How Old Is The Earth

[heartstrings]

Strongs.........

nĕphiyl

[heartstrings]

giants

[DaveW]

I found it in Strongs. It says, "See GIANTS."

Funny that..........

[AVBibleBeliever]

 I'm not saying that AVBB is taking information from Apocrypha, however, whenever I hear words like Nephilim it automatically makes me think that people are looking at the Book of Enoch.  There are only 66 Books in the Bible.  I don't know why some people go to sources that God didn't put in the Bible, and make assumptions on things.  Last I looked, the Book of Enoch is not in the KJV. 

I wasn't using the word Nephilim at all except in correcting someone who kept insisting that Gen 6 had the Hebrew word Nephilim when it was actually Nephiyl at least in the Hebrew dictionaries I have.

 

I don't read the apocrypha, I tried once about 19 years ago, it just doesn't have the life to as the Holy Bible does. 

 

And on a side note, speculations are not the same as assumptions. 

[candlelight]

I wasn't using the word Nephilim at all except in correcting someone who kept insisting that Gen 6 had the Hebrew word Nephilim when it was actually Nephiyl at least in the Hebrew dictionaries I have.

 

I don't read the apocrypha, I tried once about 19 years ago, it just doesn't have the life to as the Holy Bible does. 

 

And on a side note, speculations are not the same as assumptions. 

 

My apologies, AVBB.  

Obviously, I don't read it either.  I think sticking with the 66 books of the KJV.  I know I can't go wrong with that.

True.

[AVBibleBeliever]

There is no textual reason to suggest that either is anything other than a large man.
Even if it is "cast out ones" that does not inherently mean fallen angels.

Your argument is full of assumption and you are clutching at straws to support an argument that is unnecessary.

There is no need for it biblically and there is no possibility of it genetically.

I did make a correction to that in a later post.  I was saying that it CAN or HAS a meaning of it in the root word Nephal.  I understood that I should have added the root word there.  I noted the etymology of the word.

 

Here is what two of my sources one is an older strong's (new versions changed some words).  This is from my Interlinear AV bible

Gen 6:4 ¶ There were giants <n@phiyl> in the earth <'erets> in those days; <yowm> and also after <'achar> that, <ken> when <'aher> the sons <ben> of God <'elohiym> came in <bow'> unto the daughters <bath> of men, <'adam> and they bare <yalad> children to them, the same <hem> became mighty men <gibbowr> which were of old, <`owlam> men <'enowsh> of renown.

 

this is Strong's Hebrew Dictionary but an older one

 this one from Power BIble

05303.  lypn  n@phiyl,  nef-eel'
Search for 05303 in KJV
 
or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

See Hebrew 05307 (naphal)

 

This one from Sword Searcher

נָפִיל n@phiyl nef-eel'

or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:—giant.

See Hebrew 5307

 

There seems to be the insinuation that I was getting information from an unreliable source.  I have the same materials as most of you have.

 

I am not sure where the Nephilim comes from but it wasn't in my Strong's or my interlinear AV Bible.  I think I remember E-sword having Nephilim in place of Nephiyl in their linear Bible.  I don't use e-sword any more

Edited February 22, 2014 by AVBibleBeliever

[beameup]

seraph = singular

seraphim = plural

 

nephil = singular

nephilim = plural

 

I thought we went through this already

 

These are transliterated from the Hebrew, so spelling will vary.

However, with Hebrew, adding "im" is the plural form.

 

Since the King James translators had no clue to the meaning,

they went to the Septuigint Greek Tenach (OT) where it is translated gigantes.

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say that angels cannot procreate with humans - that is purely an "assumption".

The bene ha 'elohim procreated with HUMAN WOMEN bath 'adam and produced offspring.  It is clear in the text.

If the Holy Spirit had meant "unbelieving women" he could easily have said that in Hebrew; instead, He stated daughters of adam.

Edited February 22, 2014 by beameup

[DaveW]

Gen 1
 21  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This outlines a law of nature that has never been broken, not even forced in the laboratory.

It is a genetic impossibility, and it is taught by God in Genesis.

[AVBibleBeliever]

seraph = singular

seraphim = plural

 

nephil = singular

nephilim = plural

 

Why does my Hebrew/KJV Interlinear Bible and Strong's in two Bible Programs have the word you say is singular Nephiyl in Hebrew for the plural giants in the AV?

 

Gen 6 Giants is translated from the Hebrew word Nephiyl why are people quoting it as Nephilim?  does your source differ from the ones I quoted here?

 

Anyway as I was just studying out your seraphim/seraphims/seraph I  found some interesting observations about these words.

 

1) The AV Bible has Seraphims but the word Seraphim is not found anywhere in the AV Bible.  Webster dictionary make the word Seraphim and call the word seraphims a double plural as used in the King James Bible. Serpahims and Cherubims are considered double plural words.

 

2) And in Isaiah 6 the English word Seraphims is translated from the Hebrew word Seraph, and in Isaiah 14:29 the English word Serpent is also translated from the Hebrew word Seraph? 

 

Any thoughts on why the Hebrew seraph is translated both serpent and seraphims? 

 

I guess the simplistic reason is God inspired it so.

Edited February 22, 2014 by AVBibleBeliever

[heartstrings]

"Beameup", brother,

 

The Bible says they "took them WIVES" . That's not merely "cohabiting" or "procreating".

 

Tell me something; if an angel is so wicked that he rebels with Satan, against God, and gets kicked out of heaven, is he going to be "husband material"?

[beameup]

"Beameup", brother,

 

The Bible says they "took them WIVES" . That's not merely "cohabiting" or "procreating".

 

Tell me something; if an angel is so wicked that he rebels with Satan, against God, and gets kicked out of heaven, is he going to be "husband material"?

The whole idea was for Satan to "get back at God" by making it impossible for God to provide a savior for homo sapien.  By contaminating the DNA,

Satan would have accomplished his mission and made God to be a liar.  In modern genetics, gene-splicing between insects-plants-mammals-fish is going

on as we speak.  Satan will once again use this strategy to manipulate man genetically to try to prevent Jesus from returning to the earth.

 

The "mark of the Beast" could be an innoculation that would alter your genetic makeup.  It very well could be beneficial to man from a health

standpoint and marketed that way.  But by altering the human DNA with say, angel DNA would have a disastrous effect upon eligibility for

salvation.

Edited February 22, 2014 by beameup

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Angel DNA.??!!! ROFL

[DaveW]

Pure speculation.

And that is not how genetic manipulation works.

You are building up a whole doctrine and teaching based upon a phrase that just may not mean what you insist that it means.

The phrase "Sons of God" in whatever language you want at times means angels and other times means men.

The terms in Gen 6 have no inherent meaning of angels, and no amount of your wishful thinking will make them mean angels.

The Bible does not support your surmising, science goes against your surmising - and the Bible agrees with what science has found in regard to hybridising. Which by the way every farmer knows.

Your scratching about genetic manipulation simply shows you have no idea what you are talking about in that regard.

I actually don't say the reference in Gen 6 can't be angels, but your arguments make no sense Biblically nor scientifically.
The Bible is not as definitive about the matter as you want it to be.

[prophet1]

Pure speculation. And that is not how genetic manipulation works. You are building up a whole doctrine and teaching based upon a phrase that just may not mean what you insist that it means. The phrase "Sons of God" in whatever language you want at times means angels and other times means men. The terms in Gen 6 have no inherent meaning of angels, and no amount of your wishful thinking will make them mean angels. The Bible does not support your surmising, science goes against your surmising - and the Bible agrees with what science has found in regard to hybridising. Which by the way every farmer knows. Your scratching about genetic manipulation simply shows you have no idea what you are talking about in that regard. I actually don't say the reference in Gen 6 can't be angels, but your arguments make no sense Biblically nor scientifically. The Bible is not as definitive about the matter as you want it to be.

Heb 1:5 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Can you define:" at any time"? Anishinaabe Edited February 22, 2014 by prophet1

[heartstrings]

Beam Me Up.......Brotherman.....I think you been watchin' WAAAAY YONDER too much StarTrek ...