Visitors from around the World

Translate blog:

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

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

Announcements

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

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

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

Recent Comments

General Comments Section:

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

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

Article Archive

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

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

WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM? (Part 1)

NephilimWHO WERE THE NEPHILIM? (Part 1)

Nephilim – Written by Vernon Gray and critiqued by Tom Lessing

VERNON GRAY

In recent times there has been some controversy surrounding the origin of what the Bible calls the Nephilim. The verse in question here is found in Genesis 6: 1–6.

  1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
  2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
  3. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
  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.
  5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

There are three common views on the identity of the “sons of God” (“Bene Ha Elohim”) marrying the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1-4:

  1. Descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain.
  2. Nobles married commoners.
  3. Angels married human women.

The Seth Line View

This view supports the idea that the descendants of Seth married descendants of Cain.

The account in Genesis 6.1-4, then, is telling us that there was a mingling of righteous men (The Sethites) with unrighteous women, leading directly to the wickedness that prompted God to flood the world.

Already there is a problem with this position because the intermingling of the Gentile nations is not forbidden by God.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

The Bible distinctly says “it grieved God that He had made MAN on earth.”

WHY?

Because the passage deals with the great wickedness and the relentless evil thoughts of MAN’S heart on earth and NOT with the ANGELS’ sins in heaven.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 describe the fall of Satan and his angels, . . . NOT Genesis 6: 1-6.

The marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men were the outcome or result of man’s (and not the angels’) relentless wickedness on earth. Don’t blame the fallen angels when man himself was responsible for his own downfall.

Vernon Gray, seems to suggest that the antediluvian societies were all Gentiles. As such, there was no chosen line of ancestry set aside or set apart as holy prior to the Great Flood to eventually bring the Christ into the world. Consequently, mixed marriages were immaterial before the Great Flood, according to Vernon Gray.

This in itself is a very dangerous statement because it denies the fact that God put his plan of salvation into action from the very beginning of the world.

It suggests that God had no qualms with man’s desires to marry and mix with whosoever he wills, and only began to make a distinction between a chosen holy race (Jews) and an unholy group of people (Gentiles) when He called Abraham out of Ur, the land of the Chaldees. (Genesis 15).

If it were true that Jesus Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), which, of course, is indisputably true, then God must also have chosen a lineage or bloodline by whom He could bring his Messiah into the world from the foundation of the world.  . . . . And that is precisely how it happened.

It may be true ― from the perspective of the demarcation between Jews and Gentiles that a spiritual distinction between the two only began with Abraham and the institution of circumcision ― that all of humanity were “Gentiles” (non-Jewish) prior to the Great flood.

At any rate, the term “Gentile” cannot exist without the term “Jew,” simply because “Gentile” indicates that someone is not a Jew, and therefore it is irrelevant whether people were Jews or Gentiles before the Flood.

Nevertheless, it does not annul the fact that God chose a line of ancestry prior to the Flood to in due course bring the Messiah into the world, and that line was Seth’s lineage.

The holy seed  in Ezra 9 and verse 2, that was set aside to bring our Redeemer into the world, was dangerously compromised when the sons of God lusted after the daughters of men and married them. Therefore, Mr. Vernon Gray’s inappropriate comment, quoted below, is entirely anti-God, anti-Christ and anti-biblical.

Already there is a problem with this position because the intermingling of the Gentile nations is not forbidden by God.

The separation between Jews and Gentiles may not have been in place just then, but there was definitely a godly decreed separation between the “HOLY SEED” and the “UNHOLY SEED,” if you will.

The intermingling of the two seeds was such a gross abhorrence in the eyes of God that He commanded his people who had married foreign women in the time of Ezra, to divorce them and presumably, the Jewish men sent their foreign wives back to their pagan countries of origin.

The apparently harsh separation between the holy seed and the unholy seed in the time of Ezra was precisely what transpired in Genesis 6, with one exception. The holy seed in Ezra repented of their evil to marry foreign women, whilst the antediluvian holy seed refused to repent. They remained adamant during the course of the 120 years of respite God had granted them.

Unfortunately, Seth’s ancestors reached a point when their religion (founded on Abel’s offering), and NOT their DNA, became so corrupt when their sons married Cain’s female ancestors, that God had no option but to destroy them all in the Flood.

Only Noah and his family (8 souls) remained untainted by the idolatrous religion of the Cainites. They were blameless of this particular sin, which involved the exchange of the one and only offering God accepted for another.

The very first thing Noah did when the waters of the Flood subsided and they set foot on solid ground, was to bring burnt offerings – the very same offering Abel brought to the Lord (Genesis 8:20), as a token that God would accomplish what He had promised in Genesis 3:15.

Several things in Genesis 6:1-6 need to be underlined. The first is ―

  • “. . . When men (humankind) began to multiply on the face of the earth . . .”

The multitude of evil usually finds its best nich in the multitude of evil doers. We know from history that the best encouragement and support for sin festers much deeper when the evil of multitudes worsens and increases by the day.

Hence, the stern warning in Exodus 23:2, “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil . . .”

  • “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair:  . . .”

A bad woman, armed with beauty, is one of the most deadly instruments the devil can employ against the sons of God. 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).

  • “My Spirit shall not always strive with man for that he is also flesh.”

It is evident that God who is a God of great longsuffering (2 Peter 3:9), always gives humankind ample time and opportunities to repent and to return to Him (Jeremiah 3:13).

Yet, a time comes when He will withdraw his Spirit to wield the sword of his indignation and his righteous judgments. He had raised up Noah, a preacher of righteousness, to warn them that God had given them 120 years of gracious respite. And now, he threatens to leave them to fill up the measure of their iniquities, till they should be ripe for destruction.

VERNON GRAY

Because Cain’s descendants in Genesis 4 are inferred to be more wicked, (based on the progression of Genesis 8.8-24), while Seth’s descendants are inferred to be more righteous, (based almost entirely on Genesis 4.25-26), . . . it is common for adherents of this view to further inaccurately identify the righteous “sons of God” with Seth’s offspring and the “daughters of men” with Cain’s.

A common criticism of this view is that the Genesis account mentions neither Seth nor Cain, so identifying the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” as their descendants, respectively, is accused of presupposing too much about the author’s intention.

Another point here is that IF the descendants of Seth were “righteous” then why did they all die in Noah’s Flood? This view is rather fragile and collapses easily when tested against the Word of God.

It was in the 5th century AD that the “angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics.

Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the Church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The “angel” view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.

Even today, there is a resistance to accept the text as it stands. The idea that angels can have sex with women is frightening and abhorrent.

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional “angel” belief to attack Christianity.

Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground.

Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox “angel” position with the “line of Seth” interpretation.

This view was popularized by Augustine in his book “City of God,” chapter 23, and the argument amounts to the following: the “sons of God” designates people who are faithful to God, and hence are being contrasted to people not faithful to God.

Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages.

It is still widely taught today among many Churches who find the literal “angel” view a bit disturbing.

If the text was intended to contrast the “sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain,” why didn’t it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. Why not the “sons of Cain” and the “daughters of Seth?”

There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam’s descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.

There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is there even a hint that the “Sethites” were more righteous than any other family on the earth.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

The issue here is not about one person’s descendants being more righteous than those of another. The entire nation of Israel was holy unto the Lord. (Deuteronomy 7:6), and yet most of them are bound for hell.

The term “children of the kingdom” may lead one to believe that it always refers to all the believers. Far from it. The entire nation of Israel is called “the children of the kingdom.” Does that mean they are all saved or more righteous than all other nations? Perish the thought.

Matthew 8:11-12

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The issue is that a sovereign God chose vessels, whom He knew before the foundation of the world, would remain faithful to his Gospel, and not compromise it in any way, so that He could bring his Redeemer and Messiah into the world, via their ancestral lineages.

Noah was no better than the villains, who perished in the Great Flood. The only difference between him and the scoundrels who perished was that he clung to the one and only blood sacrifice that imputed to him and his family the righteousness that saved and shielded them from God’s righteous judgments. (Exodus 12:13).

Whosoever believes that it was Noah’s untainted genetic make-up (DNA) that saved him from the Flood is treading on dangerous ground because they are changing the Gospel of God from a spiritual dimension to a physical dimension.

In fact, they are implying that it was Noah’s mother’s resistance to the fallen angels’ forceful sexual advances, that saved him from the flood, and not his loyalty to the Gospel of God.

This is dangerous, very, very dangerous!

VERNON GRAY

Another question on the Seth View is this … Where in Scripture does it refer to the Seth Line as “sons of God?”

In 1 John 3: 1, 2 Christians are referred to as the “Sons of God” because, like the Angels and Adam, we are created anew at the rebirth. Whereas we were the sons of Adam through a sexual union prior to salvation, we are now the “Sons of God” like Adam is and the angels are.

1 John 3:1, 2 “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

  • The Sethites were NOT the “sons of God.” They were the sons of Adam.
  • Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to the Seth line as the “sons of God.”
  • Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to the Cain line as “daughters of men.”
  • Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Seth line was particularly righteous.
  • Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Cain line was particularly unrighteous.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

Vernon Gray seems to suggest that God never bestowed on the antediluvian believers the same manner of love He bestowed on the New Testament believers so that the believing Sethites could NOT have been called “sons of God.” In turn, his statement suggests that God is biased in his love which, of course, is a gross misinterpretation of God.

We cannot assume that something is not true from a premise of silence. Several spiritual truths are not mentioned in the Old Testament but are clearly clarified in the New Testament.

It obviously means that we should take the whole of Scripture into account when we venture to understand and explain spiritual truths. The term “sons of God” is one of these spiritual truths, which I aim to explain later.

If we want to be consistent in our dealing with biblical hermeneutics, and if we want to be fair in our assessment of Genesis 6:1-4, then we dare not exclude the possibility that the passage refers to an intermingling of — not necessarily the line of Seth and the line of Cain — but of believers and unbelievers.

It is imperative to note the words “man” and “flesh” in Genesis 6:3,

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

If the fallen angels had taken on the form of man and become flesh and blood in order to marry as many wives as they chose, and if these marriages complied with God’s requirement for marital bonds to be real marriages (i.e. the union of two opposite sexes of the same species and both made of flesh to become one flesh), then God’s Spirit must have striven with fallen angels (who had become flesh and blood) in exactly the same way He strove with human beings. That’s preposterous, to say the least.

Should we argue that the fallen angels did not become flesh (of the same substance humans are made of), but manifested themselves in a way different than the frame of flesh and blood as we know it, we cannot possibly speak of their union with human women as a normal, biblically constituted marriage, i.e. two persons of the opposite sex becoming ONE FLESH.

Therefore, we cannot possibly speak of a normal marriage or union (“one FLESH”) having taken place between fallen angels and human women, simply because it does not comply with God’s definition of a marriage.

Some may argue that the term ‘ishshâ̂h nâshîym does not refer to a married woman but a woman in general. The fact remains that the two opposite sexes clung together in a physical and spiritual bond, making them ONE FLESH.

This “oneness” cannot possibly be accomplished through a relationship between a species of flesh and blood and a spiritual being. The only way such a “oneness” bond could be accomplished was if the fallen angels had taken on the exact kind of physical frame as man, namely flesh, blood and bone.

Perhaps you may have noticed that such a notion vilifies, nullifies, slanders and disparages the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Had it been true that the fallen angels became flesh and blood so that they could marry the daughters of men and spawn the so-called Nephilim, Jesus Christ’s incarnation would not have been a unique occurrence. Others, in this case, fallen angels, would have prefigured His incarnation. Once again, it must be stressed that such a notion borders on blasphemy.

Moreover, it would mean that the fallen angels had creative powers to change from a spiritual to a physical entity of flesh and blood. Something so horrendous can only be termed blasphemous because it implies that fallen angels are like God, the only Person capable of creating.

What about the argument that they took on a frame other than the normal one of Homo sapiens but looked exactly like the one of Homo sapiens?

That, in turn, would have given them even greater creative powers because they would have had the capability to create something that looks like humans but is far more advanced than God’s own design of man.

If Genesis 2:23-24 is God’s requirement for calling a spiritual and physical union between one man and one woman a marriage, we cannot possibly call the alleged union between a fallen angel and a human woman a marriage.

Yet, the Bible clearly says that the sons of God took unto themselves wives as many as they chose (i.e. married as many as they wanted) and had kiddies with them. The women didn’t seem to have any say in matrimonial matters. They were forced to succumb to the men’s bidding, and, of course, their lusts.

To sum up, there are two scenarios we must take into account in order to come to a reasonable conclusion.

  1. The fallen angels did not become flesh and blood, (take on human form as we know it), but  appeared in a form unknown to us, in which case their alleged union with human women cannot possibly be called a marriage, because it does not meet the terms of God’s requirement that two opposite sexes of flesh and blood become one flesh. A non-physical being, whether spiritual or in a form that appears to be flesh and blood, cannot become one flesh with its partner.

OR

2) The fallen angels became flesh and blood (were incarnated), as we know it, in which case God must have striven with fallen angels as He had striven with human beings because they (the fallen angels) had become flesh and blood like human beings.

Both these scenarios prove beyond any doubt that fallen angels never married human women.

The word dîyn, (dûn) (to strive) means among other things to plead with, to minister to, to irradiate the darkened mind in order to bring the wayward ones to their senses and cause their hearts to return to God.

Unless one believes that Satan and his fallen angels can be saved, we dare not suggest that God’s Holy Spirit strove with the fallen angels in the very same way He strove with humankind.

Some may argue that He did not strive with angels, in which case they could not have become flesh and blood, and hence only strove with the women whom the fallen angels married, and, of course, their offspring.

Then we would have to conclude that God is an unjust God because He destroyed the women who had been forced to marry the fallen angels in the flood, and not the fallen angels themselves.

Surely, a God of perfect justice and righteousness would not have judged the entire human race (except Noah and his family) when only some women indulged in this allegedly horrible sin of marrying evil spirit beings.

Unlike Cain who had an opportunity to be saved, the fallen angels had none whatsoever. They were and are still irretrievably lost.

The words of God in Genesis 4:3-5 clearly corroborate this.

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

God’s disrespect and disregard for Cain’s offering had nothing to do with Abel being better or more righteous than Cain.

In fact, Abel, having been born in sin, was a potential murderer and could easily have vented his anger by committing a murder (Genesis 4:6-7).

God had a profound disrespect for Cain’s offering because he rejected the only divinely ordained means to be declared righteous in the sight of an awesomely holy God.

Cain vowed to approach God based on his personal worthiness. Like his brother Abel, he knew perfectly well that an offering of an innocent victim’s blood was the only one God accepted because their father and mother had taught them so.

However, in his rebellious state of mind, he dared to offer the fruit (works) of his own hands to gain God’s favor (Jude 1:10-11) and fell hopelessly from grace.

In unmitigated rebellion, he taunted God and offered to Him the fruits of the ground which God had cursed.

He presented the product of his own toil, the work of his own hands, and God refused to receive it.

To this very day, there are but two diametrically opposing religions – the way of Abel (the sacrificial offering of an innocent victim) and the way of Cain (a works-based salvation), which God cursed.

There seems to be no evidence in Scripture that any of Cain’s offspring accepted and followed the way of Abel prior to Seth’s birth but instead continued to follow the path of their father, Cain, and like him stubbornly rejected Abel’s Godly inspired offering.

In order to find some evidence that none of Cain’s descendants right up to Lamech’s three sons, Ja-bal, Ju-bal and Tubal-cain, were righteous believers, we need to consider the possibility that all of his descendants recorded in Genesis 4:17-24 were born before Adam and Eve had their third son, Seth.

We know from Genesis 5:3 that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Could all of Cain’s descendants recorded in Genesis 7 have been born before the birth of Seth?

If Seth’s birth (Genesis 4:25) is in chronological order with the previous passage (Genesis 4:17-24), then it is possible that all the people in Cain’s genealogy were born within the 130 years following the creation.

If the table on the left is a true representation of the sequence of births in both the lineages of Cain and Seth, it follows that Cain and his descendants never called on the Name of the Lord for their salvation prior to the birth of Enosh. Verse 26 of the fourth chapter of Genesis proves it.

“And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.”

Throughout the Bible, the phrase “call on the Name of the Lord” relates to a calling on his Name for redemption or healing. (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21 and 22:16).

If humankind in general only started to call on the Name of the Lord for salvation 235 years after creation when Enosh was born, then there is no reason to doubt that Cain’s lineage up to Jabal/Jubal and Tubal-Cain never called on the Name of the Lord.

Another important question we need to ask is why Cain’s descendants are recorded only up to Lamech’s three sons, Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain. Like Adam who had other sons and daughters whose names are not mentioned (Genesis 5:4), Cain too must have had other sons and daughters subsequent to Lamech’s sons.

Bearing in mind that the Bible’s main purpose is to give an account of God’s plan of salvation from the very beginning, it is reasonable to construe that He was more interested in inspiring his prophets to write down the godly lineages in greater detail than those who belonged to the ungodly lineages.

Moreover, the mixed marriages between the two lineages (Seth and Cain) in the time of Noah must have reached a point when every single individual followed the way of Cain and not that of Abel, except, of course, Noah and his family.

By the way, salvation was never and will never be dependent on your physical make-up, whether it is genetically impaired and tainted, or not. Sin is a moral/spiritual issue, not a physical thing in your DNA or your genes.

Therefore, to suggest that Noah and his family’s physical make-up (DNA) remained untainted when all the other earth dwellers’ DNA were allegedly tainted by the seed of fallen angels and that the purity of Noah and his family’s DNA rendered them righteous is just not biblical. In fact, it denies that salvation is through the finished work of Christ alone on the cross, which is horrendously satanic, to say the least.

If it were true that fallen angels married and produced unnatural offspring, only their offspring would have been furnished with corrupt DNA and not their mothers. Unless, of course, the sexual act itself caused the mothers’ DNA to be altered and tarnished in the same way.

If this had been possible, we need to ask ourselves again whether a just and righteous God would judge someone whose DNA had been manipulated and changed without their consent?

Who is the guilty party when a woman is raped and gives birth to a child – the woman and the child or the rapist?

When humankind began to multiply on the earth, Satan’s lie that everyone could be like God and attain immortality by means of hidden (occult) knowledge (Genesis 3:4-5), reached a dimension so devastatingly dangerous in the time of Noah that repentance and faith toward God became an undesirable irritation. There was not a single person who felt the need to repent and believe the Gospel.

Why would anyone want to be born-again to gain eternal life when humanity allegedly already possessed the eternal seed in their genes?

Is this not the very thing Jesus referred to when He said, “As in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man”?

Not only New Agers believe they are gods; a growing number of so-called Christians do not only believe they are gods but are also preaching it with unashamed starkness in their churches.

The only difference between today’s proponents of the myth that man is a god because he allegedly carries the god-kind of gene in his physical frame and Noah’s days is that it was the pagans who spread the lie. Indeed, we have already reached the age that we may appropriately call  the end-time “The Age of Pagan Christianity.”

The pagans were the ones who believed that god-like beings (giants) had their origin in the copulation between gods and humans.

They believed that sexual immorality gained them immortality. Could this be the reason why one of Cain’s descendants, Lamech married two women, Adah and Zillah, and in doing so unwittingly introduced the origin of harems, the ideal place to gain immortality?

Any superhuman individual in a mythological story or any mythological or actual giant would suggest a divine origin to the pagans.

Notably the belief that sexual prowess and immorality go hand in hand have found its way into several religious systems, among them Islam and Mormonism.

I am of the opinion that Islam’s 70 to 72 virgins awarded an Islamic believer in Paradise and the Mormon’s belief that they will be given an array of goddesses on another planet when they die, are direct offshoots of this ancient pagan belief.

The same spirit is rampant in many Christian churches these days. Consequently, the same lying spirit of immorality via sexual impropriety is also causing havoc in the churches.

VERNON GRAY

Unnatural Offspring

The most fatal flaw in the specious “Sethite” view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions between the Sethites and the daughters of men. (Bending the translation to “giants” does not resolve the difficulties.)

It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4, which seem to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Procreation by parents of differing religious views does not produce unnatural offspring.

Believers marrying unbelievers may produce “monsters,” but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such genetic adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah’s case is also documented in Genesis 6: 9: “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations,”

Noah’s family tree, it seems was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

Professor Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA, at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge..Photograph © Jason Bye.t: 07966 173 930.e: mail@jasonbye.com.w: http://www.jasonbye.com.

If the word “tâmyîm” were to be used exclusively for physical blemishes, atheists like Stephen Hawking, who suffers from  a rare early-onset-slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neurone disease or Lou Gehrig’s disease, and Richard Dawkins would have had more reasons to hate a God whose existence they deny.

Nonetheless, this argument does not prove anything. We must dig deeper to find sufficient evidence before we can refute the Nephilim doctrine.

Be that, as it may, we are duty bound to make sure that, when we teach and proclaim the Gospel, we do not herald a tainted or blemished one.

Why?

“Howbeit, because by this deed (and words) thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, . .”  (2 Samuel 12:14a).

We should take great care not to give God’s enemies an occasion or the opportunity to blaspheme Him.

Unnatural mutations in human chromosomes or DNA have absolutely no bearing on God’s decision to declare someone either righteous or unrighteous (blameless). Faith and faith alone in God renders a sinner blameless, upright and righteous in his sight.

It is said that Noah was perfect because his DNA and that of his family remained untainted by the fallen angels’ Nephilim genes.

This poses a real problem for the present-day saints. What constitutes today’s saints’ perfection if there are no longer fallen angels on earth to pollute Homo sapiens with their corrupt DNA?

Surely, if perfection was based on being unsullied by fallen angel’s DNA in those days, then today’s saints’ perfection ought to be attained and maintained in the very same way unless, of course, Noah and his family were saved in another way than the present-day saints.

It says, “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”

Let’s assume Noah was a giant, had six fingers on each hand, and a hunchback. Would God have allowed him to escape the Great Flood?

If God destroyed Noah because he’d been a giant with six fingers and a hunchback, then you have effectively changed the doctrine of salvation from something spiritual to something physical, in much the same way Nicodemus understood it.

In fact, you would be falling from grace if you believed that untainted physical perfection (DNA flawlessness) was the key to Noah’s righteousness.

The most dangerous element of the Nephilim doctrine is that it shifts the focus from the spiritual dimension of salvation to a physical dimension.

Vernon Gray asserts,

Procreation by parents of differing religious views does not produce unnatural offspring.

  1. Do fallen angels have differing religious views from human beings? Of course, they have. Where else do all the differing religious views come from, if not from demons? (1 Timothy 4:1). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, huh? In that case, fallen angels and humans with differing religious views cannot produce unnatural offspring . . . EITHER.
  2. Having ruled the “differing religious views” argument out, even among fallen angels and human women, what then was it that caused them to produce unnatural offspring? Aha, it must have been the demons’ semen (it rhymes nogal”). Yep! The “y” chromosome in demons’ semen was genetically manipulated to develop into a gigantic “Y. But wait a sec. If the “y” chromosome determines the sex of the male species and it is passed only from father to son, then every fallen demon (all male demons) must have had a daddy (“xy” chromosomes) who had sex with a female demon (“xx” chromosomes) so that they may present their little boy demon with a “xy” chromosome structure.” This must have been what had taken place, because anything less or more than this destroys the notion that demons became fully male human beings (with “xy” chromosomes), so that they may have visibly detected sex with fully human women, especially in a marriage. I don’t think any woman, even though she may have been forced into marriage, would want to crawl into bed with an invisible spirit being. If male humans have an “xy” chromosome structure, then fallen demons too would have had to receive “xy” chromosomes to make them fully male human beings.
  3. Having ruled out the “xy” chromosome argument, it is equally senseless to argue that the demons appeared to human women in a form other than that of humans, which means they could not have had “xy” male chromosomes to produce male giants (Nephilim). Some may assume that they did have some form of “xy” chromosomes to make them look like humans and produce giants with extra-large “XY” chromosomes. Again, that would mean that daddy fallen angel must have had a daddy and a mommy himself from who he received his “xy” chromosomes. It proves how utterly senseless, absurd and irrational the Nephilim doctrine really is.

Physical contamination cannot and will never play any part in God’s governance to declare someone righteous or unrighteous – not even the alleged contamination of human being’s DNA and genetics by fallen angels, if that had been possible to any degree. Such a notion is sheer nonsense and vilifies God and his Gospel.

Unless, of course, righteousness could be attained through physical health and spotless or unblemished DNA in those ancient times. This sounds so much like today’s Word of Faith teaching that sickness is a sign of unrighteousness.

An unsullied physical frame was applicable only to the priests and the sacrificial animals because both represented the perfect sinlessness of Jesus Christ. (Leviticus 21:16-23). This brings us now to Strong’s etymological description of the word – tâmîym.

Our illustrious scholar, Vernon Gray, says the word “tâmîym” is used for physical blemishes. Well, let’s see whether he is correct. The Strong’s Bible Dictionary defines the word as follows:

תָּמִים tâmîym (taw-meem)

From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (sincerity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (up-rightly), whole.

In the New Testament “without spot or wrinkle, and “without blemish” refer to the spiritual nature of the church (Bride of Christ) (Ephesians 5:27). The question now, is this: At what stage in the history of the children (sons) of God did the meaning of the terms “without spot,” “undefiled” and “without blemish” change from a uniquely physical to a spiritual connotation? If the antediluvian sinners were saved in the very same way the New Testament and present-day sinners are saved, all the attributes mentioned above have a spiritual and not a physical meaning.

Yes indeed, the word “tâmîym” refers to a physical blemish, but always in the context of the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, because it represents the sinlessness of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

It is never used for mankind in general to designate his or her physical makeup, let alone the naturalness or unnaturalness of their DNA or genetic substance.

When it is not used in connection with the sacrificial animals and the priestly office in the Old Testament, it always refers to moral and spiritual integrity and not to unblemished physical substance.

For instance; May we say that tâmîym in Ezekiel 28:15 refers to Satan’s physical perfection before his fall?

It is inconceivable to associate the word tâmîym with physical substance in Ezekiel 28:15 because Satan is an invisible spirit being. Oh, I just love it when a single verse in the Bible is so powerful that it puts to rest once and for all an erroneous doctrine like the Nephilim and zips the mouths of those who herald their false teaching. Are they going to listen and repent of their evil? I doubt it.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (like the Nephilim gibberish).  (2 Timothy 4:1-4).

By the way, Satan was a fallen angel who was cast to the earth like all the other fallen angels. Did he marry as many wives as he chose, have sex with them and spawn unnatural children as well? If not, why not?

Furthermore, the phrase “till iniquity was found in thee” has no kith or kin to any physical deficiencies. It relates to Satan’s rebellion against God which is entirely a moral/spiritual issue.

Vernon Gray says,

“Noah’s family tree, it seems, was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is always used for physical blemishes.” 

However, this cannot be, because the words accompanying the word “tâmîym” have a peculiar spiritual and not a physical connotation – i.e. the words “just,” and “walked with God?” Vernon Gray, Chuck Missler, David Pawson and Jacob Prasch need to read their Bibles more carefully.

By the by, Jacob had a physical blemish which God Himself gave him. He walked with a limp. Was he not a just man who walked with God? Had he lived in Noah’s time, he would probably have perished in the flood because he had a physical blemish.

Unless, of course only giants who are supposedly the offspring of fallen angels and earthly women had physical blemishes in their DNA.

Let us assume Vernon Gray is correct. The obvious question to ask is, how did Noah’s mother escape the fallen angels’ forceful and irresistible marriage “proposals?” He writes,

“The term ‘…they took them wives of all which they chose’ implies certain dominance or force in this union.”

Surely, Satan must have known from the beginning ― by virtue of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 ― that God intended to send his Redeemer to the world.

If Satan wanted to contaminate the lineage which eventually led up to the Messiah with demonic DNA, and if the human women were forced to marry them, he would have forced his demons to force all the human women to marry them, so that he may have also tainted Noah’s mother with corrupt DNA.

If the Nephilim doctrine is true and fallen angels forced human women to marry them, don’t you think Satan would have forced Noah’s mother to marry one of his demons to try and stop the Messiah from coming to the world?

Vernon Gray continues to say,

“The ‘taking’ here does not appear to be a reference to a loving couple who have mutual respect or love for each other. It seems to be a union to satisfy the “sons of God” [fallen angels] rather than a normal relationship.”

Chuck Missler says something similar,

“The wives didn’t have much choice about it. They took them wives of all which they chose.”

If this is true, why didn’t the fallen angels take Noah’s mother to be one of their many wives, forcing her into an illegal marriage? I can already hear the protestors saying, “God protected her.”

  1. Did God protect Noah’s mother by forbidding the fallen angels to marry her? If so, why didn’t He protect the entire race of women folk on earth from the fallen angels? Why would He only protect some and not others? It doesn’t make sense.
  2. Did Noah’s mother resist the fallen angels’ evil bullying to marry one of them? Again, this would be unthinkable because the alleged marriages were forced upon the women. They had no say in the matter.

Admittedly, “Procreation by parents of differring religious views does not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce ‘monsters,’ but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children!” . . . as Vernon Gray said.

Vernon Gray continues to argue,

“It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.”

Of course, the procreation by parents of differing religious views does not produce hybrids or demi-gods – part human and part demon.

Only a fallen angel and a human being would have had such a weird capability – provided that the doctrine of a matrimonial bond between fallen angels and fallen human females to produce these demigods is true.

To evaluate Vernon Gray’s and so many other Nephilim proponents’ view, we need to look at God’s intrinsic character. All Christians know that God is extremely merciful. (Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3).

The apostle Peter expresses God’s magnanimous mercy and willingness to forgive sins if and when sinners repent in the following magnanimous words,

“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 Peter 3:9).

Throughout the Bible God’s long sufferable mercy consistently manifests itself in his willingness to grant wicked people ample time to repent after He had warned them of his impending judgment.

The pagan nations were given 430 years to repent while Israel suffered excruciating slavery in Egypt before God unleashed his righteous judgment on the Canaanites and other surrounding nations. (Exodus 12: 40-41).

He granted the great city Nineveh 40 days to repent before He would destroy it. (Jonah 3:1-4).

This has been God’s modus operandi from the very beginning of time. He never strikes without warning; but when his Gospel is rejected, his outstretched arms and calls to repentance disregarded, his admonitions made light of, though He wait long, his time of patience ends; the sword is drawn, . . . . the sinner dies.

I believe that the seven years tribulation will be God’s merciful time of probation to give wicked people time to repent (Revelation 3:10; Isaiah 26:9-10).

And so, God also granted the antediluvian sinners ample time (120 years) to repent before He showered his righteous judgments on them.

Having said this, we need to establish whether fallen angels and their hybrid offspring were given time to repent, to the same extent He had given it to normal human beings.

I believe that a single verse in the Bible destroys this notion.

“To you, O men, I call, and my voice is directed to the sons of men” [not angels]. (Proverbs 8:4).   

Noah was the first evangelist who preached righteousness to fallen man, and not fallen angels.

If fallen angels – in whatever form they allegedly may have roamed the earth in the time of Noah – were granted the same amount of time of grace (120 years) to repent, it would mean that demons were able to repent and receive forgiveness for their sins.

If the fallen angels had become flesh and blood in order to consummate a biblically grounded marital union between opposite sexes by becoming one flesh, we may assume that they did in fact perish in the flood. However, this is not what the Bible teaches.

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in ever-lasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6).

This verse implies that certain kinds of fallen angels who left their first estate were immediately cast into Tartarus (under darkness), the result being that they never put their feet on earth. They were cast into Tartarus immediately after their fall where they are now being kept in chains until the final Day of Judgment.

In turn, it implies that the fallen angels who allegedly married human women were those angels who were cast onto the earth together with Satan when they left their first estate and are now still roaming the earth. (Job 1:7; and 2:2).

If so, why aren’t these particular fallen angels marrying, having sex and spawning offspring with human women to this very day? If God is prohibitting them to carry on their hideous deeds, why did He not do so in the time of Noah?

Are there giants (Nephilim) living among us who are the offspring of fallen angels but are so discreet about there whereabouts that we are completely unable to detect them? Some have tried and come up with the most hideous explanations imaginable.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the New Age founder of the “Church Universal and Triumphant” wrote a book called “Fallen Angels and the Origins of Evil: Why Church Fathers Suppress the Book of Enoch and its Startling Revelations.”

It is no surprise that a New Ager endorses a book like the gnostic Book of Enoch, but it is shocking to see how many “Christians” approve of it.

Although Chuck Missler admits that the Book of Enoch is not a Holy Spirit inspired book and that its value for Christians should not be sought in its content, it is nonetheless valuable for its grammar and vocabulary.

It is useful, he says, because it helps us to understand the grammar and vocabulary of those days? Really?

What utter garbage. Lies are useful to enhance your understanding of the grammar and vocabulary of those days? Really?

Why would the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth, need a gnostic book inspired by Satan, to explain His use of the grammar and vocabulary of those days? Many excellent scholars have accurately translated the original languages of the Bible without consulting the Book of Enoch.

Surely, the Holy Spirit who was instrumental in the creation of language, grammar and vocabulary, had no need of an extra biblical source which He did not inspire, to elucidate His own perfect use of grammar and vocabulary? That is ludicrous, to say the least.

Truth is found in content. Language, grammar and vocabulary are merely the carriers or conveyors of truth. In fact, when the latter does not represent the truth, it is useless and fruitless. It means nothing whatsoever. In fact, it is the perfect way to mislead people into error.

When the content is the truth (such as the Word of God), any language, grammar or vocabulary may be used to convey the content. The language, grammar or vocabulary cannot change the content when the content is true.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet wrote,

“The question that has become the subject of my research is this: If evil angels used to be around on earth and, as Scripture seems to indicate, and wore the guise of men, why couldn’t they still be around?”

“Given the state of affairs on planet earth, where would we find them today? Do they manipulate our government? Mismanage the economy?”

“Therefore, I am prepared to prove and document that they (Nephilim) are with us today in positions of power in church and state as prime movers in matters of war and finance, sitting in the banking houses and on policy –

“ . . . councils that determine the actual fate of mankind by population control and genetic engineering, the control of energy and commodities, education and the media, and by ideological and psycho-political strategies of divide and conquer on all fronts.”

“The untold story of men and angels is a crack in the door of the full and final exposé of the Manipulators and the manipulated, the Oppressors and the oppressed.”

“When I shall have penned the last word of the last volume of my ongoing essay, it will be clear, by the grace of God and his Holy Spirit — my Comforter and Teacher — that the embodied fallen angels, who are the main subject of Enoch’s prophecy, have been from the beginning the spoilers of the dreams of God and man.”

Please note her statement and wore the guise of men.” There is a definite purpose in her statement. She deliberately used this description to demarcate between an angel who appeared on earth in human form and the incarnation proper.

It is interesting that Vernon Gray seems to advocate this very same demarcation – that is, between a human form taken on by a spiritual being and the incarnation proper.

He says,

“If the angels were designed to govern various material realms under God, they are able by nature to manipulate matter in ways far beyond our techno-logical abilities. We do know they can take physical form as men, and walk, speak, eat and otherwise manipulate matter as we do while in our form.”

“With their abilities to mould matter at a spiritual level to the extent even of taking on an apparently fully functional human body, we cannot logically rule out an ability to engender semi-human offspring through use of manufactured DNA from those bodies.”

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 and cause havoc with humanity, then it wouldn’t be constantly looking for some human form 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 mountainside 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 by themselves? I doubt it. Jesus Christ alone had the ability to take on human form during his pre-incarnation existence 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. If they had they would have been equal to God, the Creator of all things.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3).

VERNON GRAY

 “Why were the offspring of the ‘sons of God’ uniquely designated as ‘mighty’ and ‘men of renown?’ This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.”

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

The Bible describes Nimrod as a “mighty (גִּבֹּר גִּבּוֹר ghib-bore’, ghibbore’ is the very same word used in Genesis 6:4) hunter before the Lord” which simply means that he was a ruthless, cruel and merciless hunter who slaughtered, not only animals but also human beings. In other words, he was a mighty tyrant who ruled with an iron fist. He was a man of renown. He was a notorious celebrity. Everyone knew him and feared him. In fact, he was one of the first prefigured types of Antichrist.

He towered over all his fellowmen, not in physical stature [as a huge giant] but in enormous power and influence which he gleaned from the false religion he and his wife, Semiramis, established in Babylon.

His people feared him because they believed he and his wife were gods. Was his daddy a demon who took upon himself the frame of a human being?

Hardly. In fact, Nimrod was a descendant of Noah, the righteous, whose physical frame was not polluted by a mixed marriage between a fallen angel and an earthly woman.

“And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havi-lah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sab-techa: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and De-dan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one1 in the earth.” (Genesis 10:6-8).

1 gibbôr gibbôr

ghib-bore’, ghib-bore’

Intensive from the same as H1397; powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant: – champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

Note the word גִּבֹּר  גִּבּוֹ

gibbôr gibbôr which is translated as “warrior, tyrant: – champion, chief, excel, GIANT, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

Also note the double repeated word “gibbôr.” In Hebrew words that convey extremity are often repeated. So for instance the word for hot (חָם – cham) is repeated when it is used to say it is very hot.

Like gibbôr, the word “Nephilim” denotes a moral/spiritual disposition rather than physical stature. Strong translates Nephilim as “a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant, as we’ve already noted.

Moreover, Numbers 16 verses 1 and 2 also completely  debunks Vernon Gray’s silly notion that,

This description (“men of renown”) characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.”

In fact, the very same word for “renown” is used in both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 16:2. It is the word שֵׁם (shêm, shame) which is “a primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implycation honor, authority, character: – + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report,” according to the Strong Dictionary.

If Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, were not mere men, what were they . . . Demi-gods? What utter nonsense!

We all know what happened to these men of renown and their families. The earth opened up under them and they were all immediately cast into hell.

None of these men were giants whose DNA had been genetically manipulated by fallen angels. They were ordinary men. Neither were fallen angels involved in their sin. They were responsible for their own destruction and hell-bound demise.

It proves that the Nephilim theory, espoused by Vernon Gray and many other so-called scholars of renown (pun intended), is a sham (pun intended). In fact, it is more than that; It is a deception so dangerous that it can and will ultimately destroy your faith.

There was nothing unnatural or supernatural about the Nephilim. The idea that they were unnatural beings of exceptional gigantic proportions comes from the ungodly gnostic book The Book of Enoch, which claims they were as tall as 137 meters (450 feet).

“Christians” who believe this nonsense were probably brought up to watch Sci-Fi movies from dawn to dusk and from dusk to dawn.

Preposterous? Ridiculous? Sci-Fi rubbish? You bet! Only those who have a bent for gnostic books like “The Book of Enoch” will believe this kind of nonsense.

Instead of studying the Bible, they resort to all kinds of extra-biblical books that tend to lead them astray into a different gospel. We have already seen how they’ve turned the Gospel from a spiritual dimension into a physical (DNA) dimension.

QUESTION: Do they know what it means how sinners are saved? Judging by their views on the Nephilim, one would think they don’t.

6 comments to WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM? (Part 1)

  • Andy

    Deborah,
    First time reading your website. Who do you endorse as a pastor??? I will reserve my many other questions for now, but I really want to what church, you know the church Paul wrote about, the churches Jesus said He would build, which church here on earth do you support? What church would you send a believer to for spiritual feeding? You dismiss everything and everyone but yourself it seems like…

    Andy

  • Dear Andy

    Well let’s think logically for a second shall we? There are millions upon millions of pastors and churches in the world. And there are pastors we support like The Berean Call for instance.

    This website is an apologetics site, in other words we expose false teachers by preaching the truth, this is why it looks (to you) like we support no one. Make sense now? Great.

    So, to answer your question… We are in the last days, the amount of churches out there preaching the truth is possibly a drop in the ocean. Jesus Christ Himself says “When the Son of man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) because “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold.” (Matthew 24:12) and there is a great Apostasy, a falling away (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

    We are in a rapid decline regarding true Christian faith, and a rapid increase in false Christian churches who’s Christ is The Christ…and not Jesus Christ the Son of God. Christian churches have practically vanished, to the point that when Jesus Christ returns He Himself questions whether He will find anyone that is faithful. That is the complete opposite to what the church of today preach, that they have to take dominion of the world and make the whole world Christian so that Christ can return to a triumphant church.

    However the Bride of Christ remains. Are you born again?

    Now regarding pastors and churches, tell us who do you support?

  • Andy

    Deborah,
    Are you truly born again? Do you love your neighbor or choose rather judge and condemn them? Do you love your enemies? I am shocked and pretty much in disbelief almost to a state of amusement at your opinions. Many, not all of the people you call false teachers do preach the word, the gospel, the “good news” yet you would condemn them for an interpretation of scripture you do not believe in. Doctrine is important enough to for die for but not a religious preference. Show Biblically where these pastors and teachers err in doctrine. You put yourself in some airtight spiritual bubble where only a few righteous exist, of course, you are in with the select few and most likely place yourself squarely in the center. Your attitude is one of self-righteousness and without love. How many times have you been called a “smart-alec” in your life? Been called smug and arrogant? You show little if no humility but certainly put you above 99% of scholars and followers of Christ. I suggest you really, really look at your heart condition because perhaps your spiritual condition is not love and truth, merely religious doctrine. Only you can answer that. You remind me of the religious leaders that tried to find fault in everything Jesus said and did. He was a friend of sinners…Would you have helped the man beaten up and left for dead like the Samaritan or looked the other way like the “religious” people? Perhaps you need to take the log out. That being said I do not project everything I have suggested about you is true, but some are. Rebuke and correction in love is what I am trying to do. We are to have the mind(that is “attitude” in Greek) and I am suggesting you look at your attitude. You remind me of the kind of person who would rather be right than happy :( After all, don’t be deceived, right. Love to you in Christ Deborah…

  • Robbie

    Andy yes, I’d also like to know – “Who do you pay to read the Bible for you?

  • Andy, Please address your infamous attacks to the person who wrote this article. I, Tom Lessing, wrote it and not Deborah, or do you prefer to attack women instead of men because you are a wimp? Wait until you read Part 2 of this series to see how little you understand of Scripture. Have you read the entire Part 1 of this series? If not, please don’t comment here again because you are making a real fool of yourself.

    Deborah has far more gracious politeness than I. I would, for instance, never address you as “Dear Andy.” If you can’t validate your rebuttals from Scripture, I suggest that you rather keep your mouth shut. Your ad hominem attacks are nauseous.

    And by the way, you are not supposed to follow a pastor, a Pope, a predikant or a dominee. You are supposed to follow Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

  • Andy

    Wow, you are one very mean and ugly spirited man, and it’s clear from your comment you are Apostolic/Prophetic Kingdom Now/Dominionist adherent.
    I strongly suggest you take your ‘love to you in Christ‘ at the end of your comment and go give it to someone else, I don’t accept false love from a false Christ.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

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!

Hi/
 
Hi/
Bye/
 
Bye/
Yes/
 
Yes/
Smile/
 
Smile/
Wink/
 
Wink/
Grin/
 
Grin/
Laugh/
 
Laugh/
Up/
 
Up/
Perfect/
 
Perfect/
Clap/
 
Clap/
Hi5/
 
Hi5/
Yahoo/
 
Yahoo/
Think/
 
Think/
Wait/
 
Wait/
Check/
 
Check/
Read/
 
Read/
Better/
 
Better/
Cry/
 
Cry/
Sorry/
 
Sorry/
Shock/
 
Shock/
Faint/
 
Faint/
Ohno/
 
Ohno/
Scratch/
 
Scratch/
Unsure/
 
Unsure/
Dazed/
 
Dazed/
Thank/
 
Thank/