Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

"The Sons of God are not the Angels."


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I would only suggest that between the "sons of God, daughters of men" event, and the remnants of the Giants etc from Duet and Josh etc was a flood in which all life barring that which was on the ark (and sea life) died - including any of the line of "giants".

Any post flood giants can not possibly be the result of the Gen 6 events but must be a new instance of giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

​

​O.K....

I think you are missing my point.

"In those days"...refers, quite naturally to "those days"

You are correct.

 

The phrase: "And ALSO 'AFTER' THAT" can mean possibly commensurate with/ because of/ or (as I prefer) "After" that chronologically. 

Read simply:  There were giants in those days

and also:     after that

There is nothing whatsoever grammatically wrong with that.  It does justice to the Hebrew text and the KJV.  And my view squares with statement from later Scriptures which state that there were the remnants of the Giants.

Remember to let Scripture explain Scripture.

I have shown that there were Nephilim and Anakim at later periods as I quoted in these other Scriptures:

Deut. 3 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants,

Josh 12 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:

I think the view I suggested makes very good sense of those passages, and blends them with the statement in Genesis 6 quite well.  If that is not the case, than you simply have God choosing an incredibly unwieldy phrase like "and also after that" to simply mean "and they" or " they therefore" or "and thus they"....because that's what I think you are suggesting.

Strongs translate "achar" there to mean this:

after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)

  1. as an adverb

    1. behind (of place)

    2. afterwards (of time)

  2. as a preposition

    1. behind, after (of place)

    2. after (of time)

    3. besides

  3. as a conjunction

    1. after that

  4. as a substantive

    1. hinder part

  5. with other prepositions

    1. from behind

    2. from following after

 

I think your view would have us using the word to simply mean something like "therefore".  I don't think that's as faithful to the text.

​In addition to the context, neither the punctuation nor the grammar supports a meaning of "at a later time". The word "after", in the sentence, means the same as it does in "after his kind".

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If you punctuated it like this: remove the semicolon, add a period and capitalize "When", we could definitely say it means "at a later time". But then look at the next sentence. It no longer connects with the first. It's almost like a person with ADHD was writing it and had an "OH LOOK...A SQUIRREL" moment. :)

Genesis 6:4 (re-punctuated)  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

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If you punctuated it like this: remove the semicolon, add a period and capitalize "When", we could definitely say it means "at a later time". But then look at the next sentence. It no longer connects with the first. It's almost like a person with ADHD was writing it and had an "OH LOOK...A SQUIRREL" moment. :)

 

​Yes, admittedly, the flow from the Original into English is disjointed.  Then again, there really is little to no punctuation in the Original Language, so, it's going to read that way in some places.  And yes, I am reading the phrase "and also after that" as a parenthetical phrase....a liner note.... (Your "Oh look a squirrel") moment :lol: 

But, I honestly think that is what the author is saying.   The author would indeed be, in my view, interrupting the narrative to throw in the parenthetical fact that Nephilim were also extant later as well.  Of course, I think the author did it intentionally, and not as an after-thought, but, I can see why you don't like that.  However, I don't know what else to do with it, and it reads rather rough when translated one way or the other.  The KJV has and extremely long and unwieldy sentence structure here.  That's to be expected when the sentence structure of the Hebrew (if there is one) is unwieldy itself.  Here's the rest of the clause in KJV after the semi-colon:

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.

Ow. that's rough no matter what.  All the same, I appreciate your critique here.  You've given us something to ponder! B)

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

​

I would only suggest that between the "sons of God, daughters of men" event, and the remnants of the Giants etc from Duet and Josh etc was a flood in which all life barring that which was on the ark (and sea life) died - including any of the line of "giants".

​Yes, that line of Giants would be destroyed, and any future Nephilim would be a result of a later cause.  Thus, it would be a scenario which is repeatable (one of the reasons I don't buy that it was women consorting with demons) .  If it were, than God flooded the world in order to get rid of demon-spawn, and the demons simply went right back to their old tricks once again. The word used here in Genesis for "giants" (Nephilim) is repeated in Numbers 13:30.

One way or the other, there were Giants then, in Noah's time, and later during the time of the Judges and the first Kings of Israel. 

Num 13:30
Deut. 2:11
Deut 2: 20
Deut.3:11
The question, is how to account for it. 
 
 
Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Large men have and continue to be referred to as giants. This doesn't mean they are part supernatural beings or anything other than a larger than average human.

Many Vikings, for instance, were much larger in size and stature than those they raided which sometimes led to others seeing them as giants.

There are men today 7 feet tall and taller. They appear as giants next to a man of average or shorter height.

It's long been common to refer to men considered great for one reason or another as "giants among men". This sometimes refers to their physical size, but often comes about because of their leadership abilities or exceptional skills they possess.

The biblical references to giants seem clearly to be indicating mere men, even if they are of exceptional size.

Even many of us who never followed "professional" wrestling are familiar with Andre the Giant; a large man.

I see nothing in Scripture to indicate any of the giants referred to were anything other than larger than average men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Outside sources (considered "myth") indicate that these pre-flood giants were 20-30 feet tall.  Goliath (for example) was perhaps 15 feet tall. 

I personally believe that they were genetically modified humans who were not subject to the "death" gene, and that their "spirits" are what we refer to as demons. 

Their "parent" fathers are, on the other hand, "the angels that sinned", referred to by Peter, and they are held inside the earth in a place called "tartarus" (from the Greek).

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Outside sources (considered "myth") indicate that these pre-flood giants were 20-30 feet tall.  Goliath (for example) was perhaps 15 feet tall. 

I personally believe that they were genetically modified humans who were not subject to the "death" gene, and that their "spirits" are what we refer to as demons. 

Their "parent" fathers are, on the other hand, "the angels that sinned", referred to by Peter, and they are held inside the earth in a place called "tartarus" (from the Greek).

​I've never seen anything even remotely reliable to indicate the giants were that tall.

Goliath, for example, is often said to have been about 9 feet, 9 inches tall. That figure comes from what's known of biblical measurements.

There is no indication the giants were supernatural beings, anything other than above average sized mere men. They had no special powers, no protection from death, needed armour and weapons as did all other men in battle.

Goliath was knocked out by a rock slung to his head which rendered him unable to prevent David from taking the giants own sword and cutting his head off.

Goliath, and the other giants in Scripture, were very human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1Sa 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. 

​the Bible is plain about Goliath height.

There is variation in what a cubit measures, but not a huge variation.

About 18" is the generally accepted figure for a cubit.

That works out to 117".

Rounding things out makes that about 10'

15' is out of the possibility of the Biblical measurements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​I've never seen anything even remotely reliable to indicate the giants were that tall.

Goliath, for example, is often said to have been about 9 feet, 9 inches tall. That figure comes from what's known of biblical measurements.

There is no indication the giants were supernatural beings, anything other than above average sized mere men. They had no special powers, no protection from death, needed armour and weapons as did all other men in battle.

Goliath was knocked out by a rock slung to his head which rendered him unable to prevent David from taking the giants own sword and cutting his head off.

Goliath, and the other giants in Scripture, were very human.

​There are a lot of things we don't know about the pre-flood time.

For example: 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:

Study the "Greek myths" (for example) and you will find god-man hybrids that were GIGANTIC men.

By the time Goliath came by, there was deterioration of the human genome due to post-flood environmental factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​There are a lot of things we don't know about the pre-flood time.

For example: 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:

Study the "Greek myths" (for example) and you will find god-man hybrids that were GIGANTIC men.

By the time Goliath came by, there was deterioration of the human genome due to post-flood environmental factors.

​The Greek myths are just that, myths, they have no bearing upon what Scripture says.

As to the "and live for ever" which you put in bold, we know the meaning of that and it has absolutely nothing to do with giants.

Pre-flood and post-flood, giants were men; nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​The Greek myths are just that, myths, they have no bearing upon what Scripture says.

 

​There are about 50 "tales" of a great flood recorded by ancient civilizations all over the world... are these "myths", as you say, as well?

Besides, there are other sources that give insight into the nephilim, and they were not just "large men". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​There are about 50 "tales" of a great flood recorded by ancient civilizations all over the world... are these "myths", as you say, as well?

Besides, there are other sources that give insight into the nephilim, and they were not just "large men". 

How about plain Biblical sources? 

Genesis 6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Note here plainly - there were giants.

Sons of God are separate to them.

The children "became mighty men...." a term which has more to do with a warrior.

To try to make Giants, mighty men, and sons of God the same thing is simply to misunderstand basic grammar.

The mighty men were warriors of reputation.

The giants were big men.

The sons of God? Often, if not always, refers to God fearing men.

The only cases where it "might" mean angels are at best vague.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why does the Bible say men? It would say hybrids if they was hybrids.  

Unfortunately, there are people who will look for "examples" in the Bible of what they can twist into hybrids. I once heard a preacher use the following as an example to prove that hybrids existed in the past; therefore, they will exist again...

2 Samuel 23:20
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had done many acts, he slew two lionlike men of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow:

See, those men were part man and part lion...:01nocomment8so:

 

​

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...