The Nephilim: Sons of God, Daughters of Men

NephilimThe Biblical Truth of the Nephilim

A 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 t is obvious, and not contestedarticle 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.

Nephilim

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, that the “sons of God” in in the book of Job were Job and his family who came before God to pray.  Satan also came to listen to what they had to pray about.   This presentation of Job before the Lord did not happen in Heaven but on Earth!   Because God asked Satan:

Job 2:2  “And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

First, the bible is clear:  No angel in heaven or fallen angel is called a “son of God”

Hebrews 1:5  “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

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.

1)  David and Goliath – 

 width=

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 –

 width= width= width=

 width=

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)  Nephilim: 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: oiketerion
– 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: (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.

Read the more DTW articles on this very important subject located under the category Nephilim Teaching:

Please share:
guest
Name or Username
Privacy Policy

Editing Comments: After commenting you have 15 minutes to EDIT your comment. Click the gear icon at the bottom right corner of the comment box, then click EDIT.

Previous Comments: Please read all previous comment pages if there are any. Thank you.

190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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?

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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)

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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/

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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?

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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)

Deborah (Discerning the World)

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.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

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?

190
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x