The Nephilim (Fallen Angels) Controversy

Tom (Discerning the World)

Discerning the World is an internet Discernment ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa that was founded in 2008. Tom Lessing originally founded the website "Waak en Bid/Watch and Pray". Tom Lessing joined Discerning the World in May 2013 and all his articles were moved across to Discerning the World.

42 Responses

  1. Edmund says:

    In the genealogy of Jesus in the book of Luke it is written that Adam was the son of God.
    If Adam is God’s son then his descendants are the sons of God.

    Luke 3:38

  2. Edmund,

    You are right in saying that it is the genealogy of Jesus and not Adam.

    Contrary to Matthew’s genealogy, Luke’s genealogy begins with Jesus and works back to God. If, as you’ve admitted, it is the genealogy of Jesus, Luke is saying that Jesus’ genealogy goes right back to God of whom HE is the Son.

    In any case, I distinctly said that only those who do the will of God are called his sons (male and female) (Romans 8:14). What does that mean? It simply means they had repented of their sins and believed in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. (John 6:40).

    Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God. I too made special mention of Seth of whom it is said “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (Genesis 4:26). The phrase “calling upon the Name of the Lord” refers to salvation (Acts 2:21: Romans 10:13), and is associated with offerings, contrition and worship.

    The physical sons of Adam didn’t naturally make them sons of God. If that were true, you would only need to be the son of a believer in order to be saved. That’s rank heresy. There’s a great difference between being the physical son of a father and a spiritual son of God.

    At any rate, you are missing the point. My entire post revolves around whether the fallen angels were the sons of God and not particularly about whether believers and unbelievers are sons of God just because they are all his creatures.

    I suggest that you read my post again.

  3. Martin Horan says:

    I found a site promoting this Nephilim belief as giants being descended from angels and women. When I kept replying with biblical facts, a woman correspondent accused me of only wishing to argue. A male one told me to stop confusing him by quoting Scriptures!

  4. Marie says:

    Thank you! God bless you.

  5. Marie wrote,

    Thank you! God bless you.

    Thanks for your thank you but what is your thanks and blessing for? I’m a little confused?

  6. Kate E says:

    You use harsh words for anyone with the opinion that fallen angels took wives of the daughters of men and produced offspring of giants calling it “unbiblical”, “totally illogical”, and “pure blasphemy”, however you haven’t provided a very strong argument as far as I am concerned.

    You criticize using Jude 1:6 for support but don’t analyze this verse to comprehend what it is saying. In this verse it refers to the “angels who did not keep their own domain [arche], but abandoned their proper [idios] abode [oiketerion]”. The Greek arche is defined in HELP’s Word-studies to mean “from the beginning (i.e. the initial starting point)”, idios means “uniquely one’s own”, and oiketerion means “dwelling place or habitation”. It is clear that this verse refers to angels that left their original purpose – their role as messangers, and their unique habitation – heaven. There is no other biblical indication of this occurring other than in Genesis 6:4 leading me to conclude that these are the angels being discussed. Consider 1 Peter 3 when Jesus “went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison” (v19) “who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah” (v20) which clearly refers to these fallen angels. Consider also 2 Peter 2:4 where it says “if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment” again clearly referring to these fallen angels. This leads me to the conclusion that it was angelic beings referred to in Gen 6:4 that fathered the Nephilim who were destroyed in the flood along with the rest of sinful mankind, and more angels “abandoned their proper abode” after the flood creating more giants as confirmed in Numbers 13:33.

    You state that because the words men or man appear no less than ten times in Genesis 6: 1 to 7 it indicates we’re dealing with “normal human beings” and that the word “chose” indicates these verses were referring to relationships between believers and unbelievers but clearly this mingling was something new that occurred “when men began to multiply on the face of the land” (v1) that made God shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years (v3), and created “Nephilim”, “mighty men” (v4) so this rules out normal male – female relationships. You go into a lengthy discourse on relationships between believers and non-believers but that isn’t what these verses in Genesis 6 are about.

    You fail to address the word Nephilim which occurs 3 times in scripture – 1 in Genesis 6: 4, and 2 in Numbers 13:33. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines Nephilim as being from the Hebrew word naphal which means “a feller (i.e. a bully or tyrant – giant)” and NAS Exhaustive Concordance defines it as “giants, names of two peoples – one before the flood and one after”. The Nephilim were “mighty [gibbor] men, the heroes of old, men of renown [shem – a name]”” Gen 6:4. The Hebrew gibbor means strong, mighty which may be partly or wholly due to the physical size of these men. We see their reputation in Deut 9:2 where it says “a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard [it said], ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’”

    You indicate that where it is prophesied that the last days would be like “the days of Noah” means normal activities like eating, drinking and marriage as well as violence and sin, but don’t accept that there will be more fallen angels creating Nephilim. You state that only God can cause spirit being to become human (incarnate) but there are examples throughout scripture of spirit beings interacting with mankind. Jesus is one example – when he was raised from the dead he offered that Thomas could “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side”(John 20:28) proving that he was materially present even though he was spirit. Paul tells us in Hebrews 13:2 “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it” showing us that angels can materialize in the flesh. In Genesis 19 the two angels that were sent to save Lot (v1) from destruction “reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door” (v10), and in the morning “seized Lots, his wife and daughters hands and brought them outside the city (v16). I believe that scripture supports that angels are able to materialize and interact with mankind and presents us with the possibility of angels mingling with mankind in the last days when Satan is released to deceive the nations as prophesied in Rev 20: 7 & 8. Consider in Ephesians 6:12 where we are warned that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”. I would not be so bold as to discount the possibility of more intermingling or spirit and flesh, and more Nephilim.

    The term “sons of God” is used in reference to angels in the Old Testament – Job 1:6, 2:1 , & 38:7, but is also used in reference to the Israelites in Deut 14:1, and born again believers in Galatians 3:26 where Paul states “For you are all sons [huios] of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” All Bible versions translate ben as son in Gen 6:4, and either son, angels (NIV) or members of the heavenly court (NLV) in the verses in Job which clearly refers to angels because it takes place in heaven. The Hebrew word ben and its Greek equivalent huios can refer to children or mature adults and for each verse in question different Bible translations pick either son or children depending on their contextual interpretation of the scripture. Through an in-depth analysis of scripture we can confirm that the term “sons of God” refers to spiritual beings – angels or redeemed mankind.

    I believe the confusion comes from translating these words as son in verses that are clearly referring to spiritual children. The fact that while we are flesh and blood we are not yet adopted sons of God is clearly taught by Paul in Romans 8: 14 to 24 and we can see in verse 14 that the more appropriate translation of huios is children because the spiritual condition described is unredeemed, and in verse 21 which is referring to the revealing is appropriately translated as son because the adoption is complete. Huios in Galatians 3:26 is more appropriately translated as children as it is in many Bible versions (NIV, NLT, KJ etc.). We receive the spirit of God as a guarantee and a seal of ownership as stated in 2 Cor 5:5 “God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit”, and 2 Cor 1:22 that he “set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come”, also called “the Spirit of adoption” in Romans 8:15. In Luke 20:35 & 36 Jesus stated that “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”.

    In conclusion while you use strong language that I consider to be nothing short of bullying to dissuade readers from interpreting scripture to support the fact that angels mingled with mankind in the past and may again in the last days, you have failed to convince me. I recommend you revisit your understanding of these scriptures so you aren’t taken completely by surprise if we do see Nephilim living among us.

  7. Kate E wrote:

    You state that because the words men or man appear no less than ten times in Genesis 6: 1 to 7 it indicates we’re dealing with “normal human beings” and that the word “chose” indicates these verses were referring to relationships between believers and unbelievers but clearly this mingling was something new that occurred “when men began to multiply on the face of the land” (v1) that made God shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years (v3), and created “Nephilim”, “mighty men” (v4) so this rules out normal male – female relationships. You go into a lengthy discourse on relationships between believers and non-believers but that isn’t what these verses in Genesis 6 are about.

    Your conclusions are all based on mere conjecture. First of all, God did not shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years. He granted humankind (not fallen angels) a respite of 120 years to repent of their sins, something which fallen angels cannot do for all eternity. Normal human beings may receive forgiveness of their sins, not fallen angels.

    Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited [1230 years] in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peters 3:20).

    Do you really believe that God would be longsuffering to fallen angels because He does not want them to perish? Once again, God is longsuffering ONLY to human beings.

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peters 3:9).

    Noah was as much a lost sinner as any other person who perished in the Great Flood. The only difference was that he repented and received forgiveness for his sins.

    The fallen angels in Genesis 6 is said to have been cast into Tartarus where they are being kept until the final Day of Judgement. When and how did they leave Tartarus to have sex with earthly women?

    1 Peter 3:19 does not in the very least say that the spirits who are now in prison are fallen angels. They are the spirits of normal human beings who refused to repent of their sins during the days of Noah.

    The sons of Anak in Numbers 13:33 were giants born of normal human beings. Anak only had three sons, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai. Therefore, the spies Moses sent out to Canaan saw only three giants. The Bible does not say that they saw a whole army of giants. In any case Caleb drove out Anak’s three sons when he was sent to conquer the land of Canaan.

    Of course there were giants in those days as there are today. The question is: Are today’s giants the offspring of fallen angels and earthly women? Should you believe they are, then you are offending normal human beings who were made in the image of God.

    The fact that spirit beings interacted with human beings in the Old Testament is no proof that fallen angels had intercourse with human beings. At any rate, every single example of angels who interacted with human beings were all holy angels – never fallen angels. When Satan interacted with Eve he spoke through a serpent and not in the form or guise of a human being. God allowed holy angels to appear in the guise of humans and to interact with men. None of them were incarnated. Jesus Christ is the only pre-existing Spirit Being who was incarnated by God the Father. Your view blasphemes the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ.

    Your interpretation of Romans 8:14-24 is totally wrong. You cannot say that because the word “children” is used in verse 16 that believers are not yet adopted sons and daughters of God. If you are not yet an adopted son (generic word for all God’s children), you are not yet saved. The word “teknon” (children) in verse 16 is also translated as child, daughter and son.

    You quoted Luke 20:35-36. It completely debunks the view that it was fallen angels who married the daughters of men in Genesis 6. He distinctly says that angels do not marry in heaven and that the resurrected will be like them when they too are in heaven. You are denying what Jesus said in Luke 20:35-36 and in Matthew 22:30.

  8. Kate E says:

    Consulting only with scripture I couldn’t figure out where the concept of the mixing of believers and unbelievers/sons of Seth and daughters of Cain came from because this concept appeared out of thin air (read – it is not supported by scripture), but on this article http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html they identify that this teaching started with Augustine stating the following:

    “The interpretation of Genesis 6 which takes “the sons of God” as referring to the godly line of Seth is most natural since it avoids the obvious problem of how spirit beings could copulate with humans. Moreover, it has weighty support in that it is the view of many theological giants of church history. It is not an early view– we will come back to that later–but it appears in such thinkers as Chrysostom and Augustine in the early church, and is adopted by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and their followers.

    Of the early views Augustine’s is most important because he had a great influence on later interpreters. Moreover, he placed his interpretation within a broad theological context. Augustine’s treatment occurs in The City of God, in which he is trying to trace the origin, nature and development of the two cities (the society of those who love God and the society of those who love self). This is significant, because it fits his objective to view Genesis 6 as continuing the story of the two cities which, according to Augustine, emerges in Genesis 4 and 5. He writes of the passage, “By these two names [sons of God and daughters of men] the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For although the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace…. When they [the godly race] were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society.””

    According to this article http://www.douglashamp.com/sons-of-seth-and-the-daughters-of-cain-or-fallen-angels-procreating-with-women/ :

    “Calvin continues with his unbiblical prohibition of inter-class marriages. Notice that again he does not offer any biblical support for any of his positions. He does not seek to prove his point with Scripture but with opinion and conjecture. Having simply asserted his position, Calvin then ridicules the ‘sons of God as demons interpretation.”

    So this false teaching is derived from Augustine and Calvin. My concern regarding this false teaching is that it leaves us vulnerable to demonic attacks not accepting the tactics our enemy can and will use to deceive us. Don’t let the enemy take you by surprise. Read the word and pray for understanding!

  9. Kate E wrote:

    So this false teaching is derived from Augustine and Calvin. My concern regarding this false teaching is that it leaves us vulnerable to demonic attacks not accepting the tactics our enemy can and will use to deceive us. Don’t let the enemy take you by surprise. Read the word and pray for understanding!

    You seem to derive your need for alertness to demonic attacks from a very shaky theory and not the Bible which is all sufficient. We don’t need a silly theory to keep us alert. The Bible warns in several passages that we should be aware of the wiles of the devil (2 Cor 2:11; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Cor 11:13-15). What if your version of the Nephilim were wrong? Would your alertness to the wiles of the devil and his demons diminish and vanish in thin air? I suggest that you rather base your alertness on the Bible and not a shaky theory.

    Answer me this. If it were so that fallen demons married and had sex with women and spawned children by them, why are they no longer doing it? Did God cause all of them to become impotent?

    Your problem is, you don’t believe Jesus Christ who said:

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

    So, as you can see, this “false teaching” was NOT derived from Augustine and Calvin. It started with Jesus Christ.

    And don’t tell me He only referred to the holy angels in heaven. The fallen angels were also holy angels before they followed Satan in his rebellion against God. It follows that they too neither married nor were given in marriage. If they did marry the daughters of men, when did they receive the ability to marry and have kids with women and who gave them that ability – God? You must be kidding me!

    My statement that the Nephilim theory demeans the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ does not seem to bother you.

    Your warning “Don’t let the enemy take you by surprise” is rather odd. Do you mean that only women need to watch out lest they be clobbered over the head and are forced to marry demons (spiritual beings)? Men don’t need to be alert because the fallen demons are all male entities (allegedly the sons of God) and cannot marry the sons of men. Unless, of course the demons are all gay in which case they cannot spawn children because gay marriages do not produce children. Jesus’ warning against the devil and his fallen angels does not relate to marriage, sex and the Nephilim. His warning relates to the vile wiles of deception. And you, are deceived.

  10. Kate E says:

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine? In scripture “sons of God” refers to angels and saints, and daughters of men is a general term. Nowhere in scripture does it tie “sons of God” to believers or “daughters of men” to nonbelievers. It is clearly stated in Genesis 6:4 that this mingling resulted in giants and why would this happen if it really was referring to the offspring of pure human beings? You haven’t provided any scripture proving this teaching.

    Christ was born wholly man yet the wholly divine son of God. The angels that manifest in human form are not wholly human which is why the mingling of their seed with the “daughters of men” creates offspring with genetic mutations. You are wrong to indicate that those believing the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels have any lesser faith in Jesus Christ having been born a man.

    What my discussion with you reveals to me is that true believers need to be humble and accept ridicule because this is a tool that Satan uses to defend his false doctrine.

  11. Kate E wrote,

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Did God create the holy angels with the ability to marry and spawn children but forbade them to marry? The rebellious angels who were in heaven before their fall were not evicted from heaven because they allegedly married and had sex with the daughters of men. They were evicted because they followed Satan who said he wanted to exalt himself above God. Read your Bible.

    You wrote:

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine?

    You’re not listening. I have already proved to you that it did not originate with Augustine but Jesus Christ.

    Yes, your’re right in saying Satan uses tools to deceive, and one of those tools is the infamous doctrine of the Nephilim (fallen angels) who allegedly fell in love with the daugters of men, married them, had sex with thewm and had kids with them. That’s preposterous. Do you really want me to educate you in what sex is? SPIRITUAL BEINGS LIKE ANGELS CANNOT HAVE SEX. GOD DID NOT CREATE THEM TO MARRY AND HAVE SEX. Theat’s what Jesus actually said in Matthew 22:30? Can’t you see that? He did not say the holy angels were made with the ability to marry, have sex with women and spwan kids but He forbade them to marry. That’s ridiculous. That would put Him in the same class as false prophets who forbid people to marry (1 Timothy 4:3).

    Justin Martyr taught a lot of nonsense because it is contrary to what Jesus teaches in Matthew 22:30.

    The Nephilim doctrine that fallen angels married women and had sex and kids with them is a satanic doctrine. It does NOT come from God.

  12. Martin Horan says:

    It was interesting to come over this site again. It is astonishing to find that famous “Christian” speakers believe in the Nephilim doctrine.
    I had always thought that Chuck Missler was a true Christian, not that I’d listened much to his views but, with those I had heard, I found him to be a genial man. But I was saddened a while back to find that he believed that fallen angels had married women. It shows that we can’t just listen to “teachers” superficially.
    I hadn’t a clue that Jacob Prasch went along with this stuff also, though his Judaising is flaky enough. And I had considered David Pawson to be fairly sound, after some time back buying a book of his called Defending Christian Zionism, in resopnse to Stephen Sizer and John Stott. Yet the above article shows that Mr Pawson too has become involved in this Nephilim idea.
    It just shows that we really have to be astute in these times when dealing with men who have ministries. We can think they must be sound simply because they have nice personalities or because we agree with them on some things.
    Well done DTW for this insightful article.

  13. JT says:

    Tom,
    I do NOT like the doctrine that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are fallen angels for many of the reasons you say. It seems to throw up issues that I can’t reconcile with scripture, most of all with regard to soteriology. If the sons of God were fallen angels then is mankind to be judged for the sins of angels?
    It is a subject that I have started to study in depth, and I have read your lengthy article in it’s entirety, although that is not to say I necessarily understand everything.

    What are your thoughts on Numbers 13.23 where it says “…and they bare it between two upon a staff..”? The scripture goes on to say as a result of this and other incidences that “an evil report” was brought back to Moses. Now, I grow grapes, and I can pick a “cluster” up with one hand! Was this a “cluster” or a whole vine? Clearly the sons of Anak were rather tall/large people, but just how much so?

  14. JT wrote,

    What are your thoughts on Numbers 13.23 where it says
    . . . and they bare it between two upon a staff..”? The scripture goes on to say as a result of this and other incidences that “an evil report” was brought back to Moses. Now, I grow grapes, and I can pick a “cluster” up with one hand! Was this a “cluster” or a whole vine? Clearly the sons of Anak were rather tall/large people, but just how much so?

    The cluster of grapes does not tell us how tall the Anakims were. It tells us how fruitful the land was. In Deuteronomy 9:2 the children of the Anakims are described as having been great and tall.” The word for tall (rûm, room) can either be inerpreted literally or figuratively. The latter describes their self-exaltation, their pride, haughtiness, and self-angrandizement. They may have been giants but not excessively so, to the extent that they were much taller than today’s giants. Goliath’s stature grew at the hand of narrators or scribes: the oldest manuscripts—the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the 1st century historian Josephus, and the 4th century Septuagint manuscripts—all give his height as “four cubits and a span” (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 metres). The tallest man in medical history for whom there is irrefutable evidence is Robert Pershing Wadlow (USA) (born 6:30 a.m. at Alton, Illinois, USA on 22 February 1918), who when last measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 2.72 m (8 ft 11.1 in) tall.

  15. JT says:

    Tom, thank you for your reply. Would the dimensions of Og’s bed in Deuteronomy 3.11 also have to be reduced according to Josephus and the Septuagint? I assume reading the context that the mention of the length and breadth of Og’s bed is written to give us an idea of his size being “of the remnant of giants.”?

  16. JT,

    Was Og the offspring of a marriage between a fallen angel and a human being? The fact is, his iron bed which was probably his coffin or sarcophagus was 13.5 feet long and not he personally. The Bible does not say how tall Og was. The fact that his sarcophagus was 13.5 feet long does not mean that he was an exceptionally tall giant. The length and breadth of a sarcophagus indicated how important the man was and not how tall he was.

  17. JT says:

    Tom,I don’t believe that Og was the offspring of a marriage between a fallen angel and a human being.
    I am not sure, but I don’t think, with the exception of Goliath, the Bible gives any specific height of any man, woman or angel? And you seem to say that we can’t rely on the Biblical record of Goliath’s height? But I was only asking if the length of Og’s bedstead must be reduced proportionately as per the height of Goliath according to Josephus and the Septuagint?
    From my research today (by no means exhaustive!) I have not heard anyone say that Og’s bedstead was any thing other than his bed. Granted, if it was his bed no doubt it would be longer than Og. If we were to use the maximum 22″ for a cubit this would put his bedstead at 16 1/2 feet. Reading Deuteronomy 3.11 again it says “behold” as if to say take note and listen? Why would Moses say this if it were his sarcophagus? Are there not many other stone burial places/monuments/pillars throughout the Bible, yet no mention of their dimensions?
    I find this cubit thing very interesting, being a whisker under 6’5″ (and I DON’T feel like a giant!) it would seem obvious to me that my cubit would be longer than a man who was around 5′? I don’t know what the average height of a man was at the time of Moses?

  18. JT

    Do you believe that the sons of God were fallen angels who married women of flesh and blood (human beings)?

  19. JT says:

    Tom,
    The sons of God, I certainly believe to be of the godly line of Seth. It is my belief that because the two bloodlines were apart for a great many years that the intermixture may well have given rise to an offspring of superior bodily size and constitution (as God permitted). Also that this intermarrying brought upon them God’s wrath, of which the Almighty gave men 120 years to repent. The deluge came, and as we know giants existed afterward (Numbers 13.33) which were also the progeny of men.
    As you well know, there are many out there who would have us believe that the giants were over 100′ tall or more, and try to prove from ambiguous rock formations (principally their foot prints)that such existed.
    Certainly I believe if God wanted to produce giants of 100′ or more in height, He was/is more than capable of doing so.
    If I am contending for anything, it is only that these “giants” were significantly taller than you believe them to have been, only because the Bible calls them “giants”, and we do have the Scriptures pertaining to Og and Goliath to give us an indication of their size?
    An old time writer asked “How could the intermixture of the Sethites and sons of men produce giants?” To which we may reply “How could the intermixture of fallen angels and the sons of men produce offspring, let alone giants!”? And besides all this, it was for the sins of men that the deluge came. If the fallen angel theory be correct then they would be the guilty party?

  20. JT

    The word “nephı̂yl” does not necessarily mean a giant in stature. It also means “feller” which is a bully or a tyrant.

  21. JT says:

    Tom,
    I agree that the word Nephilim “does not necessarily mean a giant in stature”. But we do have other evidence (if it is to be believed) from Scripture that shine much light on the height of some who lived around 3000 years ago and more.
    In a previous post you mentioned a giant in modern times by the name of Robert Wadlow, very interesting. Apparently when he died he was still growing; how do we know that thousands (or even hundreds) of years ago men twice his height or more didn’t exist?
    With respect, you may have overlooked a question I asked in a previous post-can the dimensions recorded in Deuteronomy 3.11 be relied upon? I only ask this as you previously said words to the effect that our modern Bibles cannot be trusted regarding the height of Goliath in 1 Samuel 17.4?
    I thank you for your speedy replies-some other sites don’t reply!

  22. JT

    Christians so often get bogged down in useless details that they miss the spiritual lessons the Bible teach. Whether Goliath was 9’9″ tall (Hebrew Bible), 6’9″ (Greek Old Testament), 6’9″ (Dead Sea Scrolls), or 6’9″ tall according to Josephus, we should not get caught up in these kinds of arguments. Surely the lesson in 1 Samuel 17 is that the flesh (physical stature, prowess, beauty, and strength) “availeth nothing” because it is “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Zechariah 4:6). Or should we rather continue to calculate how many angels fit onto the head of a pin? Get my drift?

  23. JT says:

    Tom,
    I DO get your drift!
    Though some may say it is in these “useless details” that we can learn from Scripture?
    I WAS going to ask you some more questions.
    I will post back here in a few weeks (God willing) after I have done some more research.
    Many thanks for your help thus far.

  24. JT says:

    Tom,
    In reply to Edmund (28/12/2014) you state “Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God.”
    How do you reconcile this with 2 Chronicles 12.14 where it is said of Rehoboam (son of Solomon) “And he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the LORD.”? Two verses later the chapter records Rehoboam’s death.

  25. JT wrote:

    Tom,
    In reply to Edmund (28/12/2014) you state “Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God.”
    How do you reconcile this with 2 Chronicles 12.14 where it is said of Rehoboam (son of Solomon) “And he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the LORD.”? Two verses later the chapter records Rehoboam’s death.

    Consider the following from Scripture.

    But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. (1Ki 11:1-10)

    Now the million dollar question which you may like to answer. Was Solomon saved? Is he in heaven or hell?

  26. JT says:

    Tom,
    The truth is, I cannot answer that question. I will leave that to God. Many have different ‘answers’ to that “million dollar question”? Certainly when you consider the folly of what Solomon did in his old age, you do have to wonder?
    I used the account of Rehoboam, purely because it is not so well known as that of Solomon’s? Rehoboam also had many wives and concubines(not 700!).
    As we don’t believe that the Nephilim are the result of fallen angels marrying women, but of the union between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, then it is clear that many of the “sons of God” were not saved? So is it correct/biblical to say that “Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God”?

  27. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    JT

    Regarding Solomon, “I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father” (1 Chronicles 28:6)

    Solomon looks back over his wasted years and finds no joy in them, only futility, vanity, and “a chasing after the wind” (Ecclesiastes 1:14). But he had learned his lesson, albeit the hard way, and he ends with this advice (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14). This definitely sounds like a man who has returned to God.

  28. JT says:

    And that is so very true! But what about Solomon’s son?
    If I didn’t know you better, I would think you were a Calvinist!

  29. JT

    What is so true? You haven’t answered my question. Is Solomon in heaven or hell?

  30. JT

    >> What about Solomon’s son?

    Why don’t you study the scriptures to find out?

    >> If I didn’t know you better, I would think you were a Calvinist!

    LOL, that is funny. Nope JT we (this website) are not Calvinists.

  31. JT says:

    “What is so true” is that Scripture-1 Chronicles 28.6. I think it right to believe that Solomon learned from the folly and error of his ways. As you know, God said “I have CHOSEN him.”
    I have never been able to accept that a man inspired by God’s Holy Spirit could have penned the writings of Solomon, and be in hell, as some think? All of the other authors of God’s word are saved, and so, I believe Solomon.

  32. JT,

    And there you go – from error to deeper Calvinism. Let me ask you the question you asked me. Are you a Calvinist? Do you believe sinners are saved because they have been chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world? Now, now, that’s not kosher, you know. Not kosher at all. And I suppose you will probably also say the damsel in Acts 16 (like Solomon) was inspired by the Holy Spirit because she said something so wonderful as the following – “These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.”

    I suggest that you study and search the Scriptures as Deborah advised you to do and you may just come up with a feasible answer. Start with Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew and Luke and see whether you can find an answer there.

  33. JT says:

    Tom,
    I thank you for your help. I will follow Deborah’s advice. But, one thing, even though the Bible says nothing good about Rehoboam (as I understand the Bible to say); “he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord.” But I stand corrected. What you are in effect saying is that God has pre-destinated or elected Rehoboam unto salvation, and Rehoboam was saved regardless of his actions-but, most surely not? He must have repented of his own God given ‘free will’? Therefore; God relied on man’s free-will so that the genealogy of our Saviour could happen? I think this is what you are saying?
    No! The damsel in Acts 16 was definitely NOT, I repeat NOT inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. Paul was “grieved” by this episode?
    You know that?

  34. JT

    Once again, I am not a Calvinist. The reason why I used the damsel in Acts 16 as an example is to prove that not everyone who speaks or writes the truth is necessarily inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, of course Solomon was inspired by the Holy Ghost but that does not prove that he was saved. I personally believe that Solomon was saved and is now in heaven. How do I know? Read his Ecclesiastes. As far as Rehoboam is concerned, I would like to advise you again to read Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke. You will find the answer there. I am not going to spell it out for you because I want to give you an opportunity to study the Scriptures for yourself.

  35. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    JT

    >> But I stand corrected. What you are in effect saying is that God has pre-destinated or elected Rehoboam unto salvation, and Rehoboam was saved regardless of his actions

    Nope, Tom did not imply this at all, Read our website, we take a strong stance against Calvinism.

  36. Kristine says:

    Kate E wrote:

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine? In scripture “sons of God” refers to angels and saints, and daughters of men is a general term. Nowhere in scripture does it tie “sons of God” to believers or “daughters of men” to nonbelievers. It is clearly stated in Genesis 6:4 that this mingling resulted in giants and why would this happen if it really was referring to the offspring of pure human beings? You haven’t provided any scripture proving this teaching.

    Christ was born wholly man yet the wholly divine son of God. The angels that manifest in human form are not wholly human which is why the mingling of their seed with the “daughters of men” creates offspring with genetic mutations. You are wrong to indicate that those believing the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels have any lesser faith in Jesus Christ having been born a man.

    What my discussion with you reveals to me is that true believers need to be humble and accept ridicule because this is a tool that Satan uses to defend his false doctrine.

    You are correct, I agree on most part. This is long ago, just to add, there’s a book in ancient text not included in the Christian Bible that Judaism has in support of many accounts on this phenomena in Genesis. But even in Christian Bible some scriptures are obvious on the presence of these fallen angels, their inter-mingling to mankind for the purpose of disrupting the original plan of God’s creation and deceiving of mankind. Just one obvious scripture on how Satan as a serpent deceived Eve in the Garden. The Great Flood had to occur coz mankind will eventually not survive to co-exist with these mutated genetic beings, it’s like a reset to the world. Consider Satan like a virus. When this world was created for humans, while Satan wanted to rule this world for his own even before, same as today.

    This event will also explain why are there some angels chained in the bottomless pit, while some can roam around on the face of the earth as today (demons) tempting humans to do bad things. Those angels who were chained are probably those angels who mated with human women, their transgressions were great that deserved higher punishment. At some point in time, this cohabitation or inter-mingling just stopped, maybe God put some chasm so this wont happen again, and God gave an ultimatum on these angels to chose which side to take from their Freewill, is it to side with Satan or to stay with God. So those who followed Satan became demons while those that stayed with God, are the angels guiding and protecting mankind.

    This inter-mingling can also explain the knowledge of the ancients, of the secret societies who are ruling the world today as Lord Jesus said, the rulers of this world are of the devil. So we should stay vigilant so as not be deceived, and preach the Good word of God.

    This is not related but just want to ask to discerningtheworld.com, do you believe the earth is a flat disc??? Been looking around your site. Would appreciate your answer. God bless!

  37. Kristine

    You agree with Kate E. May I ask you a very frank question. Do you think the angels in heaven are only male and that their maleness is determined by their male organs? Or are their female angels with female organs as well? If there are only males then we can only lament the opposite sex because there are NO female angels in heaven. If however the angels in heaven are sexless and only the fallen angels have male organs and able to have sex with women, when did they get their male organs? Who supplied them with male organs? Did they give themselves male organs? Well, in that case they would be equal to God because only He has the power to create. Did He supply them? I don’t think so. The notion that fallen angels married and had sex with women and spawned children of their own is one of the most dangerous occult teachings on the planet. Only Satan can create a lie like this. Jesus said:

    And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. (Joh 10:4-5)

    If you follow the lies of strangers (like Satan and his demons) you simply do not know the voice of Jesus. If you did, you would never twist his words. These are his words whether you like it or not.

    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)

    Now you say, No, they are quite capable of marrying women, having sex with them and spawn children but they are forbidden to do so. You are attributing to God the same indictment as that with which Paul indicts the Roman Catholic Church.

    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)

    Like the Roman Catholic Church, God is giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils and speaking lies in hypocrisy and his conscience is seared with a hot iron because He has forbidden his angels who have male organs and a whopping sexual urge to get married. Nice doing. Learn to know the voice of Jesus and when you do, please listen to and obey Him.

    Furthermore, if the fallen angels took on human form so that they may marry and have sex with women, who incarnated them? They themselves or God? There is not a single instance in the Bible of fallen angels taking on human form. Only the holy angels and Jesus Himself took on human form in the Old Testament. They appeared to people as humans. We do not know what the substance was of their human form. It certainly was not incarnated bodies.

  38. Christine Erikson says:

    I don’t buy the usual nephilim idea, but there is no resemblance between supposed incarnation by a spirit getting physical (which obviously the angels sent to Lot did) and the ONE Incarnation of GOD Who is Jesus.

  39. Christine Erikson,

    The angels who appeared with Jesus, and He Himself, did not “get physical” as you said. They merely appeared in a form that is visible to the human eye. Indeed the ONE incarnation of Jesus is unique because no other being, dead or alive, has ever been reincarnated as He was. To suggest that the fallen angels were incarnated in the same manner Jesus was, is blasphemy to say the least.

  40. Thomas Lessing (Watch and Pray / Waak en Bid) wrote:

    Kate E wrote,

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Did God create the holy angels with the ability to marry and spawn children but forbade them to marry? The rebellious angels who were in heaven before their fall were not evicted from heaven because they allegedly married and had sex with the daughters of men. They were evicted because they followed Satan who said he wanted to exalt himself above God. Read your Bible.

    You wrote:

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine?

    You’re not listening. I have already proved to you that it did not originate with Augustine but Jesus Christ.

    Yes, your’re right in saying Satan uses tools to deceive, and one of those tools is the infamous doctrine of the Nephilim (fallen angels) who allegedly fell in love with the daugters of men, married them, had sex with thewm and had kids with them. That’s preposterous. Do you really want me to educate you in what sex is? SPIRITUAL BEINGS LIKE ANGELS CANNOT HAVE SEX. GOD DID NOT CREATE THEM TO MARRY AND HAVE SEX. Theat’s what Jesus actually said in Matthew 22:30? Can’t you see that? He did not say the holy angels were made with the ability to marry, have sex with women and spwan kids but He forbade them to marry. That’s ridiculous. That would put Him in the same class as false prophets who forbid people to marry (1 Timothy 4:3).

    Justin Martyr taught a lot of nonsense because it is contrary to what Jesus teaches in Matthew 22:30.

    The Nephilim doctrine that fallen angels married women and had sex and kids with them is a satanic doctrine. It does NOT come from God.

    Well isn’t that the whole point Thomas, the angels “left their first estate” and this is why God put them in gloomy dungeons as punishment so NO it did not originate with God, they were in disobedience. You say angels cannot have sex but the point is that angels were seen many times on earth just as when Abraham entertained three angels who sat with him and ate food. The bible clearly says they were men (just without genitals? sexless? come on) they certainly could transform into men and did. But they are a totally different “kind” and are not given and taken in marriage like humans, in other words to become one spirit with each other as man and woman and create offspring since they are heavenly beings, which is their “first estate”, and clearly forbidden. But that certainly does mean they couldn’t.

    Your arguments are full of errors – I’m going to address the other ones soon – catch u later.

  41. andrew owen,

    You may not be aware of it but I made a slideshow on the Nephilim which you can watch here. In it, I answer many of the questions surrounding the Nephilim. I am busy revamping it a little and aim to post the revised part 1 and part 2 as soon as I can.

    In the meantime, I would like to ask you one question. Show me a single instance in the Bible where fallen angels – not holy angels – appeared to man in visible human form. And should you come to the conclusion that it never happened, not even once, you may feel free to tell me why it never happened. You may even want to throw in a verse or two to prove that fallen angels never once appeared in a visible human form on earth.

  42. Koko says:

    Hello everyone, to respond to Andrew, please give your scriptural reference to support that the fallen angels that left they habitat came to earth and got intimate with females. What the Bible says is that the angles that left their first estate have been reserved in chains until judgement day. You have now gone beyond what the bible told us to include ‘oh the reason they left their first estate was to go and have intimate relations with the female specie and hence why they are reserved in chains. Can you see how you have added to scripture? The bible never said or even suggests that the fallen angels became intimate with women. You have inferred this. This is wrong. Stop where the bible stopped and don’t go beyond. The bible says they left their first estate and so they will be punished. Leave it at that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:hi: 
:hat: 
:nod: 
:nope: 
:unhappy: 
:smile: 
:wink: 
:grin: 
:giggle: 
:laugh: 
more...
 

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

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!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close