Jump to content


Photo

Can angels and humans procreate? Mystery of the Nephilim??


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#1 Lions4Jesus

Lions4Jesus

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 30 June 2007 - 02:31 AM

I know this topic is probably not really of interest here, But I have been in this discussion of Angel-human procreation and is it Biblical that since angels can manifest themselves they could mate with humans and bear offspring according to Gen 6:2-4 which is the only real foundation of this doctrine which I came to believe is heretical. How can asexual spiritual beings (is what angels are according to Scripture) have physical relations in the first place?

Their argument is also for the bases of the books of Enoch and some other apocryphal books that these teachers seem to not deny that these books are not God inspired but are actually oral traditional stories and have some historical truth even the books of Enoch being quoted by Jude and Peter I presume.

I personally have been through this ideology and was caught up in it until a thorough search in Scripture and a scientific approach pointed out to me that "demonic Possession" was the occurrence because the angels left their habitat and since their fall as well they have been always searching for a human dwelling just like the pigs in the New testament. How can asexual spiritual beings have physical relations in the first place?

Closer examination of this passage in Gen 6:4" there were giants" (nephilim or Nephiyl) could means as well Dinosaurs etc.
I have come to believe this was the insinuation of demonic indwelling or intervention because the bene elohim "came in unto" which the hebrew word and translation is "Bow"=1) to go in, enter, come, go, come in
a) (Qal)
1) to enter, come in
2) to come
a) to come with
cool.gif to come upon, fall or light upon, attack (enemy)
c) to come to pass
3) to attain to
4) to be enumerated
5) to go
cool.gif (Hiphil)
1) to lead in
2) to carry in
3) to bring in, cause to come in, gather, cause to come, bring near, bring against, bring upon
4) to bring to pass
c) (Hophal)
1) to be brought, brought in
2) to be introduced, be put

insures possession not sexual intercourse and "and they bare", the Heb word is Yalad='1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
a) (Qal)
1) to bear, bring forth
a) of child birth
cool.gif of distress (simile)
c) of wicked (behaviour)
2) to beget
cool.gif (Niphal) to be born
c) (Piel)
1) to cause or help to bring forth
2) to assist or tend as a midwife
3) midwife (participle)
d) (Pual) to be born
e) (Hiphil)
1) to beget (a child)
2) to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
g) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)
insures possession as well as children as referred to like human pets from those they entered.
And lastly this borrowed explanation from Henry Morris and Christiananswers.net :

Giants

Hebrew: Nephilim, meaning "violent" or "causing to fall" (Gen. 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying "wonder," and hence "monsters" or "prodigies." In Num. 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, "the sons of Anak." The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads "Nephilim."

Hebrew: rephaim, a race of giants (Deut. 3:11) who lived on the east of Jordan, from whom Og was descended. They were probably the original inhabitants of the land before the immigration of the Canaanites. They were conquered by Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:5), and their territories were promised as a possession to Abraham (15:20). The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock.

In Job 26:5 (R.V., "they that are deceased;" marg., "the shades," the "Rephaim") and Isa. 14:9 this Hebrew word is rendered (A.V.) "dead." It means here "the shades," the departed spirits in Sheol. In Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 33, "the giant" is (A.V.) the rendering of the singular form ha raphah, which may possibly be the name of the father of the four giants referred to here, or of the founder of the Rephaim. The Vulgate here reads "Arapha," whence Milton (in Samson Agonistes) has borrowed the name "Harapha." (See also 1 Chron. 20:5, 6, 8; Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:13; Josh. 15:8, etc., where the word is similarly rendered "giant.") It is rendered "dead" in (A.V.) Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16: in all these places the Revised Version marg. has "the shades." (See also Isa. 26:14.)

Hebrew: 'Anakim (Deut. 2:10, 11, 21; Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12, 15; called "sons of Anak," Num. 13:33; "children of Anak," 13:22; Josh. 15:14), a nomad race of giants descended from Arba (Josh. 14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Gen. 23:2; Josh. 15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the Egyptian shepherd kings. David on several occasions encountered them (2 Sam. 21:15-22). From this race sprung Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4).

Hebrew: 'emin, a warlike tribe of the ancient Canaanites. They were "great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims" (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10, 11).

Hebrew: Zamzummim (q.v.), Deut. 2:20 so called by the Amorites.

Hebrew: gibbor (Job 16:14), a mighty one, i.e., a champion or hero. In its plural form (gibborim) it is rendered "mighty men" (2 Sam. 23:8-39; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Chr. 11:9-47; 29:24.) The band of six hundred whom David gathered around him when he was a fugitive were so designated. They were divided into three divisions of two hundred each, and thirty divisions of twenty each. The captians of the thirty divisions were called "the thirty," the captains of the two hundred "the three," and the captain over the whole was called "chief among the captains" (2 Sam. 23:8). The sons born of the marriages mentioned in Gen. 6:4 are also called by this Hebrew name.


sharpen Iron Family

RW

Attached Files



#2 WaitQuickly

WaitQuickly

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 08 July 2007 - 07:47 PM

I'm one of those believers of the existence of the Nephilim LOL, it makes perfect sense to me. If the bible does not address the topic of aliens, ufo's, abductions, crop circles etc then people might think the bible is in error and seek their answers elsewhere such as the lies of evolution or the new age. I don't believe in evolution so I can't accept that aliens have evolved elsewhere, I don't believe that anything evolves apart from man's stupidity and wickedness.

If one does not believe all the statues, paintings and stories in our past history as pointing towards these so called aliens, then one can refuse to believe in Gen 6 and all the current millions of eyewitnesses that seen ufo's and experienced abductions and the involvement of the military and nwo with these demonic creatures. But for the people that do believe, the scriptures do tend to explain these away as fallen angels. The bible does seem to explain it as fallen angels, and Enoch proves it which is why it wasn't cannonized by the RCC because the leaders there then and now are most likely fallen angels in disguise (some people call them reptilian shapeshifters, they're not only in the RCC but in most political positions of power across the globe.

That a perfect cover-up, remove the book of Enoch and have everyone ignorant of who they are and their agenda to deceive and enslve the world to satan. God promised His word would be preserved, He never stated that it would all be bound in one book called the bible. In 1947, three main historic events occurred, Israel becoming a nation, the Roswell Crash and the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls (Enoch was amongst them). God knew that the discovery of Enoch would go hand in hand in explaining away the Roswell crash.

QUOTE (Lions4Jesus @ Jun 30 2007, 02:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How can asexual spiritual beings have physical relations in the first place?

Can you please show where in the bible it says they are asexual and only spirit beings. We are spirit beings also as we do have a spirit in our body. Angels are both spiritual and physical as well except they can choose to manifest in either form. The only passage in the bible that says they do not marry is in regards to living in heaven, in heaven they do not marry, but neither will we (and we're supposed to be mainly physical beings).
When we get to heaven we will be spiritual beings, but if we fell we'd be physical again, and hats what happened to the fallen angels. In heaven they don't procreate but there's nothing stopping them from doing so here on earth.

Please read and let m know what you think of these two articles below:-

The Case for Enoch
http://www.alienresi...ok_of_enoch.htm

The Cover Up
http://www.alienresi...ons_of_seth.htm

Then please read Enoch and let me know if you find demonic or false doctrines, so far everything I read in Enoch is just more detail to Genesis 6 and the end times. BTW Enoch also supports the Post / Pre Wrath view which says a lot to me.

Iron sharpens Iron but when the iron runs out and becomes blunt, its time to find some more Iron (I found it in the book of Enoch). I'm talking about the Ethiopian version of Enoch, the original and not the heretical translations of keys or magic.

God Bless.

#3 WaitQuickly

WaitQuickly

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 08 July 2007 - 08:29 PM

Giants have been dug up:
http://www.returnoft...iscoveries.html

I heard of more diggings of giant skeletons that occurred as far back as 40-50 years ago, why is it suppressed by the scientific community? I guess they can't include that in the text books because this would debunk their theory of evilution, they want us to believe that we "evolved" from little chimpanzees.

#4 WaitQuickly

WaitQuickly

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 11 July 2007 - 11:27 PM

Some more things that deserve an explanation if the fallen angels / nephilim / giants is a myth:-

Weird Skulls 43 secs.
http://www.youtube.com/v/3UU0dq5YVbs

The Fallen 6 mins
http://www.youtube.com/v/U_Y9hsXjkXc

Sumerian Artifacts 1 ˝ mins
http://www.youtube.com/v/bapIycPkd6g

#5 Guest_Joel Tamburo_*

Guest_Joel Tamburo_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 July 2007 - 12:37 PM

Okay folks, time for the mod to step in a bit.

This discussion appears to have no connection to Biblical prophecy, the forum topic. So let's table it.

If you want to discuss the "canonicity" of the book of Enoch, do so in Open Discussion.

#6 DayOfTheLord

DayOfTheLord

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 14 August 2007 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE (Joel Tamburo @ Jul 14 2007, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Okay folks, time for the mod to step in a bit.

This discussion appears to have no connection to Biblical prophecy, the forum topic. So let's table it.

If you want to discuss the "canonicity" of the book of Enoch, do so in Open Discussion.



LOL, this was a funny thread.

However www.biblestudying.net has some very good articles about this.


My opinion, is that I see no reason why angels couldn't bring forth children from natural women, but this can in no way be dogmatic, unless one considered the book of Enoch as scripture, though biblestudying.net makes a great case for angels and women coming together.

this to me, isn't a very important matter.

Brian

Edited by DayOfTheLord, 14 August 2007 - 03:15 PM.


#7 Literalist-Luke

Literalist-Luke

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, USA
  • Interests:Bible Study, Prophecy, Computers, Orchestral Music
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 13 July 2008 - 11:14 PM

There actually is an important connection between this topic and prophecy. It has to do with the Antichrist, the last of the Nephilim.

Genesis 3:15 – “I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Most people see this as the first prophecy of Jesus the Messiah and I have to agree. What most people do not realize, however, is that this is also most likely the first prophecy of Satan’s “son” as well. I’ll explain:

In Galatians 3:16 we read this familiar verse – “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.

This is referring to a promise made by God to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, 13:15, and 24:7 that the Promised Land would be given to Abraham’s “seed” or offspring. This will ultimately be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom through Jesus Christ, Abraham’s “seed”. The Hebrew word in the three Genesis references is “zera’ “. In Genesis 3:15, the reference to “your offspring” also uses the same Hebrew word, “zera’ “, which is referring to Christ as I mentioned above, but the serpent’s offspring is also with the same Hebrew word – “zera’ “. So if the woman’s and Abraham’s offspring/seed is singular and refers to Christ as explained by Paul, wouldn’t the same word in referring to the serpent’s offspring also be singular? If this is the case, then we have the offspring of the woman/Abraham, which is Jesus, facing off against the offspring of the serpent/Satan, which would seem to be the child of Satan’s as well.

Now before you wave this off in disgust, let me point out Genesis 6:1-2 – “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

The Hebrew for “sons of God” is “Bene elohim”. This term occurs four times in the Old Testament and its meaning is always used as angels of God, never of humans. Most scholars believe this event describes a union between fallen angels who cohabitated with human females. This unnatural occurrence of combining two different species resulted in an offspring that is called “giants” in the King James and NKJ version and “Nephilum” in the New American Standard, and the English translation of the Jewish Masoretic text. I would even propose that this explains the origin of the “gods” of Greek, Roman, and German mythology, among other cultures with similar mythology.

The most common objection to this line of reasoning is that angels do not reproduce sexually as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 22:30 – “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”. However if we look at the verse more carefully we see Jesus stating that the angels of God in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. He gives a specific location, which gives us only two alternatives. Either because of where they are located it is a functional impossibility, or Jesus is referring to only the angels that obey God do not marry. Either way it leaves open the possibility of this occurring on Earth and with the fallen angels that are disobedient to God.

What Matthew 22:30 does specifically say is that angels do not marry. Marriage was given to generate new offspring. Angels do not have the ability to procreate among their own species. They may or may not be sexless, although when they are not in an invisible spirit form they are pictured as male, with male names like Michael & Gabriel. They are also called sons of god, not daughters. When they become visible they will usually appear as young men. God made an innumerable number of angels simultaneously, he does not continue creating them, so they never increase or decrease in number.

We find in the scriptures that angels have the ability to appear as men even though they are spirit creatures. They are able to perform numerous human functions such as eating food as in their encounter with Abraham in Genesis 18. They are able to perform other bodily functions as well, they can walk and talk among us in such a way that we may not be aware of them unless they reveal themselves. Hebrews 13:2 – “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.”

The angels that came to warn Lot were mistaken for men and were sought out for homosexual use by the men of Sodom. Angels are also able to carry out God’s plans on Earth by supplying food for man such as in 1 Kings 19:5-7 & Matthew 4:11. They are able to execute God’s judgment Revelation 7:1, 14:17, inflict punishment upon man Ezekiel 9:1-8 & Acts 12:23. There seems to be some change of substance that takes place on Earth that they can become physical, contrary to their original nature. So if they are able to possess a body of a man and can eat and carry out other functions then why not other abilities?


One thing that should be clarified further is the Hebrew phrase “Bene elohim” and how we can reach an objective conclusion about what it really means:

“Bene” means “sons”. It could refer to a human offspring or even an animal’s offspring. By itself it carries no connotation of angels whatsoever.

“Elohim” is a name that is used too many times to count throughout the Old Testament for God. So, using Hebrew sentence structure, we have “God’s sons”, or “sons of God”. Beyond that, a lexicon will not tell you anything that leads to the conclusion regarding angels. We have to look at the context to understand what the writer is actually talking about.

There is no problem in identifying the “daughters of men” for this is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with the “sons of God.” Three major interpretations have been offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.

First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that “sons of God” meant “nobles” or “magnates.” Hardly anyone today accepts this view and indeed it seems almost impossible to give it serious consideration.

Second, some interpret the “sons of God” as fallen angels. These were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy. However, as we have already discussed, the Scriptures give us no reason to conclude that sexual relations between angels and human women are impossible. It is quite true that such activity is expressly forbidden by God, but that does not render it impossible anymore than the command not to commit murder renders murder impossible, as we see almost every night on the 10:00 news.

Third, many scholars contend that the “sons of God” are the male descendants of Seth, and that the “daughters of men” are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain.

However, this argument is not conclusive. There is nothing that expressly says the “sons of God” is to be taken as descendants of Seth. In addition, at no time before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of “mixed marriages.” It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over!

The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” If by “sons of God” is meant “sons of Seth,” then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil. What about the daughters of Seth and the sons of Cain? This would seem to be a very large gap in the theory.

The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them – that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly “godly” sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning “mortal” or “frail.” And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, “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.” That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself? And if these men began to call on the name of the Lord as the “sons of Seth” proponents would suggest, then where were all these “godly” sons of Seth when only Noah was found righteous among the entire human race?

Here is a more literal and exact translation of this verse: “Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah.” Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: “Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah.” If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non-existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer: “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12), including the “sons of Seth”. So what we actually have here is not men turning to God in faith, but rather men taking the Lord’s name in vain and either claiming it for themselves or assigning it to idols they had built with their hands, or more likely a combination thereof.

Getting back to the original subject, in the Old Testament, the designation “sons of God” (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known – angels. And the term “sons of God” applies to both good and bad angels.

The designation “sons of God” is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, “and the form of the fourth is like the son of God.” The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, “like a son of the gods.” Since Jesus had not yet become the “only begotten son” of God, this “son” would have had to be angelic.

Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time.

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the “sons of God” came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan – a further implication that the “sons of God” must have been angels. Certainly, the inclusion of Satan among these “sons of God” leaves the possibility wide open that fallen angels are a legitimate candidate for the true meaning of this Genesis 6 story.

Since the designation “sons of God” is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.

So it would seem that, based on Genesis 3:15, the offspring of Satan’s will likely be the last and the greatest of the Nephilim. Sounds pretty impressive to me. What still needs to be answered is “Who is this guy?”, “When will he appear?” and “Where will he come from?”

When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.

#8 Charles Baker

Charles Baker

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Macon, Georgia, USA
  • Interests:The Bible, Prophecy, History and Current Events as they may relate to unfulfilled prophecy.<br /><br />Scientific and archealogical findings as they relate to the Bible.

Posted 14 July 2008 - 06:02 AM

Dear Literalist Luke:

As a literalist I wonder why you do not accept that Adam was not made on the sixth day but was made after God rested on the seventh day because there was not a man to till the ground.

The males and females of the sixth day were only told to be fruitful and multiply, they were not given any work to do. As a result 'there was not a man to till the ground'.

Gen. 2:1-5 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Charlie -- What we have read up to this point gives us the 'generations of the heavens and the earth' up to the time God rested on the seventh day and THERE WAS NOT A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND.

Gen. 2:7-8 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Gen 2:9, 15-17 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.[u] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in [u]
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Charlie -- We are told the earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself on the third day.

God did not plant the trees in the Garden of Eden until after He formed Adam from the dust of the ground after God rested on the seventh day.

The males and females of the sixth day were not restricted in what fruit they were to eat but Adam was told he must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

You will notice, Adam could have eaten of the fruit of the tree of life but after Adam ate of that fruit God put Adam out of the garden so that Adam would not be able to eat of the fruit of the tree of life, Gen. 3:22-23

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, TO TILL THE GROUND FROM WHENCE HE WAS TAKEN.

Charlie -- There is no reason to doubt that the 'sons of God' who went in unto 'the daughters of men' were descendants of Adam and Eve for Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, by God, and God breathed in him the breath of life, spiritual life that made Adam's soul a living soul and it was Adam's soul that died on the day Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. We know Adam did not die physically on that day.

By the way, recent archaelogical studies have indicated that 'hunters/gatherers' inhabited areas of Europe before 'farmers' migrated there from the area where the Garden of Eden could have been located, 'eastward of Eden'.

Since the time of the cross, when anyone accepts Jesus as the Son of God they are given power to become a son of God, John 1:12. They are made alive, spiritually, their souls are 'born again' and I think the Holy Spirit comes into them to supply that power.

As to the 'giants', it depends on what you classify as a giant. The Hebrew word for 'giant' in Gen.6:4 is 'nephil', a bully or tyrant: - giant.

As I see it.

God Bless you. Charlie.

#9 Charles Baker

Charles Baker

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Macon, Georgia, USA
  • Interests:The Bible, Prophecy, History and Current Events as they may relate to unfulfilled prophecy.<br /><br />Scientific and archealogical findings as they relate to the Bible.

Posted 14 July 2008 - 06:04 AM

Dear Friends:

Please accept my apologies for a double post.

God Bless you. Charlie.

#10 Literalist-Luke

Literalist-Luke

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, USA
  • Interests:Bible Study, Prophecy, Computers, Orchestral Music
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 14 July 2008 - 09:17 AM

QUOTE (Charles Baker @ Jul 14 2008, 07:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As a literalist I wonder why you do not accept that Adam was not made on the sixth day but was made after God rested on the seventh day because there was not a man to till the ground.

The males and females of the sixth day were only told to be fruitful and multiply, they were not given any work to do. As a result 'there was not a man to till the ground'.
Being a literalist does not necessarily mean that we are going to place literal events in the same sequence as each other.

You say that Adam was not created until after the seventh day, and I assume you reach that conclusion because the account of his creation is after the account of God resting on the seventh day, but then you also say that other humans were indeed created on the sixth day. Let me ask you how you explain this verse then:

Romans 5:12 - "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned." How could this be true if Adam is not the sole and original progenitor of the human race? If there were other humans created first, they would not be affected by Adam and Eve eating the fruit and would still be immortal. So please explain how Romans 5:12 could be true in that case.

I have always taken the commonly held opinion that Genesis 2 is in fact merely an amplification of the sixth day of creation. There is nothing in Genesis 2 that prevents us from taking that view. The mere fact that it comes after Genesis 1 does not make it impossible. In fact, in Semitic cultures such as the one to whom Moses wrote Genesis, it is a common literary device to tell a story, and then to go back and provide further details. That appears to be precisely what has happened here with Genesis 1-2.
When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.

#11 Charles Baker

Charles Baker

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Macon, Georgia, USA
  • Interests:The Bible, Prophecy, History and Current Events as they may relate to unfulfilled prophecy.<br /><br />Scientific and archealogical findings as they relate to the Bible.

Posted 14 July 2008 - 01:04 PM

Dear Luke:

Thanks for your post no. 6528

QUOTE
Luke -- Being a literalist does not necessarily mean that we are going to place literal events in the same sequence as each other.


Charlie -- I realize that but assumed you were understanding the words and the meaning of the words themselves, literally.

QUOTE
Luke --You say that Adam was not created until after the seventh day, and I assume you reach that conclusion because the account of his creation is after the account of God resting on the seventh day, but then you also say that other humans were indeed created on the sixth day.


Charlie -- No, Luke, not on that alone but on the basis of a literal understanding of the words 'there was not a man to till the ground' , the fact that the males and females of the sixth day were only told to be fruitful and multiply the fact that the account of Adam does not parallel the creation account of Genesis 1 in all respects, i.e., the fact that God did not make the garden of Eden, with its grass and trees, etc, until after He had formed Adam from the dust of the ground.

QUOTE
Luke -- Let me ask you how you explain this verse then:

Romans 5:12 - "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned." How could this be true if Adam is not the sole and original progenitor of the human race?

If there were other humans created first, they would not be affected by Adam and Eve eating the fruit and would still be immortal. So please explain how Romans 5:12 could be true in that case.


Charlie -- Quite easily, Luke, when you also consider Romans 5:13-14 in conjunction with verse 12.

Romans 5:13-4 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Charlie -- Until the law there was no 'law breaking sin'. Adam was the first man with whom God communicated on a regular basis and God gave Adam a direct order, or law, but Adam lost his communication link with God and lost it for all men, except a select few. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, until the time of Moses.

The death in question refers to spiritual death, Luke, death of the soul.

Physical death is in the hands of God and He decreed that man's physical life span would be limited to 120 years, Gen. 6:3.

QUOTE
Luke -- I have always taken the commonly held opinion that Genesis 2 is in fact merely an amplification of the sixth day of creation. There is nothing in Genesis 2 that prevents us from taking that view. The mere fact that it comes after Genesis 1 does not make it impossible. In fact, in Semitic cultures such as the one to whom Moses wrote Genesis, it is a common literary device to tell a story, and then to go back and provide further details. That appears to be precisely what has happened here with Genesis 1-2.


Charlie -- Allow me to suggest that is how many misunderstandings of what is in the Bible take place, Luke.

What you say about semetic cultures is what others have said but all scripture was given by inspiration of God, Luke. God inspired men to write what He wanted written without regard to semitic culture.

As I see it.

God Bless you. Charlie.

#12 Last Daze

Last Daze

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 07:38 PM

QUOTE (Lions4Jesus @ Jun 30 2007, 04:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I know this topic is probably not really of interest here, But I have been in this discussion of Angel-human procreation and is it Biblical that since angels can manifest themselves they could mate with humans and bear offspring according to Gen 6:2-4 which is the only real foundation of this doctrine which I came to believe is heretical. How can asexual spiritual beings (is what angels are according to Scripture) have physical relations in the first place?



So now this is HERESY?

Man, some of you guys really play fast and loose with that word.

Have you ever heard of this?

http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0913573884

It's THE masterwork of conservative Old Testament commentary. These ten volumes were my best friend in seminary. :-) And I still reference it often...almost daily. Honestly, it's a classic of OT studies.

Why is that relevant? Because both authors believed and taught that the Bene Elohim (Sons of God) of Genesis 6 were fallen angels. And they are not alone. Many other fine Bible believing scholars and preachers held the same view...M. R. DeHaan, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Merril F. Unger..I could go on but I guess my point is proven. None of these men are heretics. All are highly respected Christian leaders who just happened to hold to a view which you find distasteful for some reason. Disagree with them if you please. But out of sheer respect for their Christ honoring ministries and their careful study of God's Word in the original languages, could we drop the H word?

Oh and by the way, Henry Morris (whom you quote) most DEFINITELY believed that the 'Sons of God' were fallen angels. I have a tape series sitting right here on my bookshelf in which he presents a lengthy and very Biblical defense of the position.

Brian commented that the thread was "funny". However, what I find humorous is that all evangelical Christians believe that God created the world from nothing, that a snake spoke to Eve and deceived her, that the entire world was destroyed by a flood, that God took a prophet away in a chariot of fire, that a virgin was impregnated through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven...but they stumble over the idea that the Sons of God "corrupted all flesh" and contaminated the human gene pool. Even though the ancient Jews always believed it (as do the Orthodox and Hasidim today) along with many of the ECF. That always gives me a chuckle.

#13 John

John

    New Berean

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:31 AM

Just browsing the forum. In case any were wondering what the early church fathers taught:


"The angels transgressed this appointment and were captivated by love of women. And they begat children, who are those who are called demons." -Justin Martyr (c. 160)

"In the days of Noah, He justly brought on the Deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God. For the angels who sinned had commingled with them." -Irenaeus (c. 180)

"The angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told the women the secrets that had come to their knowledge." -Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)

"Those angels who invented them [jewelry, etc.] are assigned under condemnation to the penalty of death. They are the same angels who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men..." -Tertullian (c. 198)

"The angels are likewise possessed of personal freedom. For we can be sure that if the angels had not possessed personal freedom, they would not have  consorted with the daughters of men, thereby sinning and falling from their places." -Bardesanes (c. 222)

"Such was the beauty of women that turned the angels aside. As a result, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Being rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered judgment against them. And from their seed, giants are said to have been born..." -Commodianus (c. 240)

"All of these things [i.e., the making of jewelry] the sinning and apostate angels put forth by their arts, when, lowered to the contagions of earth, they forsook their heavenly vigor. They also taught women to paint the eyes with blackness drawn around them in a circle and to stain the cheeks with a deceitful red." -Cyprian (c. 250)


#14 David Broom

David Broom

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Barling, AR
  • Interests:Searching the truths of God's word.
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:22 PM

God made each of us his own kind. Can a dog procreate with rabbit? Can a cat procreate with a squirrel? Can a human procreate with a monkey? The answer is no. God made each his own kind and outside your kind you cannot procreate. Angels and humans are not of the same kind, therefore, procreation is not possible. I believe it was the book of Enoch that started the teaching that women actually slept with fallen angels and had offspring, which were the giants in those days. I do not believe it was possible for procreation between fallen angels and humans. The early church fathers missed it on this one in my opinion.
TRIB New Testament, my labor of love.

#15 Ben

Ben

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoria, IL
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:36 PM

David,
Are you saying that the "sons of God" is a term that should be applied to humans? Because here would be Genesis 6:1-3,4 with that understanding.


Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to (men), 2 that men saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and (the men) took wives for themselves of all whom(the men) chose....” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when men came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to the men. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

If the "sons of God" are humans then why did their children become giants? What is the point that Moses is making in this passage and why did he find it neccesary to mention it?
Proverbs 2:1-5
My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.

#16 David Broom

David Broom

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Barling, AR
  • Interests:Searching the truths of God's word.
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:56 PM

Ben,

There were already giants in those days before the "men" took unto themselves wives. Giants were not the result of sex with fallen angels. Read that again very closely.

YBIC,

David
TRIB New Testament, my labor of love.

#17 Ben

Ben

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoria, IL
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:13 PM

David,
I'm not following. Can you highlight the portion from Gen 6 that says the giants were around before the Sons of God coming into the daughters of men.
Proverbs 2:1-5
My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.

#18 David Broom

David Broom

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Barling, AR
  • Interests:Searching the truths of God's word.
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:25 PM

Ok, look at all these translations, especially Young's Literal, you will see that the giants were already there, and also afterward.....This is Genesis 6:4: Do you see where the Nephilim were already there before the sons of God had sex with the women?

New International Version (©1984)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
New Living Translation (©2007)
In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

English Standard Version (©2001)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, as well as later, when the sons of God slept with the daughters of other humans and had children by them. These children were famous long ago.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
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 bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

American King James Version
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

American Standard Version
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Darby Bible Translation
In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne children to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown.

English Revised Version
The Nephilim were 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 were the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown.

Webster's Bible Translation
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them: the same became mighty men, who were of old, men of renown.

World English Bible
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God's sons came in to men's daughters. They bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Young's Literal Translation
The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.

TRIB New Testament, my labor of love.

#19 Ben

Ben

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoria, IL
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:33 PM

“And the giants were upon the earth in those days, and after that as the Sons of God went into the daughters of men and procreated for themselves. Those were the giants the ones from the ages, the men, the ones renowned”. LXX

It seems clear to me that the giants are the result of the sons of God procreating with the daughters of men. What would be the purpose of the passage if Moses was teaching that the procreation between the sons of God and the daughters of men are not connected to the giants being produced?
Proverbs 2:1-5
My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.

#20 Ben

Ben

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peoria, IL
  • Regirstration Type:Full membership

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:41 PM

The beginning of v 4 is also explaining the result of the sons of God taking the daughters of men as wives in 2.
Proverbs 2:1-5
My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users