skeleton-hoax.html

3)  A greater understanding of Jude 5-10:

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6)

Jude 6 is quoted in support of their theories connecting it to Genesis 6 that angels came down and had relations with women. Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!

To explain Jude 5 – 8 properly, it contains a number of separate examples of God judging  sin. Just like paprables where there is a central truth and the only connection between the parables is that truth (e.g. That which was lost is found: lost coin, lost sheep, lost son).  Here there are four examples showing the same truth that God judges sin. The examples are: 1) Israel’s unbelief in not crossing into the land, 2) angels who did not keep their proper domain, 3) Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual sin and 4) false teachers.
——
If there is a sexual connection between Sodom and the angels (the angels sinned in a sexual way) then there must also be a connection between Sodom and Israel and between Israel and the angels. But that is not the link here.  The link is sin.In the case of Israel it is unbelief (Hebrews 3 & 4), in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it is homosexuality and in the case of the angels it was rebellion when Satan was cast down from heaven and 1/3 of the angels followed.
——
Note that the text must be read in its context and we cannot simply make connections and draw conclusions that are not there. Now concerning the statement “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode”. People connect that to Sodom and say that this means angels had relations with women. But we need to examine the statement carefully. The first word “proper domain” according to Thayer means:
——
– Original: ἀρχή
– Transliteration: Arche
– Phonetic: ar-khay’
– Definition:
1.  beginning, origin
2.  the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3.  that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4.  the extremity of a thing
a.  of the corners of a sail
5.  the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a.  of angels and demons
——
Note the word is “Arche” from which we get “arch-enemy”, “arch-rival” etc. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with primacy, authority etc.The second is “abode”. This is also a very common word: οἰκητήριον (oiketerion) which simply means house, habitation or abode.The verse then teaches that the angels did not remain in their proper authority and left their place. This could be construed to mean they had relations with the daughters of men. But it forces and construes a meaning that is NOT obvious to the sentence.
——
A more natural interpretation is that the angels rebelled against God’s authority at the very beginning when Satan was cast out of heaven and left their place in the order and hierarchy of God. The English Standard version (ESV) is one of the best translations available. The ESV has the verse as follows:  “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-
“This is supported by June 9-10 which speaks about false preachers who do not know their proper place when dealing with the Devil and demons(and yes, Satan is a “dignitary”  – powerful person ).
——
What we do not know is why some of these angels (demons) were chained in the “abyss” and others were left to roam the earth. We can only surmise that some sinned more grievously than others. But it also seems that the Lord can (and probably does) throw more of them into the abyss for whatever reason:
——
Luke 8:30-32   “30 Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.  32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them..”
——
Now for Jude 7:  The cities around them refers to Admah and Zeboim:

Deuteronomy 29:23  “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”

Hosea 11:8  “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”

The words “similar manner to these” can only refer to the most recently mentioned subjects – the cities. There is no way, at all that it can refer to the Angels. No language works like that.

When we say “Tom went to church and John went to the mall and Jerry went to the beach and he got sunburned.” The “he” can only refer to the most recent subject – Jerry.

So the meaning is very clear and obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to immorality and Admah and Zeboim did likewise. There is no other possibility.

The problem here is that it all begins with a bad exegesis is Genesis 6. If you read Genesis 6 to mean that Angels had relations with women (and reject the words of Jesus that they cannot) then you have to find further support. Once you have jumped to that conclusion, it is easy to misread and misinterpret Jude 6&7. But if you do not make assumptions about relations between angels and women, then there is no way you can read that into Jude. So, you have to force the meaning of Gen 6 and then you have to force the meaning of Jude 6 to come to a conclusion.

More...

142 comments to The Nephilim – The Truth about the Sons of God, the Daughters of Men

  • Mom4Truth

    Thanks for posting this article. Interesting (read: providential) timing, really. My husband and I have been discussing this topic for hours every evening because, as you mentioned, the proponents of the “angels breeding with women” theory seems to be everywhere, even as the wicked Catholic church has been talking a lot about an alien invasion.

    We agreed that much has to be read into in order to come to that conclusion, and a lot of Scripture must be twisted, contorted, and even over-looked in favor of Enoch and Jasher. But the two things we couldn’t get over for any reason were:

    Christ’s own words that angels do not marry, nor are they given in marriage and the text clearly indicates that they “took them wives” and, the biggest one, is the concept that Satan could produce life.

    I think of Satan’s own words in Isaiah where he threatens that he would become as God. Now, he has convinced masses that he has the ability to create life in the form of mutant offspring! God says HE is the Author of Life, not Satan. Satan could not produce more demons, nor could he produce a demon/man child. What a lie from the Father of Lies! My faith in the Word of God will not allow me the peace to believe that Satan has any authority to create life.

    Thanks, Debs!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Mom4Truth

    My pleasure!

    And isn’t it just a co-incidence that the RCC are not looking for aliens and talking about an alien invasion? Well we as Christians know there are no such things, but mankind has the technology to create lying signs and wonders, therefore enter project blue beam :)

  • Truthseeker

    Thank you so much for this! It is such a coincidence (OR NOT!) that I have been learning about this Nephilim theory just the past week! I was shocked to say the least in the theory that was put forward like in your first paragraphs! And this in the Book, Unlocking the Bible by David Pawson! I was also not comfortable that they took their evidence from extrabiblical books! I have learnt a big lesson and will remember this text: “…charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith”. (1 Timothy 1:3-4).

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Truthseeker

    I tell you it was like I had to do this article and get this info to EVERYONE. The Holy Spirit reminded me almost weekly. ‘Find the truth about the Nephilim’, He told me. I searched for a good year and a half. Going back and forth, back and forth, until finally the Holy Spirit said, “THAT’S IT” :)

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Truthseeker

    Regarding David Pawson, I noticed a while ago on his website some strange leanings toward New Age teaching. hmmmm

  • Bob

    Im still confused about falling angels, giants,demons, and bizzard things the Bible mentions but as Paul said one day mysteries will be reveiled to us.I’ve never been into the demon stuff but the Bible does mention it as well as reports from missionarys thoughout the world.
    Once my sister who was a single mom and was involved in occult stuff called me and said something was lifting her kids bed up and dropping them in the middle of the night and slamed doors as well as moved small articles around the house which scared the children and her>
    Some call this a Polargist others a haunting.
    I studied the scriptures on this fasted and prayed that the Lord would help me cast whatever it was out of the house. I told my sister about how evil can be invited in through witchcraft,books,palm reading, horoscopes,and other evil things the world has to offer that seem so innocent,which she got rid of.We read the scriptures on Jesus Death on the Cross and The Power of The Resurrection and commanded the demon to leave which it did after awhile!Eventhough the evil force did do somethings that where a little scary I held on to The Truth Of Jesus and His Power to evict this evil being.Im not a nut case and have spent several years in the prison ministry and never encountered anything like this since that event. Sorry for any mispelled words>

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Bob

    >> Im still confused about falling angels, giants,demons, and bizzard things

    How can you be confused? I have just given you the answer, the truth. Did you even read the article properly?

    This article is not denying that demons do not exist hence there is reference to Jesus casing out demons in the article and sending the demons into pigs! All this article is saying that angels did not have sex with woman and produce a mutant race of people.

  • Bob

    Well there is much writings in the Old Testament about the size of giants king of OZ is one of many, also David had men of ar join him that had faces of bronze and could run up a hill fast as a Gazelle what does that mean. Also I think Mosess fought a half man and half beast i can find the scriptures if needed.
    A museum in Az has skulls of some type of beast? giants. American indians legenes talk of a race of sometime the could chase down Buffalo and and put them under their arms sounds like somethingbig to me if true.
    There is enough evidence of differant races of something in the past. maybe the falling Angels knew secrets of the womb similar to what the labs are doing today to animals.
    Well our salvation isn’t based on this stuff but just because wee read an article dosn’t mean that its fact!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Bob

    >> Well there is much writings in the Old Testament about the size of giants king of Og is one of many, also David had men of war join him that had faces of bronze and could run up a hill fast as a Gazelle what does that mean. Also I think Mosess fought a half man and half beast i can find the scriptures if needed.

    Um, ok. Yes please find the scriptures for the bronze faces and Moses fighting and half man/half beast.

    If you are referring to this: Asahel, was one of the fastest runners in David’s army and his skill was his downfall. It was said of Asahel that he was, ‘as light of foot as a wild roe.’ (See 2 Samuel 2:18) – Dude, this is a FIGURE OF SPEECH. The guy was not a gazelle, or a beast.

    >> American indians legenes talk of a race of sometime the could chase down Buffalo and and put them under their arms sounds like somethingbig to me if true.

    PS. why do you refer to American Indians as a source of info? You may as well refer to the book of Enoch as well and other occult sources too.

    >> There is enough evidence of differant races of something in the past.

    No there is no evidence. You are basing your so called facts on ‘legends’ aka stories.

    And you would think with all these so called hundreds of ‘giant skeleton’ discoveries their bones would be preserved somewhere safe, like the Dinosaurs, but they are not, because they don’t exist, they are fairytales.

    I tried to search for your so called skull at the museum in Az? (I am presuming that is Arizona) and I can’t find anything, Unless I am looking in the wrong place.

  • Bob

    also the Bible does mention types of genetic variations that came from someplace….

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Bob

    >> also the Bible does mention types of genetic variations that came from someplace….

    Now you are speaking utter nonsense please provide me with scripture to support your arguments. You can’t make wild claims like this and expect me to just believe you. Back it up with the Bible – the TRUTH.

    Are you sure you’re a pastor?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Bob

    King Og was approx 12 feet tall, BUT GUESS how tall Noah was? He was 12 feet tall. (Cecil Dougherty, author of Valley of the Giants (Valley of the Giants Publishers, first edition, 1971) – And even if Noah was not 12′ tall but 7′ tall – does that make Noah a Nephilim as well. Noah lived to 950 years old, he had a lot of growing to do, as did everyone else in those days! Come now wake up an smell the coffee.

  • Lee

    This is a good article Debs!

    I stand corrected! I also am guilty of believing that there were demons/fallen angels that had relations with women. there was a documentary about finding other large species of the human race from thousands of years and they were saying that that is why evolution must be true e.t.c. but I told my mum that it must have been the demons/fallen angels! stupid me, now I have to go correct her and anyone else I told that too.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Lee

    We have all been fooled. And very subtly so by people using the bible. Worse of all there are well known (relatively good) pastors at the moment promoting the angels/women theory. It brings us back to knowing the truth and nothing but the truth about scripture. I truly believe that as born again Christians we will know ALL truth and never lies because the Holy Spirit won’t tells us lies – only the truth.

    I firmly believe that currently this Nephilim stuff is the open door to occult like thinking that will bring many good pastors down in these end times if they don’t change their thinking and listen to the HOLY SPIRIT on this matter.

  • Lee

    “We have all been fooled. And very subtly so by people using the bible. Worse of all there are well known (relatively good) pastors at the moment promoting the angels/women theory. It brings us back to knowing the truth and nothing but the truth about scripture. I truly believe that as born again Christians we will know ALL truth and never lies because the Holy Spirit won’t tells us lies – only the truth.

    I firmly believe that currently this Nephilim stuff is the open door to occult like thinking that will bring many good pastors down in these end times if they don’t change their thinking and listen to the HOLY SPIRIT on this matter.”

    Phew! I thought you were about to beat on me head lol! I did not know some pastors are teaching this. Whats they’e business with teaching this for? Shouldn’t they be focused on the Gospel!?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Lee

    >> I did not know some pastors are teaching this. Whats they’e business with teaching this for? Shouldn’t they be focused on the Gospel!?

    Well according to them demons are going to come down during these last days and have relations with woman – same as it was in the days of Noah. This ‘most utterly ridiculous teaching is gaining a wide spread audience and pastors are now having conferences on occult teaching, aliens, supernatural, quantum leaps, and other weird stuff. The NAR on the other hand are so scared that they feel they have to review their spiritual warfare practices because the old ways of doing spiritual warfare are not going to be good enough to prevent these demons from coming down and doing their business. LOL.

    >> Shouldn’t they be focused on the Gospel!?

    Well we gotta first ask this question, what is going on with their spiritual lives if they are going on another path, one that leads AWAY from the gospel. See they might very much believe it is gospel (because it’s in the bible) – so they say. But where is the Holy Spirit in their lives telling them that what they are preaching is wrong? hmmm.

  • Lee

    “Well according to them demons are going to come down during these last days and have relations with woman – same as it was in the days of Noah. This ‘most utterly ridiculous teaching is gaining a wide spread audience and pastors are now having conferences on occult teaching, aliens, supernatural, quantum leaps, and other weird stuff. The NAR on the other hand are so scared that they feel they have to review their spiritual warfare practices because the old ways of doing spiritual warfare are not going to be good enough to prevent these demons from coming down and doing their business. LOL.”

    Are you serious? Are they for REAL?!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Lee

    Seriouuuuussssss

  • Lee

    lol….thats all i can say

  • Renjy

    hi guys,
    I must say there is a whole lot of confusion in the world concerning this topic. It is really hard for one to believe in these things. I have been looking into this for about 8yrs now and things are still strange to me. Archeologically,and Historically the evidences discovered do leave us a question we must consider. What has happened in our distant past? How come no one really has an answer? The Truth is, the Bible has been the only Book that has been telling the truth. God has given us our history and our future in one place. We need to read it with spiritual insight, that one can only have through the Holy Spirit. There are a lot of things I can say…for starters…the early Church believed in the existence of giants called the Nephalim and their desendents. I am aware the most of you are well versed with what Chuck Missler and Tom Horn are saying. I am not here to endorse what they are saying, but rather I am speaking from what I have checked out for myself. Most of these leaders refer the Book of Enoch because Jude refers it in his book in the Bible. I also thought of it as heretical but then I was confronted with the question:If the Book of Enoch was not considered why would Jude use it as reference? Mind you Jude didn’t write it or put it there by his own will!

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim 3:16

    This scripture that Jude wrote is because God told him to! I believe it is there for a reason. There are so many unbelievable incidences and stories in the Bible, that would overshadow this topic..yet not many complain. I will tell you why this is an area that makes a whole lot of people restless…it directly deals with how things are going to pan out in the last days…which is where we are now currently. It will allow men to align themselves with God to see and prepare themselves & others for the supernatural shaking that satan is about to unleash upon the unsuspecting world.

    Have anyone wondered what would cause all the armies of the world to gather and fight against the armies of Jesus?

    And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, having been gathered together to make war with him who is sitting upon the horse, and with his army. Rev 19:19

    satan has a hidden agenda and he likes to keep it that way. However, God on the other hand exposes all works of darkness. He prophesied right at the begining that the serpent would have seed!!!!

    And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15

    We all know women have no seed..yet God says she will…Yes it was God telling her about the virgin birth of Christ. God goes on to say the serpent will also have seed!

    If God said it then it must be true. I believe satan had been planning to thwart this prophesy of Christ crushing his head from the moment God spoke it. He started of by tainting the human genome. Genetics ahs proven that one does not need to have sexual intercourse to sire children. Then why would we have so much issue when the Bible clearly says that women begot giants!I do not believe that angels are going to come back and repeat Gen 6 all over again. Oh! they have learnt their lesson the first time round. They about it on a different path. human anomalies are commonly uncommon. The great Kali, and other tall athelets are exception among the human race. Being tall is not enemity with God. It would not make God angry enough to destroy everything. There definately something more there. The Bible is clear that there were races of giants…desendants of the Nephalim…the Emmim, Zamzumim, Anakim, Amelek, Rephaim… if we are taking about Cain’s desendents marrying Seth’s..we wouldn’t get such a distortion of the human genepool. Guys I understand that the need of the hour is not a debate on these topics. Life is enough and more confusing without it. But, we need to warn people of the great deception that is currently being played out right before our very eyes. The best way to keep a secret is to leave it in the open. No one will notice it!

    God has already revealed it in His word what satan will unleash, but glory be to God…satan has his limits. We need to prepare ourselves for His coming is at hand. Let us move on readying ourselves to be with Him. We also need to educate the next generation on the word of God. The antichrist cannot be revealed unless there is a widespread church apostacy unlike anything we can ever imagine.

    Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2Ths 2:3-4

    If you need further info on this topic or any other I’d be happy to post. Please to inform.
    God bless

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Renjy

    Did you even READ my article?

  • Renjy

    Please explain to a Biblical Reason why every ancient Civilization of the world starting from the ancient Sumerians, Babylonians,Egyptians,Norse,Aboriginal, Greek, Roman,Persian,Hindu,Mayan,Inca,Aztec,Chinese,Native American Indians (hopi/cherokee etc), even very small tribes of the African continent and even among the islanders in the Pacific Ocean all have their belief systems based on sky gods descending and giving them knowledge, and siring children with theirs women?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Renjy

    There once upon a time was a guy called Satan (I think you have heard of him before) who went to all these people, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Norse, Aboriginal, Greek, Roman, Persian, Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Chinese, Native American Indians (hopi/cherokee etc), even very small tribes of the African continent and even among the islanders in the Pacific Ocean and told them the same occult stories over and over and over again under different fables, that all their belief systems based would be based on sky gods descending and giving them knowledge, and siring children with their women.

    Satan gave them fables and magic and they believed him. You seem to have been following Satan’s fables too. When will you turn to follow the Bible Renjy?

  • Renjy

    Absolutely right Deborah. However, a fable is not a fable when it becomes a reality in ones life, which it seemingly did in those days. I asked you for a Biblical explantation, which you have not furnished. I have been studying how men went so wrong and away from God with all these gods and religions? My quest has been to debunk false religions n gods. I am not here to disprove your thoughts but rather redirect them. There is a lot of sarcasm in your reply. I do not think it is a rigth way to answer someones questions? What if an unbeliever was asking you this…your reply would give him/her the feeling that you are mocking them, for asking a question! Let your words be seasoned with salt and full of grace is what the Bible, you and I read, commands us to speak.
    satan did spread these things but no one will believe a story or a fable without evidence. You mean to tell me that a few stories would influence someone. It would if they were gullible enough. Our ancestors were not that stupid. By the way what is magic…how does it work..it is part of the fable as well? Meaning that it is not real.I did read your article and have found a lot of the points you have used are incorrect readings of the verses. For example:

    “First, the normal meaning of “sons of God” is “believers”. “But as many as received him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Job 1:6 (a poetic book) is the only place where angels are called “sons of God”. It is logical and reasonable therefore that the normal meaning be attached to the term here, rather than the exception, as found in Job, unless there were something in the text that made a connection between Genesis 6 and Job 1 – which is absent.”

    The term “sons of God” can never be interpreted as believers in this chapter because Christ hadn’t come nor died in order for man to be redeemed. Using John 1:12 would actually disprove your point than establish it. To use this verse to prove the point is far worse than someone using Job 1:6 to prove who the sons of God are.

    There are more mistakes. I suggest that you recheck what you have understood becasue it is very important. I understand this topic is outrageous and most people wouldn’t even consider it. I am asking you to look deeper becasue I see that you are in a position of influence and I believe a lot of people accept what you say. It is my humble request.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Renjy

    First I was not sarcastic, don’t read into my words things that are not there. I was being deadly serious. When are you going to turn from looking at occult teachings and focus on the Word of God only.

    >> However, a fable is not a fable when it becomes a reality in ones life, which it seemingly did in those days. I asked you for a Biblical explantation, which you have not furnished.
    >> You mean to tell me that a few stories would influence someone. It would if they were gullible enough. Our ancestors were not that stupid. By the way what is magic…how does it work..it is part of the fable as well?

    How do you know it became REALITY in these peoples lives? Reality means that demons actually came down and did things. Instead how do you know they did not enter trances and experience these things via an occult means of communication? And pray tell how do I furnish biblical explanation for something that is not in the bible? Goodness that’s a bit ridiculous.

    >> satan did spread these things but no one will believe a story or a fable without evidence. You mean to tell me that a few stories would influence someone. It would if they were gullible enough. Our ancestors were not that stupid. By the way what is magic…how does it work..it is part of the fable as well?

    (Matt. 24:24 ) “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

    If it is possible for the Elect to be deceived how much more so is it possible for ungodly people to be deceived by LYING signs and wonders, using witchcraft, magic, sorcery etc. They will believe anything. You just have to spend a few minutes watching Youtube videos on syngomas/witchdoctors to know that all scruples go out the window when witchcraft is involved – and this is in the 21st century. The Maya were so intelligent it would appear they they wiped themselves out through sacrificing each other to their rain god because it stopped raining. They believed the sacrificing caused the rain god to make it rain, so when it stopped they thought their god was angry and they increased the sacrifices. It became so ferocious that they changed the manner in how they would sacrifice and the more brutal the better as they believed this would appease their Satanic rain god – but it never rained and they all died through drought and sacrificial death. When it comes to Satan BLINDING mankind, all intelligence goes out the window and he believes anything.

    Concerning occult practices, the Israelites were warned:
    “When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire [an ancient occult practice], or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination [detestable] to the LORD…” (Deuteronomy 18:9-12a)

    >> The term “sons of God” can never be interpreted as believers in this chapter because Christ hadn’t come nor died in order for man to be redeemed. Using John 1:12 would actually disprove your point than establish it. To use this verse to prove the point is far worse than someone using Job 1:6 to prove who the sons of God are.

    Of course they were believers, (not in a physical Jesus Christ) but in GOD. Just as people were children of God / sons of God in the OT so we are today. The Israelites where children of God / sons of God were they not? Of course yes.

    >> There are more mistakes

    lol, there are no mistakes.

    I can however point out some of yours… based on your first comment – see next comment

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Renjy

    >> Most of these leaders refer the Book of Enoch because Jude refers it in his book in the Bible. I also thought of it as heretical but then I was confronted with the question: If the Book of Enoch was not considered why would Jude use it as reference? Mind you Jude didn’t write it or put it there by his own will! All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim 3:16 This scripture that Jude wrote is because God told him to! I believe it is there for a reason.

    Let’s me fix some of your mistakes…

    Jude neither called Enoch “scripture,” nor prefaced his quotation of it with, “it is written.” Clearly, Jude did NOT view Enoch to be Scripture, or to be a sacred text, but merely cited a common prophecy of future judgment that elsewhere was canonically predicted by the Old Testament (Zechariah 14:5) “the Lord . . . will come, and all the holy ones with Him!” -(see Deuteronomy 33:2.) Confirmed by Jesus (Matthew 16:27) “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works,” (See also Matthew 25:31, Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26.) and affirmed by the Apostle Paul (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8) “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (See 1 Thessalonians 3:13)

    So why did Jude cite Enoch 1:9? Jude quoted Enoch because on the one hand false teachers rejected the authority of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles were telling them, but on the other hand treasured Enoch and other UNSCRIPTURAL books (i.e., the corpus of spurious writings, esp. writings erroneously credited to Biblical characters and times). Pseudo-teachers thrive on pseudo-books. So inspired by the Holy Spirit, Jude told his readers that false teachers were heading for judgment, something that they, in their smug self-righteousness, presumed they were going to avoid! And he did so by citing the sacred book of the false teachers.Take that, Jude tells them, and from your own “sacred” source!

    Renjy, if the words appear outside of the BIBLE then the texts are NOT BIBLICAL.

    (Revelation 22:18–20) “18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”

    And I will quote this verse right back at ya: (2Ths 2:3-4) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    We are in the GREAT APOSTASY Renjy, stop following after occult stories and focus on the Word of God only and most importantly UNDERSTAND the Bible properly and that can only be done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. :)
    Please read this: to understand what Salvation means and how the Holy Spirit works.

  • Greg

    Deborah and readers,
    In connection with the Nephilm and the books of Enoch and the finding of giant skeletons.

    I have read the books of Enoch for research purposes and also some of “the Lost books of Eden” and “The shepard of Hermes” The inconsistencies within them compared to the scriptures are obvious and staggering…to me at least.

    On the finding of the giant skeleton bones some of which are pictured above;

    Some time back a photography competition was ran, I think in the united states, to see if photographers could concoct photos of a fake archeological find. The competition was won by a guy who had a psueudonym of “Iorn Kite” He produced most of the photographs of the giant skeletons one of which was a skelton in a grave with a six gun by his side. He concocted shots that were supposed to be of bones found in India also. I believe his fake photo’s were featured in national geographic.

    You can see a commentary on his work on youtube.

    Greg.

  • DANIEL JOHNSON

    i am still not convinced by all the comment, the are all asumptions to the core. i think we should just accept it the way it is.may be GOD has many sons, we are the sons of GOD, angels are the sons of GOD, as well as heavenly being. this kind of sons were still carrying the same fresh as human being

  • tina

    [deleted – this is not an article on Positive Speaking]

  • Sheugnet

    Renjy. The seed of Satan refers to those who lie and oppose God. One reference is where Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. He plainly said that they had the devil as father.

  • Daniel Knezacek

    [deleted – Daniel I am not going to promote you or your book, please stop commenting on my website – that includes ALL articles]

  • maizie

    The beginning of this seems faulty because one of the first points is basing the sons of God having relations with the daughters of men upon the Matthew scripture–

    Quote:”Second Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.”

    To equate the preflood era with post resurrection Heaven is problematic. Preflood has flesh living to the age of 900 years of age. Postflood brought much change,such as limiting man’s lifespan, the breaking up of land into nations and limiting the devils (fallen angels) to a bodiless existence for a period of time. I have heard it told that the demons are (evil) spirits from those Nephilim but devils and demons are the same entity.

  • maizie

    I meant to say that demons and devils ARE NOT the same entity. I must have missed the edit button!!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    maizie

    What? No, you mis-read the article. Please read it again and properly.

  • Madaline Sanders

    Deborah,

    Your article concerning Genesis chap 6 and the giants is the WHOLE TRUTH, according to the infallible WORD OF GOD. I believe what Jesus said, ANGELS ARE ASEXUAL. They have never, and never will have sexual relations with human beings, or produce offspring. As children of God, we are to refrain from fables and doctrines of men and demons. Yes, demons do conjure up false doctrines; look at all the “synagogues of Satan,” who profess to be God’s churches. If Jesus said that angels don’t marry in the resurrection, He was stating an ageless FACT: they didn’t marry in heaven and they didn’t marry in Genesis 6. The angels that God created are the only angels there are; angels are not being born every day. Many cultures and professing Christians have been duped, or deceived by FABLES. Fables are LIES. The fact that someone believes a lie does not turn the lie into truth, or make it a reality. Children believe a red-suited benevolent, chubby man comes down a chimney, bearing gifts on Dec. 25th, but DOES HE, IN REALITY? NO!!! WAS JESUS BORN ON DEC. 25TH? NO! No flocks are out in the field after mid-October. People believe there were three wise men, but the bible doesn’t say there were three. If Christians are deceived by the Neph. LIE, what is going to happen when they see “demons working miracles” or the beast calling fire down from heaven? I stick with the Word of God and trust God to give me discernment and wisdom. GREAT ARTICLE!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thanks Madaline!

    And this lie of the Nephilim is being preached by well known supposedly ‘good’ pastors out there – why? Because it’s a doorway to push the Christian into believing OTHER OCCULT beliefs. Watch out for any minister who preaches this Nephilim lie.

  • Burning Lamp

    Debs said: And this lie of the Nephilim is being preached by well known supposedly ‘good’ pastors out there – why? Because it’s a doorway to push the Christian into believing OTHER OCCULT beliefs. Watch out for any minister who preaches this Nephilim lie.

    You are absolutely corrent. Whether they are doing this intentionally or with full awareness is not clear. However, the end result is the same. Even so-called “discernment sites” are promoting this error. This seems to be a central “doctrine” to some folks, the mountain to die on instead of the Gospel. In fact the truth serves as a window dressing to build trust so this destructive belief can be ushered in through the back door.

    Believers need to beware!!!

  • Templeton

    I read with interest your article about the Nephilim

    A couple of questions:

    What does it mean that Noah was “perfect in his generations” (Gen6:9)?

    Who exactly were the sons of God? The context implies they were not the sons of men.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Templeton

    >> What does it mean that Noah was “perfect in his generations” (Gen6:9)?

    Noah Pleases God (NKJV)

    9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

    Genesis 6:9 Amplified Bible (AMP)

    9 This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a just and righteous man, blameless in his [evil] generation; Noah walked [in habitual fellowship] with God.

    —————-

    >> Who exactly were the sons of God? The context implies they were not the sons of men.

    Read the article again.

  • Templeton

    Deborah. Thankyou for your reply.

    My NIV agrees with your translation of Gen 6:9. How can we know which translation is accurate??

    Yes. I did read the section on the Sons of God, but it does not answer the question: If they were not men what were they?

    Also: I find it very hard to believe that the Nephilim in 6:4 have nothing to do with the sons of God in the same verse. If this is the case it is very badly written.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Templeton

    They are men. It’s clear.

  • Burning Lamp

    The NIV uses dynamic equivalancy – thought for thought rather than a true rendering of the words – you should only stick to translations such as the KJV and the NKJV IMHO. There are many problems with the NIV. It would be worth your time to do the research.

  • Templeton

    Deborah.

    So men married women? Hardly a scoop. :)

  • anon please

    I really like your website, but I’m not convinced you are right on this one. Jesus: “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

    To me, that sounds like he is talking about the angels of heaven…the good guys. I allow for the possibility that the evil angels have the ability/power to do otherwise.

    I am really not sure what is the truth about this one.
    God bless, and good luck.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    anon please

    Jesus: “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

    So what are you saying that the bad angels when they left heaven grew penises? Is God not The Creator? He alone CREATES right? I strongly doubt God gave them sexual organs – for what reason?

    Secondly demonic spirits were sent into the atmosphere and remained there as principalities in the AIR – they are spirits, they can not fornicate with human beings.

  • Michael

    Renjy stated…The term “sons of God” can never be interpreted as believers in this chapter because Christ hadn’t come nor died in order for man to be redeemed. Using John 1:12 would actually disprove your point than establish it. To use this verse to prove the point is far worse than someone using Job 1:6 to prove who the sons of God are.

    Christ died for ALL the SINS of the world…past,present and future…God Himself CREATED TIME being OMNIPOTENT…a concept we cannot understand because we are limited in knowledge and intelligence.

    In a sense Christ died for guys like David,Moses, Abraham etc as they believed in the coming Messiah…they believed in repentance and the need to obey and follow God.

  • Werner

    The context clearly speaks of a cohabitation that is unusual and unnatural and causes the worldwide flood. Gen 5-6 deals with the human cause and Gen 1-4 deals with the angelic cause.

    Cohabitation between Sethites and Cainites would not be unusual or unnatural, while cohabitation between angels and humans would be.

    Matt 22:30 speaks of angels in heaven; the comparison is not with angels in general, but with angels in heaven. The emphasis is that in heaven good angels neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Matt 22:30 makes the same point about human beings – humans in heaven do not marry, nor are they given into marriage.

    Humans on earth do marry and are given into marriage. This is a contrast between what happens in heaven as over what happens here on earth. Gen 6 speaks of angels in earth!

    Angels are never declared to be sexless! The masculine gender is always used! Read the Greek and Hebrew and notice the word-play: angels do not procreate after their own kind, meaning that angels do not give birth to other angels. Angles are never described in feminine or neuter. When angles in Scripture become visible they always appeared as young men.

    Matt 22:30 cannot be used as an argument against the angelic interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 because it is dealing with a situation on earth, not in heaven, nor does Matt 22:30 teach that angels are sexless.

    In context of Genesis as a book, Gen 6:1-4 was a satanic attempt to corrupt the Seed of the woman by having some of his angels take on human form, again, angels always appear as young males when they take on human form, and intermarry with humankind to try corrupt the Seed. It was an event were satan attempted to nullify the prophecy of Gen 3:15.

    The result was Gen 6:3, Gods judgement. The judgement was to destroy the product in Gen 6:4.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Werner

    Did you read the article?

  • Werner

    Yes, Debs, I did read the article!

    I know Anton quite well and respect his teachings – like many other things in Scripture, this topic is open to debate.

    I do not claim my view as doctrine or as 100% correct – there is only one Word, and Scripture can only interpret scripture, but we all view the Scripture differently,e.g. hermeneutics tough in University’s and Bible Colleges today are not found in Scripture, Paul for example used methods derrived from Midrash etc.

    I also do not hold to aliens etc running around today, any such sighings are pure demonic.

    Just for interest, the ancient Jews tranlated the phrase “sons of God”, as “angels of God” in their Septuagint. The hebrew word bene elohim can be nophing except angels in its contextual meaning. Also, the word “wives” hebrew: ishshah can be translated “woman”. There is no necessary intimation of actual marriage involved.

    Anyhow, this topic does not and should not affect our relationship with God the Father and our fellow brethren, as it’s not a 100% made out scenario nor will it affect our salvation unless we allow it to become a total extra-biblical issue!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Werner

    You are right, it should not affect our relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unless you start off on a Chuck Missler tangent and start seeing UFO’s all over the place and expect the return of the Nephillim in the last days.

    >> Just for interest, the ancient Jews tranlated the phrase “sons of God”, as “angels of God” in their Septuagint.

    I think this is why God told us to not worry about other scripts and use the Bible alone, for the Word of God is TRUTH.

  • Werner

    Amen – just remember our O.T are derived from the Septuagint and other writings, so in effect that is the Bible…

    Therefore we cannot read into Scripture what is not there, I believe we should read and interpret plainly, as well as accept the obvious! I don’t agree with Anton that we should interpret the O.T with the new, but rather the known should intepret the unknonw, the clear should explain the unclear ect. It’s like a shadow when you walk down the street, the one cannot exist without the other!

    I’m not saying by this I’m right, rather that I would be ignorant to think I understand this passage! I don’t think anyone does and I might even agree with what Anton says 100%, but for now I like to be different…lol!

    One day we wil know!

  • I just wanted to note that it doesn’t seem so outrageous that “angels” came down and had sexual relations with the daughters of men when you put 2 and 2 together. I.e., The “angels” that came down are the same ones that LEFT their FIRST ABODE.

    In other words, they weren’t “angels” they were what we would call demons.

    Or so it appears to my often prone to fail, see through a glass darkly incredibly frail and all too human mind. :P

    Anyway, try to follow my line of reasoning…

    If there were “angels” who left their first abode (Heaven) they obviously went somewhere. If they left Heaven and went somewhere, then where? Where else is there? Earth!

    Ok so now we’ve got angels who left Heaven and came to Earth…to LIVE. Remember we’re talking about abodes and not just relocation. They left their first abode and came to their next one, Earth.

    So now they’re living on Earth. But doing what? Apparently something so bad that they deserved to be thrown in the abyss for it.

    But what?

    I proffer that they were doing what is described in Genesis: taking wives of the daughters of men and birthing extra-ordinary offspring.

    I would even go one step further and proffer that these offspring and their sires are what gave rise to many of our myths and mythologies (e.g., Greek gods = demon sires and Greek demi-gods = their renowned offspring).

    I’d also like to throw in the reference in Daniel (3:25?) to “one like unto the son of God” referring to the 4th figure in the fire. Checking in my Strong’s it appears that the language used is identical to that used in Genesis. I find it hard to believe that the 4th figure was not an angel. Additionally, I’m finding the usage in Job is also identical. How could the term “son(s) of God” NOT refer to angelic beings?

    Anyway, just my 2 cents.

    Take care!

  • Martin Horan

    Hi, I’ve just found this part of your site about five minutes ago and it’s really a soundly biblical and soundly logical argument.
    Oddly enough, a day or maybe two ago (my memory’s not what it was!) I posted a similar thing on another part of your site, stating some of the same objections against this idea of angels having sex with women.
    The sad thing about such loopy ideas is that holes are easily popped in them and then people who think that these fictions actually build their faith end up with it being destroyed. That’s because many–maybe even most–Christians do not really apply 1 Thess 5:21 & 1 John 4:1 to their thinking.
    Also, when logical people hear these arguments they conclude that Christianity itself is stupid and so reject it outright. These fables do not glorify God even though their proponents may intend that. They really dishonour Him.
    I have seen this happen when people have fallen into the trap of Anglo-Israelism. They believed all what they were hearing & reading and thought they were receiving deeper insight into the Bible.
    Often Christians can be like Freemasons, astrologers, numerologists, palmists, flat-earthers, God-was-a-spaceman believers and the like. Extraneous “knowledge” makes them feel that they have a corner on truth which no-one else has. That can be heady. Sadly, it can turn people into fantasists. That, of course, suits Satan–the author of these things–because it leads people away from God.
    The English poet Alexander Pope wrote four lines of verse which I wish Christians (who don’t take the above Scriptures seriously) would think on. They are:
    A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
    Drink deep or taste not of the Perian Spring,
    For there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
    While drinking largely sobers us again.
    I don’t wish to be offensive but it is usually people who do not have much learning who grasp at these superfluous straws. Learning is not the be-all-and-end-all in this life. Indeed, Paul, a highly-educated man, warned us that knowledge puffs up. I also think that if people could reason more logically it would help. Though that is not the be-all-and-end-all either. Something else is:
    The Holy Spirit will guide us into ALL truth–truth necessary to salvation, that is.
    Is any of this superfluous knowledge necessary to salvation? Not a bit of it!
    All it means is that concerned Christians have to go to the trouble of refuting it. Thankfully, Anton Bosch did so definitively, hammering the last nail, as it were, into that coffin of confusion.
    One thing I do have to thank him, and your site, for is that I had thought the photographs of the giant skeletons were genuine. As I have no problems believing that there were giants on the earth–the Bible says there were–I simply took it for granted that the photos were real. Alas, even they were hoaxes.
    Thanks again to Mr Bosch and your site, I now have a more realistic view even of the sizes of the Biblical giants.
    Keep up the good work!

  • Sam

    Any thoughts about how the giants after the flood came to have six fingers and six
    toes.

    1Sam. 21:20 and 1Chron.20:6

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sam

    Firstly, there is no verse 1 Sam 21:20.

    1 Chronicles 20:4-6
    4 Now it happened afterward that war broke out at Gezer with the Philistines, at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Sippai, who was one of the sons of the giant. And they were subdued.
    5 Again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
    6 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, with twenty-four fingers and toes, six on each hand and six on each foot; and he also was born to the giant. 7 So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him.

    Now if you read the article and comments properly you will read that David was almost as big as Goliath (a Giant) was when he grew into a man because he could wield Goliath’s sword. Sippai (v4) who was the son of a Giant was also a Philistine, the same tribe as Goliath killed by Sibbechai (1 man). Then there was another Philistine born to the same Giant who was of ‘great statue’ (meaning he was renown and well known) and he clearly had deformities and a deformity in no way implies that they were offspring from demons. Are people who are born with deformities today offspring from demons? No. David’s brother Johathan was obviously as big as his brother when he killed him this man with 24 fingers and toes.

    PLEASE read the article and comment properly as these answers have already been provided. Do you really think that God would flood the world to wipe out these ‘giants’ and make a mistake by missing a few when he CLEARLY only saved Noah and his family?

  • Sam

    Thanks for your reply. I’m not being argumentative – I’ll go back and take a look again. And sorry for my mistake on the first ref. it was 2Sam.21:20.

  • Sam

    There is no proof that I can see that David was the same or similar height to Goliath. David was able to handle the Golliath’s sword when he was a youth – 1Sam. 17:49-58.

    Aside from that, your article is thought provoking and I’m going to look into this subject re how these giants came to be further ’till I’m satisfied I have arrived at the right conclusion from scripture.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sam

    >> David was able to handle the Golliath’s sword when he was a youth

    So you can’t see the logic that David can easily wield a giants sword in battle. David would have to be almost the same size as Goliath when he grew up? Have you ever held a normal sized sword? Goliath’s sword was made to his size and “There is none like it” (1 Sam 21:9) and David (when he was KING) was big enough to use it in battle.

    I am not being argumentative either. You go do your research as I have for the past 2 years on this subject. I have gone back and forth, back and forth between the two notions and I am now thoroughly satisfied that this is the truth.

    You quote 2 Samuel 21: “20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant.”

    …This is the same guy as 1 Chronicles 20:6

    And you quote the wrong verse, (1Sam. 17:49-58.) David killed Goliath with a stone, but later when he was KING he used Goliath’s sword in battle. You show me scripture to prove nothing.

    This is what you want to read:

    1 Samuel 21:8-11
    8 And David said to Ahimelech, “Is there not here on hand a spear or a sword? For I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste.
    9 So the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, there it is, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you will take that, take it. For there is no other except that one here.
    And David said, There is none like it; give it to me.
    David Flees to Gath
    10 Then David arose and fled that day from before Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. 11 And the servants of Achish said to him, “Is this not David the king of the land? Did they not sing of him to one another in dances, saying:
    ‘Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands’?”

  • Irma van der Colff

    I only just came across your website, and what a pleasure it is! Soooo much work has gone into this and I pray that God will use and bless this work abundantly.

    I would like, however, too suggets a different view on this matter:

    1]The article states that it’s quite clear that the sons of God refers to humans, but if you consider it truthfully, you must admit that it is equally clear or unclear to both sides. Actually, it is clearer to the deamon-interpretation, because there is:
    1)a clear distinction made between ‘the sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men'[or are women not children of God then, and what about unsaved men – are they referred to as son of God?] and
    2) the only beings ever referred to as sons of God were Adam [the 1st man:created by God personally, and angels:also created by God personally [of whom 1/3 became demonic]. All other humans are called sons and daughters of men – they were all born of women, thus God created them indirectly through the laws of life that He set in motion – even Jesus called Himself the son of man [very specifically so to identify Himself with us]. It is only through the new birth that a human can become a son of God. This to me is much clearer.

    If you read accounts of satanists, i.e. Rebecca Brown’s: He came to set the captives free, you will learn that deamons indeed can have intercourse with humans, and that they can indeed take on different shapes – I really advise you to read the book.The demons locked away refers to those from before the flood. There are, it seems, the demons throughout the ages also leave their boundaries, just as the men in Sodom did, and they were punished for it, yet many others do the same without taking head of what had happened to the Sodomites – but the day of punishment for them too, is approaching.

    I agree with your interpretation of the giants – it does not take a rocket scientist to note that the nefillim-photo’s are fake. I do believe that Goliath’s tribe [the Refaiets-2Ch20-family of Goliath]were exceptionally large men. My brother is a very big man. He went to and he was literally like a giant in their midst – standing not only shoulders above them but up to his waist. I have a gardener who is 5 foot tall but as strong as an ox [david and Goliath’s sword]. The Bible describeGoliath as 9ft 8’, and they have indeed found a scull of a man approximately 10 feet in Jerusalem. You will find a photo at Google images: Goliath’s head. I copied one of the article for you: It was reported on in the Jerusalem Post’The ‘Kingdom Times,’ Belfast, May 1994, carried the story of how a leading archaeologist had found Goliath’s skull in a valley west of Jerusalem with the stone from David’s slingshot still embedded in his forehead! Dr. Richard Martin says the discovery proves that David’s battle with the 10-foot giant happened just like the Bible said it did, 1,000 years before the birth of Yahshua. ‘This is the archaeological find of the century, if not of all time,’ Dr. Martin told reporters at a conference in Jerusalem. ‘Many people, including scholars and clergymen, would have us believe that the biblical account of David and Goliath is little more than an interesting piece of fiction,’ he said. ‘But we found this skull in the valley of Elah, in the foothills of the Judean mountains, where David’s battle with Goliath was said to have taken place. Even more intriguing, the skull is HUGE and clearly belonged to a man of ENORMOUS STATUE. ‘And if you believe the Bible, you know that Goliath was 9 feet 8 inches tall. ‘But the most telling piece of evidence is the small round rock we found embedded in the forehead. The Bible tells that David killed Goliath with a stone flung from a leather sling. ‘Dr. Martin found the skull during an archaeological survey 20 miles south-west of Jerusalem on 23rd March, 1993. He and his assistants instantly realized that the find was important; but it was only when they had performed tests which showed the skull to be between 2,900 and 3,000 years old that they began to think they had found the remains of Goliath. ‘The Bible places the battle between David and Goliath around 990 B.C., or 1,000 years before the birth of Yahshua,’ Dr. Martin said. ‘According to the Bible the battle began as a band of Israelites were preparing to fight a band of Philistines in the Valley of Elah. ‘At that point in history it was common for enemies to avoid massive casualties by allowing one man fron each side to fight for their respective armies. To quote the Bible, Goliath, challenged the Israelites to ‘choose a man and let him come to me. If he be able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I…kill him, then you will serve us.’ ‘David answered the challenge and killed Goliath with a single stone thrown from a leather sling. When Goliath hit the ground, David chopped off his head with Goliath’s own sword. ‘As I said before, the skull that we found had a rock stuck in the forehead. There was also evidence to suggest that the head had been SEVERED from the body by a sharp object, most likely a sword. There can be little doubt that this is Goliath’s skull. To be perfectly frank, I’m staking my career on it,’ said Dr. Martin.’ — Michael A. Clark, Wake Up! July/August 1994

  • Irma van der Colff

    You should wangle your page so that the latest comments show at the top, not at the bottom :)

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Irma

    >> If you read accounts of satanists, i.e. Rebecca Brown’s: He came to set the captives free, you will learn that deamons indeed can have intercourse with humans, and that they can indeed take on different shapes – I really advise you to read the book.The demons locked away refers to those from before the flood. There are, it seems, the demons throughout the ages also leave their boundaries, just as the men in Sodom did, and they were punished for it, yet many others do the same without taking head of what had happened to the Sodomites – but the day of punishment for them too, is approaching.

    Please read this: Rebecca Brown – WARNING! Don’t Bind Yourself in her Books

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Irma

    I have thought about that, but then people will miss conversations taking place, and there are many conversations taking place here on DTW, so I want people to read from top to bottom.

  • Irma van der Colff

    Oops – I notice some errors and I left out a word or two it seems – my brother went to Taiwan.

  • antonio

    [deleted – if you are going to insult me, then please go away]

  • judith

    I have witnessed on several occasions, since 2007, normal looking persons, change their appearance and in a blink of an eye, become demons with red laser like light emanate from their oscillating iris…complete with fangs, which were not present prior to transformation.

    I have no idea why this happens to me, but I speak the truth.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    judith

    please read this: 09 – How to Become a Child of God

  • Otireda

    I regret that some people here still name the CATHOLIC CHURCH AS EVIL WICKED AND ETC ETC .if it wasn,t for the Catholic church we would not have the Bible today as we know it.We are all Christians .Jesus said “” who ever is for us is not against us “”.By the way all the other christian religions came from the Catholic Church one form or the other.The peace of Jesus to everyone.

  • Redeemed

    Otireda,

    have you compared Roman Catholic dogma to the Bible?

    Roman Catholicism does not teach the Bible.

    The Bible was not written by the Roman Catholic Church.

    Are you aware that the Roman Catholic Church teaches salvation by works?
    That is NOT in the Bible! Most of what they teach is not even in the Bible!
    Or they have taken Scriptures and twisted them to fit their man-made rules.

    As a Christian I do not honor the Pope. In fact, I believe the exact opposite as the Roman Catholic Church.

    You are obviously very confused. Please ponder the questions asked here.

  • Louise

    Debra thank u for the link. i noticed he did not cover the issue of the statue in the book of Daniel. I have read the article and am busy still doing my own research on this topic. In the book of Daniel it mentions “They will mingle themselves with the seed of men.”Daniel 2 v 43. has anyone done a teaching on this or has anyone got a suitable explanation. Thank you.

  • John Chingford

    Hi Louise

    Those like Chuck Missler use this verse WAY OUT OF CONTEXT to try to promote the “fallen angel – Nephilim” doctrine as contained in the false extra biblical book of Enoch. By the way, I replied to a previous question of yours on the most recent article.

    Please check out Daniel 2 v 43 in the context of the whole chapter. It is important to understand what the prophecy was about. Verse 43 “they” is referring to the 10 toes which the book of Revelation explains are the 10 kings. It is the 10 kings which will mingle amongst us. Actually, it would be good if someone could look at the original Hebrew text for the meaning of that word “mingle”. I confess that I do not understand the KJV meaning of that phrase. However, if you look at other versions, it uses words that give it a completely different meaning.

    The point is that you cannot base a doctrine or theology on just one or two obscure/ambiguous verses in the bible. The whole chapter is referring to the different empires AFTER Daniel that were to dominate the global scene until the time of Christ’s return. It is totally discussing EARTHLY empires and has no relation to aliens setting up kingdoms!!!

    Please read my article entitled “Explaining The Beast With Seven Heads and Ten Horns and The Woman Riding The Beast” on [removed] which discusses these 10 toes and the 10 kingdoms in more detail.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thanks for answering that John!

  • Louise

    Good morning John Chingford. Thank you so much for taking the time in explaining Daniel 2 V 43. I will do a study on the Greek and I will also check out your site. Indeed I did hear it from Chuck. I have my own black marks against him amongst others but thats not for now to discuss. I am always open to correction even so late in my life, and especially knowing we are at the end times. Truth is all I seek. I have changed my views on the Bride Of Christ at least 10 times and still cannot find the answer I am most happiest with. Chat again soon.

  • Irma vd Colff

    @ Deborah (Discerning the World):Gee thanx for info on Rebecca Brown, what an eye opener! And I’m usually the one telling others to test their sources.

  • Hi Debora!!, thanks for clarifying this sons of God and daughters of men scenario, it has been a problem indeed.Infact Adam w’d have been there if he did not loose his kingship to satan, satan was there as the one / the earth’s representative and God did not chased him out of that meeting because was the king indeed.Infact the sons who went in that meeting with God were not angels but the leaders of all other planets and satan as the leader of planet earth went there as his right to be there. If some how you feel that what I’m saying is not fit right…. I will make research and come back with the evidense for this.We need to talk about who exactly is the Antchrist, I am saying this because when you look the bible and what the people are saying about antichrist are two different things.Thank you.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sibs

    >> Infact the sons who went in that meeting with God were not angels but the leaders of all other planets and satan as the leader of planet earth went there as his right to be there. If some how you feel that what I’m saying is not fit right….

    Huh? Is this in the bible that other planets have people on them? Is there a Jesus Christ per planet?

  • Truthful Conversation

    Sometimes I read some comments and I laugh in unbelief!

    The thing is, it really is NOT funny, because the people who post those comments are so mixed up in their thinking. I have been confused, and I have bought some real fat lies from satan in the past.. but some things people believe are so ‘out there’! Where on earth have they gone to hear that garbage?! siggghhhhh….

  • baka verwey

    Deborah..my humble understanding of the Word..I agree with A.Bosch on the explanation of the Nephilim ..but differ somewhat on the explanation on the “Angels” in Job 1 an 2,..when reading Job 1 in context..Job came before God with burnt offerings after the feasting of his children..to purify them..that was his regular custom..and in v.6..the sons of God..meaning Job as was His Custom..to come and stand before God with his burnt offerings..(as when we pray we stand before Him)..Satan was with them..Rev.12:10.”.satan.the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before God day and night..”
    The whole book of Job handles the relationship of God and Job with satan..not with the Angels..as we see in Hebrew 1..God never refer to the Angels as His sons..”v5.For which of the Angels did God ever say,..You are my Son: today I have become your Father(or have begotten you)..or..I will be his Father and he will be my Son…
    Thank you Deborah

  • omr

    The new york time has already posted information about skeletal remains of great stature, , and your assertion that the media have not published anything is false, there are other Hebrew scriptures where explicitly state that existed giants.

  • omr

    We’re not saying there were or are no giants. We are saying the giants were not the offspring of fallen angels who allegedly had sex with women and spawned the giants.

  • Saved

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Bob

    King Og was approx 12 feet tall, BUT GUESS how tall Noah was? He was 12 feet tall. (Cecil Dougherty, author of Valley of the Giants (Valley of the Giants Publishers, first edition, 1971)

    What is the source of this claim in Dougherty’s book?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Saved

    What is your source to believe in the Nephillim? The book of Enoch?

  • Saved

    ^^ Where is that coming from? I have never read the book of Enoch, nor do I have any intention to. The same for Dougherty’s book, which you reference as a source for Noah’s length. I do not remember seeing any biblical reference to Noah’s length, so I wondered what source Dougherty used?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Saved

    ok :) I think it is a guestimation based on what the size of a person would have been around that time, taking into account their age and the amount of oxygen the planet had back in those days – things were just bigger, including people. I would not be surprised if Adam was even taller. We are going backwards, people are getting smaller and sicker due to lack of oxygen and the time God set that we would live too regarding our age, that being 70yrs old.

  • Saved

    Another quick question: you mention that David Pawson leans towards New Age teaching. Could you possibly elaborate somewhat, offer an example or two?

  • Saved

    I know that David Pawson believes saints can lose their salvation but that doesn’t categorize him with leanings towards New Age teaching. I personally believe a saint cannot lose his or her salvation and therefore strongly differ with him on this subject.

    However, Pawson does believe that the Nephilim in Genesis 6 are the offspring of marriages between earthly women and fallen angels which IS a New Age teaching. It comes from the Book of Enoch which is totally anti-biblical jargon. The Bible does NOT teach it.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Saved

    Take some time to peruse his website and you will find New Age teachings. But hold on, I see his website has changed, when I found new age teaching on his website it did not look like this one. In fact the teaching was right on his front page – now its gone. Please do me a favour and watch this youtube video. I don’t have enough bandwidth to watch videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0H4A2kbvA tell me what you think about it?

  • Vanessa

    ROLF…I am not having a great day so this laughter I had was all worth it. Man oh man did i laugh at a comment I read here from Judith 10/10/2014 I have witnessed on several occasions, since 2007, normal looking persons, change their appearance and in a blink of an eye, become demons with red laser like light emanate from their oscillating iris…complete with fangs, which were not present prior to transformation.

    I have no idea why this happens to me, but I speak the truth.

    Now for Debbies reply please read this: 09 – How to Become a Child of God. Becoming a child of God is serious so please don’t think i am laughing at that. Its how you said it that made me laugh.

  • Renjy wrote:

    Please explain to a Biblical Reason why every ancient Civilization of the world starting from the ancient Sumerians, Babylonians,Egyptians,Norse,Aboriginal, Greek, Roman,Persian,Hindu,Mayan,Inca,Aztec,Chinese,Native American Indians (hopi/cherokee etc), even very small tribes of the African continent and even among the islanders in the Pacific Ocean all have their belief systems based on sky gods descending and giving them knowledge, and siring children with theirs women?

    Because all the religions of those ancient peoples were demonic. Guess what, they believed that nonsense because their god (the devil) is a liar (John 8:44).

  • Irma van der Colff wrote:

    If you read accounts of satanists, i.e. Rebecca Brown’s: He came to set the captives free, you will learn that deamons indeed can have intercourse with humans, and that they can indeed take on different shapes – I really advise you to read the book.The demons locked away refers to those from before the flood. There are, it seems, the demons throughout the ages also leave their boundaries, just as the men in Sodom did, and they were punished for it, yet many others do the same without taking head of what had happened to the Sodomites – but the day of punishment for them too, is approaching.

    Would you rather believe Rebecca Brown than Jesus Christ who said:

    Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    Please read “The Nephilim Controversy.”

  • Actually, the book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament, and was one of the books in the Essene community. It has always been considered holy scripture by the Coptic church. It is likely one of the books that Jesus referred to when he pointed out references about him in the scriptures, because it speaks clearly of the Elect One.

  • Michael

    Where in the New Testament is the Book of Enoch quoted?

  • Sheugnet

    Michael, please do not confuse ‘the book of enoch’ with Enoch. Remember, I can write a book and call it: The Book of Michael. That doesn’t mean that you wrote it.

  • Rick Espejo

    Your whole assumption is based on Angels not having sexual parts in which Jesus NEVER said or eluded to. By using your own degree of tearing apart a verse to make it mean something else, is wrong. Jesus only said they neither Marry in Heaven. The reason for marriage is to bond from 2 people as one soul. In Heaven God is present and all the Angels are One as Revelations describes it. But by adding they have no male female organs is a made up scripture. God says they never took the Women of God basically because they were ugly. yet its a fact God made female Angels.

    Lets just say your presumption isn’t His Truth, then YES one third of the Angels left their boundaries and DID take wives and bore children, Adam was also given options, God does that, He didn’t have to plant a Bad tree in the first place but He did then Cain had to have married a nephilim girl.

    The only reason i say this is because you never answered the questions about Nephilim… by using your theory the question remained silly eluding to small people.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Rick Espejo

    >> God says they never took the Women of God basically because they were ugly. yet its a fact God made female Angels.

    Really? What source of information do you get this from, that states there are female angels in heaven and they were ugly. Sorry but this comment made me laugh out loud.

  • Slowly

    “Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.”

    The text only implies that there is no procreation. Never does it say they are asexual. Otherwise the text implies that in heaven we shall all loose our sexual gender, which is absurd. Jesus is male, Blessed mary is female..etc.

  • Slowly

    ” Jesus said angels do not have relations”

    Jesus says saintly angels do not have relations in heaven.

    He never says fallen angels can have no relations with early women. All Church writings about the issue are full of reports of demonic practices with both women and men.

    We hace centuries of writings.

    Also, Church Fathers (who learned directly from the Apostles) are very clear with the issue: Demons had relations with women.
    The septuagint – which Jesus cited himself- translates Gen 6,2 directly as Angels

  • Slowly

    earthly women. Sorry.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Slowly

    Are you Roman Catholic? How can you comment on the truth regarding the Nephilim when you follow a pagan religion?

  • Slowly wrote,

    He never says fallen angels can have no relations with early women. All Church writings about the issue are full of reports of demonic practices with both women and men.

    The argument that only the angels in heaven do not marry earthly women, have sex with them and spawn offspring, and that fallen angels are capable of marrying human women, have sex with them and spawn children is ridiculous to say the least. Since when did God create angels with male sexual organs? Why are they all male and not female? If God had created the holy angels with male sexual organs but forbade them to marry human women, He would be guilty of his own indictment in 1 Timothy,

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Ti 4:1-3)

    As you know, the above verse fits the RCC like a glove. Why would God create angels to have a normal martial relationship with earthly women and then forbid them to marry? “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:30)

  • Slowly wrote,

    The septuagint – which Jesus cited himself- translates Gen 6,2 directly as Angels.

    That’s an infamous lie. The Septuagint does NOT translate Genesis 6:2 as angels, let alone fallen angels. This is the translation,

    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.

    Now, you and others who hold to this bizarre doctrine may say, “But the sons of God” always refers to a direct creation of God like Adam and the angels. The words used for “sons of God” is “bene ha Elohim” which, they say, is always used for angels in the Old Testament. In addition these guys (the Nephilist crackpots) admit that sinners who had been born anew from above in the New Testament are also called the “sons of God” because they too are direct creations of God. Well now, that poses a real problem, doesn’t it? What about Abraham? Was he not a son of God having been born anew from above when he was saved? In the New Testament all believers are also called the children of Abraham.

    Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Galatains3:7).

    So, now we have the bizarre situation where the sons of God [in the New Testament] are called the children of someone [in the Old Testament] who was NOT a son of God (and therefore an unbeliever or at best not a fallen angel. Well that’s a relief, isn’t it?). Ah, but some of these crackpots always have “a very good answer” to everything and probably say, “Yes, Abraham was saved but he was not a son of God. Only the New Testament believers were called “sons of God.” Well, in that case the sons of God in the New Testament will still be the children of someone who was NOT a son of God. Do they really think the God of the Bible is a God of confusion? (1 Corinthians 14:33).

    What these Nephilim – sorry, but I must say it again – crackpots are doing is to twist Scripture to their own destruction because they are corrupting the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are twisting Scripture to their own destruction.

    The real problem with the Nephilim crackpots is that they rebelliously refuse to listen to Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:30 or at least sanctimoniously twist his words and say “He only meant the angels in heaven. Adversely, the fallen angels were capable of marrying and having sex with earthly women.”

    How did they have sex? With normal male genitals? Really? In that case the angels in heaven must still have male genitals which means God must have created them that way. So now, we can understand why fallen angels can marry and have sex with earthly women. They too were created by God and were all IN HEAVEN before their fall. Only the angels who are still in heaven are forbidden to marry and have sex with women. Bizarre??? Only crackpots can believe this sort of nonsense.

    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Mat 22:30)

    (As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peters 3:16)

    I once heard a woman say that she loves to listen to the wise words of intelligent men. Intelligent men? Should we listen to intelligent men?

    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise [the so-called wise an intelligent]; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him [her] glory in the Lord. (1Co 1:26-31)

    And just in case you may think “crackpot” is a derogatory word, it refers to an eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas.

  • Lou

    Dear Tom

    Angels can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, it seems, wanted to engage in shameful sexual acts with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). In Genesis 18:1-19 we find God and two angels actually having a meal with Abraham. So, if angels are able to have a physical stomach and digestive system, could it not also be plausible for fallen angels to appear in male physical bodies with sexual organs?

    Obviously, this would not be natural to angels. It was a sinful act. Just like it is not natural for a man to have sexual relations with another man for example. The latter are rebellious sinful acts against God. I am just not convinced from the context that “sons of God” means men from the line of Seth. Why would men who have a relationship with God go out and take wives from communities who did not have a desire to be in a relationship with God? Then there’s also the question of whether all the descendants of Seth were in right standing with God or not. Israel, for instance, was the chosen nation for God’s purposes, but not all Israelites were righteous.

    Lastly, John 1:12 says, ” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…”. My understanding of this verse is that we are made (adopted) as sons of God when we believe in Jesus. Just like parents who adopts a child and that child shares the same status as their biological children. Adam and the angels were directly created by God and are thus sons of God, and believers (whether before Jesus died on the cross or after) becomes sons of God when they believe.

    Regards,

    Lou

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dear Lou

    No where did we say that Angels can’t appear in human form…did we? nope.

    Tell me, the bible says that after the flood there were Nephilim too. Can you explain this to me?

    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.

  • Lou

    Hi Deborah

    I apologise, I did not mean to allude to it that you were of the opinion angels did not appear in physical form. I was just trying to make the point that maybe if they are able to eat then also do other physical acts.

    Yes, you’re right. The Bible says after the flood there were Nephilim too. I have to admit, the relationship between the Nephilim to the union of the sons of God and daughters of men is not all that clear to me. I would be inclined to think that the Nephilim was that unions’ offspring – but that is not stated. The Bible only says they were in the earth in those days when sons of God married daughters of men. They were also in the earth after the flood. So it could be that after the flood wicked angels took physical form again and continued what they have done until God took care of them by binding them. Or, they were some other group that had no relationship to the sons of God.

    Whatever they were, their name carried a negative connotation (fallen ones). In Numbers 13:33 however, the word Nephilim clearly indicates people of big physical appearance. And their size seems to be unusual. Saul stood head and shoulders above the rest of his people, but he was not called a Nephilim. I am just wondering why the Nephilim were so distinguished from other tribes if their size did occur in other tribes as well. If Goliath, for example, was only a big man in terms of ‘basketball player big’, why was nobody in the Israelite camp willing to fight him? Why didn’t Saul fight him? Unless his unusual big appearance made even the bravest soldier frightened.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dear Lou

    Do you see how you come up will all sorts of strange answers to the question that no where can be found in the bible? You are just guessing.

    If the first lot of demonic angels were thrown into Tartarus (hell) by God for abandoning their place of residence (it does not say they came down and had sex with women)…

    2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

    Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

    Do you think a second lot would do the same as the first knowing full well the punishment they would receive? And if the second lot came down after the flood, why is it not mentioned in the bible that God threw them into Tartarus too? Now the big question, why are demonic angels still not coming down today as we speak creating demonic giant babies? The answer is because demonic angels did not come down and actually have sexual relations with human women in the first place. *** See end of comment explaining 2 Peter 2:4

    Why is it not possible that there were Nephilim after the flood because people began to populate the earth again and became very sinful and more men of great/giant stature were born (not giants physically, but giants in stature – their personalities). For instance an example of the Nephilim today could very well be the Rockerfellers and Rothschilds and all those other evil families – these are but the evilest of men ruling this world who worship satan.

    >> If Goliath, for example, was only a big man in terms of ‘basketball player big’, why was nobody in the Israelite camp willing to fight him? Why didn’t Saul fight him? Unless his unusual big appearance made even the bravest soldier frightened.

    David was a youngster when he fought Goliath – he was tiny in his build. It had nothing to do with the size of the person it was who had a guts to fight him because he was the meanest of the mean and very very big. Everyone was scared except David. Now if you read the bible you will see that David later when he grew up was able to wield Goliath’s sword in battle. Therefore when David grew up he was just as big as Goliath.

    1 Samuel 21:9 And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

    So what is the explanation for 2nd Peter 2:4

    The Bible teaches in 2nd Peter 2:4 that God did not tolerate rebellion amongst the angels and cast them down to Hell. We read in Matthew 8:28-29 that not all the demons were confined to Hell, but dwell upon the earth. God bound some of the worst angels into Hell right away; but banned the others to the earth with Satan.

    Satan (on earth) says: Isaiah 14:14, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Hi Lou

    You ask about the verse, Numbers 13:33 “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

    The name Anak is derived from the son of Arba who was a great man among the Arabians (Jos 15:14) who possibly got his title because he used to wear a chain or splendid collar around his neck. The word “giant” here in the above scripture actually referes to STATURE (See Genesis 6:4). The Anakims were more than likely a very distinguished family, or a chosen group of warriors, selected for their extraordinary size.

    When the Israelites came back to report to Moses they exaggerated the physical strength of the Canaanites. “We were in our own sight as grasshoppers” is based on ‘strong Orientalism’, meaning this is how they would described the situation in their manner, their mannerism.]

    Answer taken from here: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/01/04/jacob-prasch-chuck-missler-preach-the-false-teaching-of-demonic-nephilim-returning-in-end-times/

  • Lou wrote,

    Dear Tom

    Angels can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, it seems, wanted to engage in shameful sexual acts with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). In Genesis 18:1-19 we find God and two angels actually having a meal with Abraham. So, if angels are able to have a physical stomach and digestive system, could it not also be plausible for fallen angels to appear in male physical bodies with sexual organs?

    If you can show me one single verse in the Bible where it says that fallen angels appeared in human form, I may reconsider my stance on the Nephilim. There is not a single instance in the Bible where fallen angels appeared in human form or manipulated matter in ways far beyond our technological abilities. In fact, the Bible clearly stipulates that fallen angels need to inhabit a human body and not take on the form of a human body to function in human form. Here’s the proof.

    “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. “Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.” (Matthew 12:43-45).

    If a demon could simply materialize in some kind of human form, then it wouldn’t be constantly looking for an already existent human form which to inhabit. This is a further indication that demons cannot appear at will in some human-like form. When the demons were cast out of the men at Gadera, they did not wish to be bodiless – they would rather enter into the bodies of pigs. If they had the ability to manipulate matter and appear in human form, they would have done so.

    And he besought Him much that He would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of swine feeding. And they besought Him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. (Mark 5:10-12).

    Only holy angels appeared in human form to people on the earth.

    And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, (Genesis 18:1-2) 

    And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; (Genesis 19:1).

    Were these holy angels able to take on human form of themselves? I doubt it. Jesus Christ alone had the ability to take on human form in the Old Testament, and it was He who provided these angels with a human form, not they themselves.

    Angels have no creative power whatsoever.

    You wrote,

    I am just not convinced from the context that “sons of God” means men from the line of Seth. Why would men who have a relationship with God go out and take wives from communities who did not have a desire to be in a relationship with God?

    Well, why would today’s sons of God go out and take wives from communities who do not have a desire to be in a relationship with God. I know several Christians who married Muslims and today their children are little Muslims groomed to be martyrs for Allah. And by the way they were not forced into these marriages.

    The women in Noah’s days had no choice. They were forced to marry the sons of God. The entire nation of Israel is called God’s elect (Isaiah 45:4) and as such they were all holy (set apart for God’s purpose which was to bring His Messiah into the world -John 4:22). They are even called the children of the Kingdom.

    Does that mean every single Jew was saved or will be saved? Of course not (Matthew 8:12). The same principle of holiness unto the Lord (separated unto the Lord for his purposes) applies to Seth and his descendants. (1 Corinthians 7:14).

    For the unbelieving husband is set apart (separated, withdrawn from heathen contamination, and affiliated with the Christian people) by union with his consecrated (set-apart) wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart and separated through union with her consecrated husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean (unblessed heathen, [a]outside the Christian covenant), but as it is they are [b]prepared for God [pure and clean]. (Amplified Bible).

    I am sure you saw the part “separated, withdrawn from heathen contamination, and affiliated with the Christian people.”

    In the same way that He chose Israel to be the children of the kingdom, He chose Seth and his descendants to be in a special relationship with Him (to be called sons of God) so that He may accomplish his ultimate goal which was to bring the Saviour into the world.

    To accomplish this, God’s chosen or separated ones unto Himself were forbidden to marry women of pagan nations because God knew that the pagan women would seduce those whom He had chosen to represent his Name and needed to be separate unto Himself to follow their false gods and fall into idolatry.

    Not all of Israel were saved when God commanded them all not to marry the women of Canaan. Only Noah did not marry a foreign women to be seduced into a lifestyle of idolatry and therefore He could use him to continue and set again in motion his ultimate purpose which was to bring his Son into the world.

    Noah was no better than any of those who perished in the flood. The only difference between him and them was that he did not marry a pagan women who practiced idolatry. In other words, he in no way jeopardized God’s plan to bring his Messiah into the world. God was able to continue his plan through the line of Shem.

    A question we need to look at is whether God also kills believers when they disobey Him. God didn’t kill Solomon but he disobeyed Him when he married pagan and idolatrous women who seduced him into taking part in their idolatrous ways. Did he die as an unsaved man? I don’t think so.

    Were all the Israelite who were killed in the desert because they disobeyed God all cast into hell? I don’t think so. I believe that some of them were truly saved but because they failed to obey God they were forbidden to enter the Promised Land. Was Moses who was forbidden to enter the Promised Land unsaved? I don’t think so. God even wanted to kill Moses when he failed to circumsize on of his sons (Exodus 4:24).

    God killed Ananias and Sapphira for their disobedience. Were they lost and cast into hell? I don’t think so. The reason why I mention this is because the Bible does not say that all those who perished in the Flood were lost.

    Some of them may have been truly saved sons of God but their eyes – like those of Eve – caused them to fall for the beautiful pagan women and were seduced into idolatry. King David had the same problem. Is he lost? I don’t think so.

    A bad woman, armed with beauty, is one of the most deadly instruments the devil can employ against the sons of God who are truly saved. Those who in marriage consult only the pleasing eye will soon find an aching heart. King Solomon knew this too well. A Christian man, or woman, should dread as much to be yoked with an unbeliever, as a living body to be tied for life to a dead corpse; the one can communicate contagion, but the other one cannot enliven. (Matthew 8:22).

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

    Bear in mind that Israel’s two most prominent sins when they entered the Promised Land were to marry the women of other nations and to commit idolatry which was the result of an intermingling in marriages with foreign idolatrous women.

    Unfortunately things did no go according to God’s plan when the sons of Seth began to take unto themselves the daughters of men as many as they pleased. Satan used them to thwart God’s salvific plan.

    The question wee need to ask is why was this only a one-way decision? Why didn’t the daughters of men take the initiative to marry men as many as they pleased? There are two main reasons. The first is CUSTOM: It was customary to send someone in behalf of the male to find him a wife, or the male person himself set out to seek a wife. We never hear of a woman setting out to find a husband. That is why he Bible says, “Therefore shall a man (not the woman) leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

    The second is IDOLATRY: Women are more prone to deception than men and when women begin to play a dominant role in religion (Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod for instance) you can be sure the men will follow suit.

    This repeatedly happened in Israel’s history. (King Solomon; Jeremiah 44:15-17; Nehemiah 13:25-27).

    You wrote,

    Lastly, John 1:12 says, ” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…”. My understanding of this verse is that we are made (adopted) as sons of God when we believe in Jesus. Just like parents who adopts a child and that child shares the same status as their biological children. Adam and the angels were directly created by God and are thus sons of God, and believers (whether before Jesus died on the cross or after) becomes sons of God when they believe.

    Does adoption take away the fact that all believers are also a direct creation of God, in the same way that Adam and the angels are direct creations? You obviously read my previous post. Do you agree that Abraham was also a son of God? If so, you cannot argue that Adam and the angels alone were called the sons of God in the Old Testament. Abraham was as much a direct creation of God in salvation.

    The Nephilim doctrine (that fallen angels married human women) is a pagan belief. You only need to study the pagan mythology to see that. And please don’t wrest Scripture like Matthew 22:30 from its proper meaning (by saying the angels in heaven did not marry) because it is very dangerous. By the way the word for “Heaven” is “ouranos” and also means “sky” or “air.”.

    οὐρανός
    ouranos
    oo-ran-os’
    Perhaps from the same as G3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension heaven (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; specifically the Gospel (Christianity): – air, heaven ([-ly]), sky.

    So, Jesus may have said,

    “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in the skies above. (Matthew 22:30)

    We are surrounded by angelic beings in the skies above our heads – holy AND evil angels. You should know that don’t you think?

    In my opinion those who believe the doctrine that fallen angels married human women and produced children with them, are making a mockery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  • Lou wrote,

    Hi Deborah

    I apologise, I did not mean to allude to it that you were of the opinion angels did not appear in physical form. I was just trying to make the point that maybe if they are able to eat then also do other physical acts.

    I don’t think you can assume that angels who appeared in human form and appeared to have eaten food, were also able to have sex with women. It is not a very good QED. Eating food does not prove you have male or female organs. Imagine a mom and dad first having to give their new-born baby something to eat to determine whether it is male or female.

    You wrote,

    Whatever they were, their name carried a negative connotation (fallen ones). In Numbers 13:33 however, the word Nephilim clearly indicates people of big physical appearance.

    There was nothing unnatural or supernatural about the Nephilim. The idea that they were unnatural beings of exceptional gigantic proportions comes from the gnostic book, The Book of Enoch which claims they were as tall as 137 meters (450 feet). The word “Nephilim” denotes a moral disposition rather than physical stature. Strong’s translates Nephilim as “a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant. They had enormous political and religious power and ruled with an iron fist over their subjects.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Hi Tom

    Just want to clarify when I said, “No where did we say that Angels can’t appear in human form…did we? nope.”

    What I meant by this is that when angels appeared to people they sometimes looked human, but they were not, they were angels. I didn’t mean to imply that they transformed in any way.

  • Hi Debs,

    I wasn’t referring to your comment. Indeed, the holy angels occasionally appeared in human form. However, some Nephilists believe that they changed themselves into human form through a supernatural DNA or genetic transformation. With God nothing is impossible. He only needs to say a word and the angels could appear to mankind in human form. However, why would he do that with fallen angels when our warfare is not against flesh and blood or any other human-like form but against spirit beings in the air?

    Please take the liberty to correct me whenever you see me say or write something that is not in line with Scripture. The Nephilim story is causing havoc in the body of Christ. I truly believe it is a doctrine of demons and those who promulgate it will have to give an account to God one day.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thanks Tom! No problem and I do understand :) We must always keep each other in check.

  • willeana Coffman

    I am a believer and I may seem like an oddball, but when I read Genesis, the creation stories, and the references to giants; it appears to be talking about 2 different types of people! Gen 1:26 says let us make man in our Own image, it makes me wonder if there was a different type of man was who was not able to join spiritually with the Father, and did not have His character. Gen 1:27 it says clearly male and female He created them in His Own image. This part was during the 6th day, but later Gen 2:7 says it was after the 7th day that man became a living soul!
    I do not think demons married because Matthew 22.30 and Luke 20: 34-36 says we will be like Angels in Heaven and will not marry. And there were already Giants in the land, could those Giants have men Neanderthals? or some other type of man?. And I think that the Sons of God referred to Godly men, who married worldly women, and the Giants they created could have been men like Nimrod, or rebellious men who did not follow God?

  • Willeana Coffman,

    You are quite right in referring to Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:34-36 because it indeed proves that spiritual entities like demons could never have married women of flesh and blood. To have been able to marry them, they would have had to become flesh and blood like human women because a marriage as God Himself ordained it, is the becoming of one flesh of two people of the same specie (flesh). Some crackpots believe that the demons did indeed take on a form like that of humans. Who incarnated them – God? Perish the though because God would NEVER have incarnated demons. Did they incarnate themselves? Really??” If they had then they would have been equal to God because only God can incarnate a spirit being into flesh.

    Yes indeed, the giants were men like Nimrod because the word “nephı̂yl” or “nephil” refers to a feller or a bully and a tyrant. What is a “feller?” a “feller” is someone who cuts or hews down trees. Now apply this to people. What do you get? You get a bully or tyrant who cuts down (kills) people as much as he wants. And that was exactly what Nimrod and his whore wife, Semiramis, did. I want to commend you for your discerning spirit, something that is lacking in most “Christians” these days.

  • Jamie

    This article comes off as being very arrogant in your insistence that u have the truth, while not really providing any new information.

    Also, to me it doesn’t explain anything, and it was incredibly long winded, and the superior attitude I picked up from it was just a little too much, so honestly, I didn’t read it all. So maybe I didn’t understand your point, but…

    First of all, if the sons of god is simply referring to regular human beings, why did the bible point this out in such a way as though it were something unusual, that “in those days the sons of god went into the daughters of man and had children by them”? Isn’t that how it always works? In those days and now? This verse makes a point of saying it as though it were something of a curiosity, something that only happened in those days and that we don’t know about, and then links it to the fact that apparently giants roamed the earth. Why would genesis insert this little tidbit about reproduction just to teach us about the birds and bees if it was normal? Instead it limits this occurrence to the past by clearly stating, in those days.

    Second, the “son of god” is usually used reffering to Jesus, but that doesn’t mean we should interpret this verse to mean jesus. Context matters, and this seems to be contrasting between “sons of GOD” and “daughters of MAN™ for a reason.

    Third, you’re really simplifying things when you talk about Jesus stating angels can’t reproduce. He never said anything of the sort. You’re adding words that are not there. He said that angels in heaven don’t marry, not that they can’t or are asexual. Marriage is a human tradition, and angels are not human. God made lots of creations outside of humans that do not marry and yet can procreate, because that’s the way they were created.

    We know that nuns and priests in monasteries don’t marry or are given in marriage, and yet they can certainly leave and marry if they so choose, they are not incapable. In the same way, it may be that the natural way of angels -in heaven- is to not marry, and yet some may have gone against the natural way and chose to leave their heavenly dwelling and marry humans. In fact, this is exactly what the book of Enoch claims happened… Which, by the way, is quoted by the canonical book of Jude. Furthermore Enoch was widely read and valued by the early church, it wasn’t until the bible was compiled into a single book and it was left out that it fell out of favor. Yet, parts of it did make it into the bible in the book of Jude, which suggests some credibility.

    I don’t believe all the conspiracy theories and GMO scare stories, but I really don’t see why it’s so wrong in your estimation to interpret sons of god as angels, which, frankly, is what it seems to me to be saying.

    “Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know” 1 cor 8:2

    “Be not wise in your own sight.” Proverbs 3:7

  • Jamie

    I’m not saying your view is necessarily wrong, only that you can not claim that you know it to be right. Your theory is just as speculatory as anybody else’s.

  • Jamie,

    You don’t seem to know what the difference is between a human being like a nun and a spiritual entity like an angel. Why do you read and obey an uninspired and occult book like Enoch instead of the Bible? Jude, the brother of Jesus, did not quote Enoch because the book was not written by the biblical Enoch. Many false books saw the light during the early church. They were written by apostates called gnostics. They quoted the Bible and not the other way around. Read here.

  • Jamie

    I’m not saying your view is necessarily wrong, only that you can not claim that you know it to be right. Your theory is just as speculatory as anybody else’s.

    Oh, how wonderfully pragmatic of you to say so. The fact is, Jesus said:

    Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Mat 22:29-30 KJV)

  • Jamie

    You kidding right? You say ‘In fact, this is exactly what the book of Enoch claims happened…’

    So because the Book of Enoch says it’s so that makes it right and we are wrong because we quote what the bible says (Mat 22:29-30 KJV)

    Interesting, what other books do you believe to be correct? The dead sea scrolls maybe? what else?

  • Ian

    “If there is a sexual connection between Sodom and the angels (the angels sinned in a sexual way)….”.
    Actually it was not the angels who visited Lot who had sinned, but the sodomites against the angels, in that they clamoured to ‘have sex’ with the angels of God – bring them out that we may know them. It was not those 2 angels of God who sinned. The Holy angels cannot sin. The issue of sin is forever settled among the angelic beings.

    The term ‘sons of God’ in Scripture, refers to direct creative acts of God, be it Adam himself, angelic beings – including Lucifer and those who fell with him – they were direct creations of and by God; and the children of the new covenant in Jesus Christ – re John 1:12. And of course above all our Lord Jesus Christ Himself – the Last Adam, the Son of God.

    Can you name just one child of Adam who was ever referred to as a ‘son of God’ in the old testament, actually being identified by name?

    There is a doctrine that says that the serpent had sex with Eve and thus produced Cain. If this was the case, Cain would have been a hybrid not a human.
    In that case God would not have rebuked Cain. God rebuked Cain and told him that he should rule over the sin that was crouching at his door (Gen 4:7), ready to devour him.

    It would have been pointless for God to try and get a hybrid – humanoid to control sin. Only human beings with God’s help can rule over sin. Hybrids cannot repent, nor can they please God. The gospel is for mankind not for hybrids – i.e. half human and half beast, serpent or whatever.

    Jesus in speaking about the angels of Heaven not marrying, and thus the saints are like them, is actually speaking about holy angels in Heaven. Matt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:35.

    Jesus is not speaking about fallen angels, or demons or whatever, that whole corrupted classes of angelic – created spirit beings, by whatever term you may like to call them.

    Remember that satan always perverts and corrupts every thing that is good and right which God had put in place for all of His creation.
    God put boundaries in place for all things including regards to sexual activity among humans and all earth bound creatures.

    Satan, does not have a physical body like man. He, as do all his evil spirit followers (demons etc) are restless and they seek a physical body. When an evil spirit is cast out of a man, he wanders all over the place and not finding rest decids to go back to his previous occupancy. Not finding it occupied he just walks right in and invites even more perverse evil spirits. Things go from bad to worse for that man.

    There are many things that we do not know about the spiritual realm, and the spiritual powers operating in that realm.

    If Cain was not a ‘son of God’ and Seth was, and if these two sections of society interbred, that in itself would not result in giants with 24 digits. Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage. If, the serpent possessed by satan had sex with Eve, why is it thought impossible for fallen angels to have sex with beautiful women, daughters of mankind.
    The angels of God delight in righteousness.
    The evil spirits feast off unrighteousness. We do not know what they are fully capable of; they will break any bounds whereever possible.

  • Ian wrote:

    The term ‘sons of God’ in Scripture, refers to direct creative acts of God, be it Adam himself, angelic beings – including Lucifer and those who fell with him – they were direct creations of and by God; and the children of the new covenant in Jesus Christ – re John 1:12. And of course above all our Lord Jesus Christ Himself – the Last Adam, the Son of God.

    Can you name just one child of Adam who was ever referred to as a ‘son of God’ in the old testament, actually being identified by name

    Were there no saved people in the Old Testament? God says:

    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12).

    Were there no one in the Old Testament who received Jesus Christ and believed in Him? The Bible says we can only be saved if we have the faith of Abraham. Wasn’t he a son of God? If we are called the sons of God, why wasn’t Abraham called a son of God whose faith we have to emulate? If we are sons of God and we have the fait of Abraham, then he too must have been a son of God.

  • Ian wrote:

    There is a doctrine that says that the serpent had sex with Eve and thus produced Cain. If this was the case, Cain would have been a hybrid not a human.
    In that case God would not have rebuked Cain. God rebuked Cain and told him that he should rule over the sin that was crouching at his door (Gen 4:7), ready to devour him.

    It would have been pointless for God to try and get a hybrid – humanoid to control sin. Only human beings with God’s help can rule over sin. Hybrids cannot repent, nor can they please God. The gospel is for mankind not for hybrids – i.e. half human and half beast, serpent or whatever.

    Where do hybrids come from? Havne’t you watched to many Hollywood horror movies?

  • In response to Ian

    So, the holy angels have a whopping sexual appetite but they are not allowed to marry? (1 Corinthians 7:9). Has God forbidden them to marry? If so, God would be guilty of aiding and abetting the Antichrist.

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1Ti 4:1-3)

    Ian wrote:

    If Cain was not a ‘son of God’ and Seth was, and if these two sections of society interbred, that in itself would not result in giants with 24 digits. Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage. If, the serpent possessed by satan had sex with Eve, why is it thought impossible for fallen angels to have sex with beautiful women, daughters of mankind.

    Who says Satan had sex with Eve? That’s a load of baloney. If the fallen angels are the sons of God (male) why aren’t there any daughters of God (female) among them? Angels (good and bad) are spirit beings and cannot have sex and neither can they get married. The notion that they can is a filthy occult belief.

  • Ian wrote,

    If Cain was not a ‘son of God’ and Seth was, and if these two sections of society interbred, that in itself would not result in giants with 24 digits. Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage.

    The word giant (Nephilim) in Genesis 6 does not necessarily refer to a huge body build, stature, or height. Strong’s says:

    נְפִל נְפִיל
    nephı̂yl nephil
    nef-eel’, nef-eel’
    From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant. He felled people (slew them) like we would cattle.

    Nimrod was not a big man and yet he was a tyrant (a Nephil).

    I will leave you with this.

    When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Co 13:11)

  • Ian

    Tom, I do not for one minute believe that Satan had sex with Eve. I do not for one minute believe that Satan had sex with Eve. But I know some people who do believe that.

    There is a teaching promoted by the late William Branham which teaches that very thing. This teaching says that the result of a sexual union between Eve and the serpent was Cain.
    The Scriptures say Cain was of that wicked one (1 Jn 3:12). That Scriprture is used to “prove”that Cain was the offspring of a sexual union between Satan and Eve.

    The fact is that Scripture says “OF that wicked one” NOT “from that wicked one”. The Pharisees were called the generation of vipers. But this does not make them the physical seed of Satan. Jesus called many of the Jews who were out to kill Him childre of the devil. But this does not mean they were physical children of the devil. Jesus was speking about their spiritual union.

    But some do believe Cain was the result of a physical union. And they say that the sons of God were of the line of Seth.
    The argument that follows that idea,if I have it right, is that these sons of God – sons of Seth, and the daughters of Cain had sexual union and produced the giants that were alive in Noah’s day.

    let me say it again, I do not believe that Cain was a product of Satan for one minute. But many do. I have a friend in my town who believes this teaching…which is called the Serpent Seed. And I have met others who believe the same thing.

    The holy angels DO NOT have a whopping sexual appetite as you make me say. They are holy in every respect being created holy and maintaining that holiness by virtue of their submission to The Most Holy God at the time of that great conflagration, battle in Heaven, when one third of the angels fell behind Lucifer, and they were thrown out.

    God in His wisdom allowed a brief moment when angels could chose to remain faithful or not, however that battle worked out.
    The holy angels DO NOT not have a desire for sin of any kind. They are holy and are forever holy. The holy angels do not have a desire for sexual sin or any sin. Do I make myself plain? It is you Tom who have said I said that, or that I inferred that. This is not the case.

    By the same token the unholy angelic spirits, be they demons, evils spirits, devils, or fallen angels have absolutely no desire for righteousness or holiness. None whatsoever. They forfeited that right when they fell in with Lucifer. God says that the end of sin is death. That is where these evils spirits are before God…completely dead to holiness and holy desires, being cut off from God.

    This means they only have a desire for sin of every kind. And their appetite for sin can never be satisified. This is why they seek our compliance in evil. They feed off our lusts, and our evil works.

    It is the evil spirits who have a whopping appetite for sexual sin, amongst every other form of rebellion, because that is all they have, having rejected God and His holiness which was at one time their blessedness.
    They sowed and now they reap.
    And because they have incredible powers in the spiritual realm which we know so little about, and because those powers are for the propogation of all rebellion against every one of God’s holy laws, they work their ‘magic’ and are able to perform wonders.

    Some of these evils beings were around on earth during Noah’s days and were infecting the children of Adam with every perversion they could think of, and sexual perversion was one of them. If anyone thinks that these malignant beings were just standing by looking on human degradation with passive interest, then they have little idea of the nature of the work of Satan, or of his ability.
    Man is accountable for his own sin. But man is not alone in his sinning. He has interested parties.

    It was some of these beings who were working every kind of lust in the inhabitants of Sodom and its satellite cities, teaching them and working with them. These spirits were the ones behind the cry of the men of Sodom to lay with the those two holy angels.
    The men were responsible for their own lusts but the evil one was behind it all, just like he was behind the evil intent of the religious leaders in Jesus day to kill Him.

    You say Tom, “Angels (good and bad) are spirit beings and cannot have sex and neither can they get married.”

    We know that righteousness breeds righteousness and unrighteosuness breeds unrighteousness. He who is holy let him be holy still. He is who is unholy let him be unholy still.
    Jesus said that the ones who are worthy to taste of the resurrection neither marry or are given in marriage, but are like the angels of Heaven. Jesus is plainly talking about the angels of Heaven. He does not bring the evil spirits into that statement.

    As to the unholy angels, the Bible does not put that limitation on them.

    Tom, may I suggest that you have no idea what the evils spirits are capable of doing.
    But we do not fear the evil spirits. But we ought not be ignorant of their devices.

    Even God said of rebellious men, and “now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” Gen 11. May I put it to you that this may also be said of evil, malignant, powerful rebellious, spirits.

    Once again, HOLY ANGELS HAVE ONLY ONE DESIRE, THAT IS TO TO PLEASE AND OBEY THEIR GOD AND CREATOR, IN EVERY RESPECT AND WITHOUT FAIL, IMMEDIATELY. They are not curious about sin, only to llok into the great salvation that has been porovided for us who believe wholly in Jesus Christ the Lord.

  • Ian

    Tom , your know this, but Jesus said that when the evil spirit is cast out of a man, then they wander over all the earth seeking for a house, a human body to live in. They find none, they they decide to go back and check out their last residence. If they find it empty they go right in like a squatter and take seven other spirits worse than themselves. The last state of that man is worse than the first.

    The evils spirits don’t just seek a place – person to live in. They seek to control that person, and control their desires for evil, of every and any kind. They work to that end. And that end is death or that person unless they repent or are set free by the power of Jesus Christ.
    But this is only one aspect to their evil operations among mankind.

  • Ian

    Tom, you have said…
    “Were there no one in the Old Testament who received Jesus Christ and believed in Him? The Bible says we can only be saved if we have the faith of Abraham. Wasn’t he a son of God? If we are called the sons of God, why wasn’t Abraham called a son of God whose faith we have to emulate? If we are sons of God and we have the faith of Abraham, then he too must have been a son of God.”

    In HINDSIGHT we of the new covenant understand that all those who have active faith in Christ Jesus are called sons of God in the new covenant, and we would think that would include old testament saints as well. All such are children of faithful Abraham.

    What we need to think about is what is recorded in the Bible as to historical facts, before Christ came.

    The old testament saints are called righteous, saints. But it was not until Hosea that with respect to ‘believing’ children of men are they called sons of God
    …..”Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10
    God is speaking about the time of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

    Spiritual children of Abraham are not called sons of God until the new covenant. And this is for good reason, because Jesus had to come first, before He would bring us all to the Father, as many as believe. Until Christ came, the spiritual adoption could not take place, for Jesus was the First born of many brethren – Firstborn from the dead.

    So literally, and technically, the term ‘sons of God’ as given in the early part of the Old Testament does not refer to spiritual children of faithful Abraham. Abraham had not even come into existence at the time of the outworking of Genesis 6.

    If ‘sons of God’ was a legitmate term for the old testament saints it would stand to reason that God would have had his holy prophets use it just as freely as it is used in the NT. That is not the case. Its use is a very rare ocurrence in the OT.

    For the above reasons, I think it is reasonable to state that the use of the term “sons of God” before Hosea 1:10 (unless the context clearly states otherwise) refers not to men but to the angelic realm.
    And once again, I state here, if this is the case, then the sons of God in Genesis 6 is NOT SPEAKING ABOUT HOLY ANGELS but is referring to unholy created beings of an angelic nature.

    Jude gives us some insight “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 1:6.
    “Estate’ refers to position or authority, principality, power or rule. Habitation speaks of – residence, house, and is related to the word for jail.

    But the next statement throws more light on what Jude has just said.

    “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    “Even as” is a phrase that implies “in like manner”, or “in the same way”, etc.
    These ‘angels’ behaved in the same way as the Sodomites. The Sodomites went after strange flesh. The implication here is that strange flesh is a flesh different to that which the other party has. The ‘angels’ lusted after creatures not like them…earth bound creatures. Beastiality is a hideous sin and demons love that activity and l;ure men into it. There is no reason to think they would not follow that path of evil…whatever is possible they would do it.
    .
    The “even as” may refer to one or both… the behaviour akin to the sodomites, and the punishment. And I think the text implies both.

    We know that angels don’t have a physical material body made of dust. But they do have a spiritual body of some kind. They are not gas or ether or wisps of the willow stuff.
    Those angels Jude speaks about WERE NOT the holy angels who remained true to God in the rebellion of Lucifer.

    Holy angels are not reserved in everlasting chains. Holy angels did not desire to sin, nor can they now. They are as it were locked in to holiness, just like we will be locked in to absolute holiness in our glorified bodies in Father’s house.
    Those unholy angels which Jude is speaking of in 1:6 are those who rebelled and had been placed in a restricted zone or sphere of operation.

    But in the wisdom and allowance or permission of God (for nothing can happen if God does not allow it. This does no implicate God in any sin whatsoever.), these angels (now in everlasting chains) obviously serving Satan’s purpose, transgressed even further and crossed over another boundary which brought them under a stricter punishment – God “hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

    So when the text in Genesis 6 speaks of sons of God, we are forced to conclude that they were either a category of men, or a category of angelic beings – non human. Seeing that there is no consistent use of that term to describe saints in the Old Testament, we need to look for another meaning. And we find it in Job 1 and 2 and 38.

    It seems a bit odd that if the term related to children of Seth or saints of God, they would all of a sudden notice beautiful women around them as if earlier generations had not. Every generation since Eve has always had many beautiful women. That is a fact of life, and it is not the fault of the women :).

    It is interesting to note in Jude 1:6 that the word for “they took”, can also mean “they seized”. The text also says that they took as many as they desired, which might mean that each took many women for themselves as they chose.
    If malicious spirit beings were involved they would literally be able to cart off women by sheer force. Many of them have incredible strength, as the new testament shows.

    But perhaps none of this makes sense to you Tom because Angels good or bad cannot have sex. And you know this to be a fact for bad angels.

    Perhaps you are right about the bad angels.

    But maybe… you are wrong….???

    Jesus told us that just as it was in the days of Lot so will it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. The Sodomites were going after angelic beings if they saw them. Do you suppose that the demonic realm in our time would be any less evil??
    Holy angles are allowed to appear as men as they do God’s will on earth. Then unholy angels would want to break every rule in the book and appear in different forms, not just as angels of light.
    I know of one old african man who lives here in my town and he has told me some instances of evil spirits appearing in half fish half man form, and he witnessed it himself. This is not an isolated account. Dagon the Philistine idol was half fish and half man.

    Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah so will it be when the Son of Man comes. Do you know that it is reported of Mr Bergoglio the Vatican Head poncho, that he stated that if aliens (demons) appear the Church (of Rome) would welcome them and baptize them into the Church?
    He has hinted that if aliens are found they would need to rewrite the Bible? …obviously deleting all references to Jesus Christ as Son of God, as Redeemer, as the way, the truth, and the life to God, as the only sacrifice for sins, as the Lamb of gGod, as our Judge, as our High Priest and so on. Satan would be called “God” and the antichrist would be called the son of god, and the false prophet the prophet.

    We are living in evil days.
    Were you aware that many Governments around the world are preparing for alien communication? It’s in the media; it’s in the movies; it’s in the comics, and games and advertizing all around us. We are being educated, prepared….

    Do you realize that the end result of evolution is to become god-like? It is the end game of many cults, and various perversions of Christian teaching.

    Do you realize that in every ancient religion there is this welding coming together, union of the ‘spiritual’ and the physical, of men with angels, or demi demon gods? Free masonry is loaded with this idea, and all those mystery religions.

    Many world leaders and religious leaders, and the Jesuits, are all working behind the scenes to bring this stuff about, under the inspiration of the devil.

    Man is producing transhuman material and is preparing to foist it onto the gullible public, all in the name of science (gnostic – knowledge), in his quest for eternal life.
    But of course this is all rubbish and those who speak of it are crazy.

    God said it in the beginning of the Book…now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

    The stage is set….

    The Lord Jesus is coming for a spotless bride who are continually trimming their lamps and making sure they have oil in their vessels.

    Jesus said that when you see all these things and calamities of course, coming upon you, do not fear, but look Heavenward – look up, for your redemption draws near.

    We need to repent and build up ourselves in our most holy faith in Jesus Christ, as Jude says, praying in the Holy Ghost.
    We need to meet with other genuine believers in Jesus Christ, who want to follow Jesus all the way. We need to read the Bible prayefully and humbly, live in it and by it and seek the face of God daily. We need to tell others about Jesus.

  • Dear Ian

    Please just clarify something for me:

    You say: >> Satan, does not have a physical body like man. He, as do all his evil spirit followers (demons etc) are restless and they seek a physical body. When an evil spirit is cast out of a man, he wanders all over the place and not finding rest decids to go back to his previous occupancy. Not finding it occupied he just walks right in and invites even more perverse evil spirits. Things go from bad to worse for that man.

    >> Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage.

    Are you saying that
    1) children who are born in this day and age with down syndrome, missing hand or club foot have parents who had sex with demons or
    2) come from a linage of demonic people that can never be saved?
    OR
    3) are you saying that children born with defects are because the parents have demons in them and are not saved?

  • Elsje Parsons Massyn

    Dear writer of this article. I so enjoyed the article about the truth about the Freemason history of Calvin and the Hugeonots but unfortunately I have to refer you to the exact same problem I have with your article. You cannot trust the compilers of the Bible under King James (who was a Freemason himself)or that the Bible has been compiled of ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION WE NEED to clarify questions we have about certain issues. In this case you cannot read Genesis six without reading The Book of Enoch. Jesus quoted from it and so are there many references to the Book of Enoch hidden in Scripture itself. The book of Enoch was once part of the Bible but removed (i.e. the Ethopian “Coptic” Bible still contains the Book of Enoch as part of the Canon”

    If you don’t believe that then you must also remove all research you did on Calvin and his Freemason background, since the Dutch reformed and sister churches “made very sure that no mention is made about it in their Catechism” just as the compilers of the Bible don’t want you to have the full picture of what happened before the flood.

    According to the Book of Enoch the “Sons of God” were the angels that left there station because they lusted after the “daughters of men” and had children with them. The mixture between the angelic and human caused the children to produce earthbound, giantly like their fathers and mostly evil. The Book of Enoch says the angels (sons of God) taught human woman hidden knowledge and the generations that came out of those unions did EVIL ON THE EARTH. They sinned against the fish of the sea, birds of the air (and ate all the food “acquisitions” of man). They were violent and even turned on each other, i.e. cannibalism etc. God’s judgement on the children of the angels were as follows:

    “their bodies will perish in the flood”
    “their spirits will be called demons and live on after the flood”
    “they will harass humans as long as humanity shall live”
    “they will always be hungry and thirsty but never be filled”

    If you read the gospels – these demons referred to Jesus that they knew Him “before time”
    That they awaited judgement to come
    They harass humans by creating diseases and other ailments
    They may leave the body of the human but if not filled will return with 7 worse than they (their brothers)

    PLEASE READ THE BOOK OF ENOCH A-G-A-I-N WITH UNDERSTANDING AND THEN AGAIN ATTEMPT TO GIVE A BETTER ARTICLE ABOUT THE FULL PICTURE.

    IF YOU DONT HAVE THE CORRECT BOOK OF ENOCH I WILL E-MAIL IT TO YOU JUST ASK.

    Please also be informed that the Bible (this includes many translations) have been deducted and added so many times in so many forms that if you don’t do the study you wont notice it.

    If you want proof that you cannot trust your translators (who are most probably Freemasons and untrusting themselves) – let me forward you some information about the facts.

    Please check out
    http://www.trumpetcall.co.za
    for info about the Book of Enoch

  • First of all, the designation “sons of God” is a generic term and therefore not a gender issue. Had it been a gender issue, female believers would have had to be excluded from passages in Scripture like the following:

    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Joh 1:12).

    For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Rom 8:14).

    What makes one a son of God whether one lived in the Old or in the New Testaments? Well, I should think FAITH in Jesus Christ is the sole reason why anyone may be called a son of God (male and female), despite the fact that the covenant was ratified when Jesus died on the cross. If faith in Christ Jesus is the only legitimate reason for being saved, then sons of God may also legitimately make believers sons of God, whether in the Old or the New Testament.

    And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Gal 3:8-17)

    Satan and his fallen angels may have been called sons of God before their fall but they despised and left their first estate as sons of God and became demons. They are no longer sons of God. Had they still been sons of God we will have to tear out the above two passages from Scripture. You cannot divorce what the New Testament says about the sons of God from the Old Testament. Hence my argument that Abraham and all the other saints in the Old Testament were as much the sons of God as those in the New.

    You wrote:

    In HINDSIGHT we of the new covenant understand that all those who have active faith in Christ Jesus are called sons of God in the new covenant, and we would think that would include old testament saints as well. All such are children of faithful Abraham.

    What we need to think about is what is recorded in the Bible as to historical facts, before Christ came.
    The old testament saints are called righteous, saints. But it was not until Hosea that with respect to ‘believing’ children of men are they called sons of God
    …..”Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10
    God is speaking about the time of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
    Spiritual children of Abraham are not called sons of God until the new covenant. And this is for good reason, because Jesus had to come first, before He would bring us all to the Father, as many as believe. Until Christ came, the spiritual adoption could not take place, for Jesus was the First born of many brethren – Firstborn from the dead.

    What do you mean by “active faith?” There is no mention in the Bible of an “active faith.” It is obvious that you have deliberately fabricated it to make a distinction between Abraham’s and all the other Old Testament saints’ faith and the New Testament saints’ faith. And even if there were such a thing, Abraham’s faith was more active than your and my faith put together because he sacrificed his only son, Isaac. What’s the difference between a faith looking ahead in time to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (“My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering”) and a faith looking back in hindsight to the burnt offering of Jesus Christ on the cross? There is absolutely no difference whatsoever and as such both can be called sons of God. In Fact, when the believing Pharisees in Acts 15 wanted to put an Old Testament yoke upon New Testament saints, Peter said an amazing thing. He said: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (the Jews) shall be saved, even as they (the Gentiles).” Abraham was not saved as a Jew (Law and circumcision) but as a Gentile (before he was circumcised) and therefore perfectly fit to be called a son of God and not just a righteous saint, as you forcefully make him.

    Moreover, your use of the term “righteous saints” is also glaringly absent in the Bible. In fact, all saints, Old and New Testament, are all righteous. Had they been otherwise they could never have been called saints because only the righteous are set apart unto God (saints). By the way what is the difference, according to you, between a righteous saint and a son of God? The only prerequisite to be called a son of God is to believe on Him (John 1:12) and both — Old and New Testament saints — believed and believe on Him.

    You wrote:

    If ‘sons of God’ was a legitmate term for the old testament saints it would stand to reason that God would have had his holy prophets use it just as freely as it is used in the NT. That is not the case. Its use is a very rare ocurrence in the OT.
    For the above reasons, I think it is reasonable to state that the use of the term “sons of God” before Hosea 1:10 (unless the context clearly states otherwise) refers not to men but to the angelic realm.
    And once again, I state here, if this is the case, then the sons of God in Genesis 6 is NOT SPEAKING ABOUT HOLY ANGELS but is referring to unholy created beings of an angelic nature.
    Jude gives us some insight “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 1:6.
    “Estate’ refers to position or authority, principality, power or rule. Habitation speaks of – residence, house, and is related to the word for jail.
    But the next statement throws more light on what Jude has just said.
    “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
    “Even as” is a phrase that implies “in like manner”, or “in the same way”, etc.
    These ‘angels’ behaved in the same way as the Sodomites. The Sodomites went after strange flesh. The implication here is that strange flesh is a flesh different to that which the other party has. The ‘angels’ lusted after creatures not like them…earth bound creatures. Beastiality is a hideous sin and demons love that activity and l;ure men into it. There is no reason to think they would not follow that path of evil…whatever is possible they would do it.

    You are treading on dangerous ground when equating a normal sexual relationship with women in a marital situation with homosexuality. You cannot and dare not refer to a normal sexual relationship with women in a marriage as going after strange flesh. However, you don’t stop there when you also equate a normal marital situation with beastiality. Genesis 6 simply says that the sons of God (fallen angels, as you would like to believe) took unto themselves wives from the daughters of men as many as they chose. Where’s the beastiality in this? As I said, you are watching too many Hollywood horror movies. The term “strange flesh” cannot possibly refer to flesh different to that which the other party has. Homosexuals have the very same flesh as any other homosexual. There’s nothing strange about this. The term “strange flesh” simply means to practice or indulge in a sexual relationship which is abnormal and not permitted by God. It does not mean that the one party has one kind of flesh and the other party another kind of flesh. If it were true that fallen angels married and had sex with earthly women, it would mean that they had to be incarnated as human beings with the very same flesh as the earthly women. In fact, that is precisely what a marriage involves — becoming one flesh. Fallen angels could never have married earthly women if they did not have the same flesh. Do you believe fallen angels were incarnated into the same flesh as earthly women? If so, you are blaspheming the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ. Only God can incarnate. Do you really think he would have incarnated fallen angels into the very same kind of flesh as earthly women in order to become one flesh, the supreme prerequisite for a bond to be called a marriage? You must be joking. If God, the only One capable of incarnating, put flesh and bones on spiritual beings like fallen angels, He would have been guilty of sin. Is that what you want?

    You wrote:

    We know that angels don’t have a physical material body made of dust. But they do have a spiritual body of some kind. They are not gas or ether or wisps of the willow stuff.
    Those angels Jude speaks about WERE NOT the holy angels who remained true to God in the rebellion of Lucifer.

    Holy angels are not reserved in everlasting chains. Holy angels did not desire to sin, nor can they now. They are as it were locked in to holiness, just like we will be locked in to absolute holiness in our glorified bodies in Father’s house.

    Those unholy angels which Jude is speaking of in 1:6 are those who rebelled and had been placed in a restricted zone or sphere of operation.
    But in the wisdom and allowance or permission of God (for nothing can happen if God does not allow it. This does no implicate God in any sin whatsoever.), these angels (now in everlasting chains) obviously serving Satan’s purpose, transgressed even further and crossed over another boundary which brought them under a stricter punishment – God “hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

    You address me as if I am an uneducated illiterate fool who does not understand sin and the consequences thereof. You really don’t have to tell me that holy angels are not reserved in everlasting chains, you know. My common sense tells me they are not. You are making assumptions that are never substantiated in the Word of God. You cannot assume that spiritual beings have some kind of spiritual body. God is Spirit. Does he have some kind of spiritual body?

    I really wish you would quote the Bible correctly. Jude 1:6 says that some of the fallen angels are “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” That means they were not allowed to enter the earthly realm like the other fallen angels but were immediately cast into Tartarus where they are kept in chains. How could they have married and have sex with earthly women when they were immediately cast into Tartarus and only be released on the Day of Judgement to be cast into the Lake of Fire? Oh, but of course, it was the other angels who also left there first estate who married and spawned children (giants) on the earth. And yes, of course they could marry earthly women because they supposedly had spiritual bodies. You are making a mockery of holy matrimony which, as I explained to you earlier, (in case you do not know) is a bond between two entities with the same kind of flesh so that they may become one flesh, and not between one with a spiritual kind of flesh and the other with a normal earthly kind of flesh. Or can a spiritual body become one flesh with an earthly body? That’s ridiculous, to say the least.

    You wrote:

    So when the text in Genesis 6 speaks of sons of God, we are forced to conclude that they were either a category of men, or a category of angelic beings – non human. Seeing that there is no consistent use of that term to describe saints in the Old Testament, we need to look for another meaning. And we find it in Job 1 and 2 and 38.
    It seems a bit odd that if the term related to children of Seth or saints of God, they would all of a sudden notice beautiful women around them as if earlier generations had not. Every generation since Eve has always had many beautiful women. That is a fact of life, and it is not the fault of the women.

    Oh, I see, Solomon who had many beautiful women among his own people chose to marry women of other pagan nations because the beautiful women of his own people were not as beautiful as the women of the pagan nations. What kind of circular reasoning is that? At least, you are right in one aspect when you say “it is not the fault of the women” because they were seized and forced to marry the fallen angels. In that case, God would not be a just God because He wrongfully judged innocent women, have them perished in the flood and sent them to hell because they had no say in their marriage. Nice doing, I must say.

    I really don’t have the time to discuss with you your belief in aliens from other planets etc. What I have said thus far is enough to refute your stance on Genesis 6. What I would like to address is your following statement.

    Holy angles are allowed to appear as men as they do God’s will on earth. Then unholy angels would want to break every rule in the book and appear in different forms, not just as angels of light.
    I know of one old african man who lives here in my town and he has told me some instances of evil spirits appearing in half fish half man form, and he witnessed it himself. This is not an isolated account. Dagon the Philistine idol was half fish and half man.

    There are no recorded incidents in the Bible where unholy angels appeared in the same form as Jesus and the holy angels in the old Testament. Persons who are involved in occult and demonic practices (witch doctors and sangomas) do see apparitions of demons but they never do or can appear to them in the same form as holy angels and Jesus appeared to men in the Old Testament. The apparitions of Mary throughout the world are also demonic appearances and fall in the same category as the apparitions witch doctors and sangomas often see. However, what we are dealing with here is the alleged marriage of fallen angels with earthly women and the spawning of giants. Have the apparitions the witch doctors and sangomas saw also taken earthy women in marriage unto themselves and have they spawned any children? If not you cannot compare your examples with the scene in Genesis 6 to prove that fallen angels were the sons of God who married earthly women and had kids with them.

  • Please read this article to get some insight on the Book of Enoch.

  • You wrote:

    Jesus quoted from it [The Book of Enoch] and so are there many references to the Book of Enoch hidden in Scripture itself.

    Neither Jesus nor Jude quoted from “a” or “the” Book of Enoch. In case you do not know, allow me to tell you a little secret. Jesus is God and as such He is omniscient. In fact, He knows everything every single human being has or will ever say and think even before they think and or say it. (Psalm 139:4). He has no need to make an effort to go to a bookstore, buy it and read it so that He may quote from it. The notion that Enoch of the Bible wrote “The Book of Enoch” is a myth, to say the least. The books from Genesis to Revelation were all inspired by the Holy Spirit and not an unholy spirit. It may be true that an unholy spirit inspired “The Book of Enoch” in the same say he inspired The Book of Thomas and The Book of Judas because God the Holy Spirit will never inspire anyone to write trash like the following. We read in chapter 7:12-15 of the Book of Enoch…

    7:12 Whose stature was each three hundred cubits (450 feet). These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;
    7:13 When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;
    7:14 And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
    7:15 Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.

    In chapter 40 and verses 7 to 10 we read:

    7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord
    8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have
    9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
    10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

    Unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel who is never mentioned in the Bible … “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” you cannot be saved.

  • Elsje

    I will just add this to Tom’s great reply to your comment…

    You may as well just become a Freemason as they too trust the Book of Enoch over the bible. A simple definition for a Freemason is ‘someone that does not believe in the word of God’. You can’t serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), you either chose Satan or your chose Jesus Christ. If you do not choose Jesus Christ and His Word because Jesus Christ IS the Word of God you automatically choose Satan.

    There is nothing in the Word of God that is contradictory, however the Book of Enoch totally contradicts the Bible on it’s most important factor; that Jesus Christ is your mediator between you and God not some angel.

    Ethiopians are Coptic they are not Christian just as the Roman Catholic church is Catholic not Christian.

  • Ben

    I find it laughable that so many would deny the books of Moses as anything other than the words and teachings of the God of Abraham. Amazingly concerned. Ben
    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Bob
    >> Im still confused about falling angels, giants,demons, and bizzard things
    How can you be confused? I have just given you the answer, the truth. Did you even read the article properly?
    This article is not denying that demons do not exist hence there is reference to Jesus casing out demons in the article and sending the demons into pigs! All this article is saying that angels did not have sex with woman and produce a mutant race of people.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Ben

    You said “I find it laughable that so many would deny the books of Moses as anything other than the words and teachings of the God of Abraham. Amazingly concerned. Ben”

    No one is denying the Old Testament, we are just READING it correctly. Maybe you should give it a go. Amazingly concerned. Deborah

  • rory

    Praise be to God. I have found others that tested the fallen angels married human wives and made giant babies theory.
    The Lord told me to study His Word on this about 5 years ago (2011) and write about it. What I found in a careful study of scripture mirrors what the brother wrote in the article. And like the responses here, I got the same rhetorical questions and assumptions from many that want to believe the scriptures say something that they do not say..

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thank you Rory for your comment!

  • Sppage

    The problem with the approach to this subject is that people tend to come at it purely from a biblical direction. The bible and many other religious texts are the diluted interpretations of real events that have been seen by ancient eyes that had never seen things like these before. There is no problem in looking at it from a scripture point of view, let’s face it, at least there is something documented therein. But all other avenues should be pursued also. Then we can truly say that we have shone our light in to all of the dark corners in search of the truth. The truth is what people want you to believe, and based merely on the evidence from one source is not adequate. There is so much literature that has been lost throughout time,. but what is left needs to be studied in much closer detail, all of it, only then can we possibly get to some where near a true understanding.

  • What you are saying is that the Bible is not sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction and that we need to seek out the advice of others and their books. Really? Allow me to ask you this. We are told that fallen angels forced earthly women into marriage with them. So, apparently the women had no choice. Would a God who is just and righteous in all things punish the women for the sins of the fallen angels? The entire abominable doctrine of the Nephilim changes God into a monster who punished women unrighteously. Did the fallen angels who allegedly took upon themselves some kind of visible flesh to have sex with the women and produce the Nephilim, die in the Great Flood?

  • Jeroen

    Wanted to add:
    I don’t pretend to know the truth about this.
    The article raised some reasonable doubts about the giants too.
    I’ll be praying and thinking about this.
    But i.m.o. it doesn’t even matter too much, i don’t see it as a potential door to hell.

    God bless,
    J.

  • Jeroen,

    So, the difference between the truth and lies matter very little to you and it has no potential to send anyone to hell. Read the following article to see how dangerous the Nephilim lie really is.

    https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/12/24/nephilim-controversy/#more-20798

  • Jeroen

    Tom (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Jeroen,
    So, the difference between the truth and lies matter very little to you and it has no potential to send anyone to hell.

    Tom, is that really what i said or meant?
    It was in addition to my previous comment which is still waiting for moderation.
    In all, not really convincing how you handle this subject.
    And thatś a pity.

    God bless,
    J.

  • Jeroen,

    If you want to believe that spirit beings (angels) married and had sex with earthly women, that’s OK but you will have to give an account to God one day why you believed it.

    Tell me, what is God’s view of a genuine marriage> Isn’t it the fact that one man and one woman become one flesh? If so, how on earth can a spirit being like an angel become one flesh with a woman of flesh and bone? To consummate a marriage (one flesh) the angels who allegedly married earthly women and spawned children must have had become flesh and bone like us humans, not so? In that case, if it were true, then Jesus Christ’s incarnation was not unique and it puts his Gospel in jeopardy. Therefore, the notion that angels became flesh and blood, married earthly women, had sex with them and spawned children, is in essence blatant blasphemy because it pooh-poohs Jesus Christ’s incarnation.

    Of course, you would not really be convinced how I handle the subject because you are bent on maligning the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ. And that’s a real pity. It’s easy to say you are not convinced without presenting me with any solid evidence from Scripture why you are not convinced. That’s not only a weak argument but falls flat on its face. to say the least. Grow up and start using Scripture to refute my unconvincing article on the Nephilim. I doubt whether you read it in its entirety.

  • John Baucum

    Thank you fellow Christian in the Lord for your almost exhausted study on giants. I agree with your conclusion. I went to NTBI,Waukesha,WI. and graduated there in ’72’ and no one even debated the subject back then about Giants because, I believe we were only interested in learning the Word of the Lord found in the 66 books He gave us thru his servants. Today in 2016+ many unimportant subjects arise simply because most Christians are ‘CARNAL’ today. Lukewarm is another word to describe the majority of Christians in the USA today. I assume this and have seen allot of evidence of this in my travels in the USA alone. The Bible bears this out,that the Christians will fall away and not get into sound doctrine in the last days. In the days of Paul in the NT you read that the Bereans even examined Scriptures to see if what Paul said lined up with the OT texts. Today Christians are spiritually weak, bored, lazy, and usually get drawn into worthless subjects, because their flesh and demonic influence deceives them to waste their time. There are productive Christians yet serving our Lord. I’m sure the carnal Christians far out weigh the spiritual(those in fellowship with the Lord.)Jesus commended all of us then and in the future to preach the GOSPEL throughout the world. Yes, He ordered, or commanded this before He went up to Heaven to be with the Father. Satan has done his job well by getting millions of Christians to waste their time while here on Earth.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

The Nephilim - The Truth about the Sons of God, the Daughters of Men

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments‘ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!