Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

Quite a few. Quite a few before the flood and quite a few after.

I once did a chart from Adam to Abraham and there were some interesting facts. I found that Shem outlived Abraham. The chart has been lost but I noticed more recently that someone at church has done a similar one.  I just did a quick bit of mental arithmetic and it seems Abraham was born about 310 years after the flood.  After the flood Shem lived 502 years.

 

There is a belief among some Bible scholars that it was in fact Shem that was Melchizedek "King of Salem".  Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 7:1-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ronda said:

Brother John, I have already attempted to show you in Genesis 6 what happened and how "giants" came to be. Verses 1- 9, and specifically verse 4 tells what happened. 

Regardless, it does not matter now, because the "giants", the "men of renown"  (whatever you want to call them) were killed off during the flood. And the angels who fell with the devil are also irrelevant because they are now in everlasting chains awaiting judgment. 

2 Peter 2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment"

Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day"

So all those people who attempt to sell books/videos, claiming nonsense about the "nephilim" (or whatever they want to call them) still existing is utter nonsense!  Whether or not you believe what happened in Genesis 6:1-9 is or isn't "giants", "men of renown" or as some people call them "nephilim", isn't an issue... what is the issue is that they no longer EXIST because they were all killed off during the flood. AND the "fallen angels" which went with the devil, are also no longer an issue because right now they are in chains in hell awaiting judgment. SO either way, there are neither types of beings on the earth. If you have further questions, maybe brother Alan or Pastor Markle could do a better job explaining it than I can?  I don't really want to argue the point because they no longer exist on earth, and the fallen angels are also in chains in hell right now, so it makes no difference what you OR I believe the "giants" and "men of renown" were since none of them exist on the earth any more.

Where do these verses say anything about angels cross-breeding with humans?

There were giants after the flood too.

2 minutes ago, beameup said:

There is a belief among some Bible scholars that it was in fact Shem that was Melchizedek "King of Salem".  Genesis 14:18, Hebrews 7:1-2

Couldn't be since Shem's parents are known and Scripture says Melchizedek was without father, without mother, etc. (Hebrews 7)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 7:41 AM, beameup said:

Same-same: "Jew", "Hebrew", "children of Israel", "Jacob", etc. etc. etc.  If you are not genetically pure, you cannot be 100% Hebrew.Friend, Even Jesus was not a "genetically pure" Jew. If you look at his geneology in Matthew 1 verse 5 you will find that Jesus was descended from a Canaanite (Rahab the harlot) and a Moabite(Ruth). "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, Noah's "generations" were "Shem, Ham, and Japheth". Noah was the husband of one wife, he had no concubines, no mistresses, no illicit affairs and he "generated" all his offspring with his one wife. See Genesis 5 where it says "these are the generations" of Adam. It means "this is what Adam gendered":
 
[Noah was not a hybrid nephalim] and Noah walked with God." Gen 6:9 That would be true because there were no hybrids.

Perhaps you overlooked the description given in Revelation 7, where 12 "tribes" are listed (composed of 12,000 from each tribe) as the defining term/terms.

BTW, it is the Bible uses the term "remnant" being saved. Isa 10:21, Rom 9:27

Perhaps the reference to where it states that "one-third of Jews" will be saved in the Tribulation??

 

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, John81 said:

Where do these verses say anything about angels cross-breeding with humans?

There were giants after the flood too.

 

Like I said, brother John, if you cannot understand the concept of what was going on that was so utterly evil and was so corrupt that God made it specifically clear in scripture that Noah was "perfect in his generations" in comparison to the "giants in the earth" and how they came to be with the verses given in Genesis 6: 1-9, and specifically verse 4... I can't help you more than I have already.  Someone else (possibly a pastor) could explain it better than I did. You could also (only if you feel so inclined) use an Hebrew lexicon for further word clarification, but only if you so desire to delve into it that deep.   If there was no contamination, why would the Lord have needed to expound that Noah was "perfect in his generations" since He had already expounded that Noah was "just" and Noah "walked with God". The Bible further gives the lineage of Noah all the way back to Adam (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah,  and sorry if I mis-spelled any) so we already know his lineage was perfect. So why would the Lord need to make it abundantly clear that Noah was perfect in his generations? Right after the account of the "giants in the earth"? AND how those giants came to be? I wonder why you keep asking the same question over and over even though some of us have tried to explain it. SO... if you don't want to believe that there was no contamination of any kind going on, that's fine. BUT if you want to claim it is an erroneous conclusion, then please at least consult a pastor first and/or look at a Hebrew lexicon for further word clarification before you contend that there was no genetic contamination of any kind going on.

Otherwise... you can just believe that the giants were just plain ol' everyday "big/tall" people,and if you do... I'm fine with that. It makes no difference (to me) whether you comprehend what it's saying fully or not, because #1- it's not vital to your salvation and #2- they no longer exist.
 

48 minutes ago, John81 said:

Couldn't be since Shem's parents are known and Scripture says Melchizedek was without father, without mother, etc. (Hebrews 7)

Not exactly....

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

That does not mean that Melchisedec was without a father and without a mother (physically) but that A PRIEST (and not just that specific priest) abideth as though he had no father or mother. 

Hebrews 5:5-6   5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Jesus had an earthly mother (a virgin who gave birth to Him) and a heavenly Father. Hebrews 7:3 is not stating that  Melchisedec did not have an earthly father or mother, but that he ABIDETH that way. However, I would not say  that Shem was Melchisedec.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ronda said:

 

Like I said, brother John, if you cannot understand the concept of what was going on that was so utterly evil and was so corrupt that God made it specifically clear in scripture that Noah was "perfect in his generations" in comparison to the "giants in the earth" and how they came to be with the verses given in Genesis 6: 1-9, and specifically verse 4... I can't help you more than I have already.  Someone else (possibly a pastor) could explain it better than I did. You could also (only if you feel so inclined) use an Hebrew lexicon for further word clarification, but only if you so desire to delve into it that deep.   If there was no contamination, why would the Lord have needed to expound that Noah was "perfect in his generations" since He had already expounded that Noah was "just" and Noah "walked with God". The Bible further gives the lineage of Noah all the way back to Adam (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah,  and sorry if I mis-spelled any) so we already know his lineage was perfect. So why would the Lord need to make it abundantly clear that Noah was perfect in his generations? Right after the account of the "giants in the earth"? AND how those giants came to be? I wonder why you keep asking the same question over and over even though some of us have tried to explain it. SO... if you don't want to believe that there was no contamination of any kind going on, that's fine. BUT if you want to claim it is an erroneous conclusion, then please at least consult a pastor first and/or look at a Hebrew lexicon for further word clarification before you contend that there was no genetic contamination of any kind going on.

Otherwise... you can just believe that the giants were just plain ol' everyday "big/tall" people,and if you do... I'm fine with that. It makes no difference (to me) whether you comprehend what it's saying fully or not, because #1- it's not vital to your salvation and #2- they no longer exist.
 

Not exactly....

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

That does not mean that Melchisedec was without a father and without a mother (physically) but that A PRIEST (and not just that specific priest) abideth as though he had no father or mother. 

Hebrews 5:5-6   5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Jesus had an earthly mother (a virgin who gave birth to Him) and a heavenly Father. Hebrews 7:3 is not stating that  Melchisedec did not have an earthly father or mother, but that he ABIDETH that way. However, I would not say  that Shem was Melchisedec.

 

Rhonda,

The passages of Scripture you bring up are intriguing and there is certainly something to them being as oddly out of the norm as they are. They should not be dismissed or explained away but I think your theories on their meanings are mildly food for thought (very mildly) and not much more. There is just not enough evidence to form a doctrine with any authority on it.

Remember when the Rapture does occur the Lord has said that the our world will be just as it was in the days of Noah (corrupt, depraved and apostate) so thinking that some form of human/devil hybrid caused God's Wrath then is far fetched.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe most of the early so called Church Fathers believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. The teaching that they were born again Christians backsliding and marrying unsaved women is a newer teaching and really, when you think about it, quite ridiculous. Unless, of course, you go to "the originals" and change the word "giants" to "mighty men" or "men of renown" or "mighty hunters" even though it's clear from the rest of the bible that giants are really, really tall men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis 6 is the continuation of Genesis 5. The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are the named individuals of Genesis 5 who were also the first in the lineage of Christ. They are called "the sons of God" because they were believers.  Each one of them lived for hundreds of years and saw their families grow into huge populations during their lifetimes making them economically and militarily powerful. Likewise, via the practice of "marrying and giving in marriage" they had become politically powerful as well. These factors made them "mighty men", and worldly like the giants. They were NOT the giants, neither were they the descendants of the giants, nor did they produce the giants. They simply were contemporaries.   At least two (2) of the "sons of God", Lamech and Methuselah, were ALIVE while Noah was building the ark. But these two guys, even though they were believers and direct ancestors of Christ, are NOT mentioned as "walking with God" or as "perfect in their generations" because they were worldly, disobedient backsliders at the time. One of these two, Methuselah, died the very same year the flood came, It is believed that God waited in longsuffering, until Methuselah had died, before bringing the flood. The fact that he was the oldest man who ever lived, would be a testament to that longsuffering.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term for the hybrid beings found in the O.T. is nephilim.  The translators had no clear understanding of this term, but were influenced by the Koine Greek translation of the word as "gigantes", from which they derived the English word "giants".  Now, they easily could have been "giants", but it seems that they were much, much more than that.  The "roots" of "gigantes" imply "earth-bound" (as opposed to "heavenly beings" like angels, for example).  Gigantes also implies "fallen" (as in "those that cause others to fall down") implying that they were violent and controlling of lesser beings. At any rate, they were the cause of the Flood, which destroyed all except for Noah and his three sons (and the 4 wives).  We know from scripture that angels could both eat and drink, and that they were the objects of sexual desire on the part of the Sodomites, when they visited Lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beameup said:

The term for the hybrid beings found in the O.T. is nephilim.  The translators had no clear understanding of this term, but were influenced by the Koine Greek translation of the word as "gigantes", from which they derived the English word "giants".  Now, they easily could have been "giants", but it seems that they were much, much more than that.  The "roots" of "gigantes" imply "earth-bound" (as opposed to "heavenly beings" like angels, for example).  Gigantes also implies "fallen" (as in "those that cause others to fall down") implying that they were violent and controlling of lesser beings. At any rate, they were the cause of the Flood, which destroyed all except for Noah and his three sons (and the 4 wives).  We know from scripture that angels could both eat and drink, and that they were the objects of sexual desire on the part of the Sodomites, when they visited Lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow

Modern era Giant without the use of Angels.

 

Edited by MountainChristian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, beameup said:

Some ancient records indicate 20 feet to 30 feet in height.  Goliath was a mere 12 feet tall by some estimates.

And just where are these "ancient records"? If there is a record it stands to reason that they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales

Since I have posters on the "ignore" feature, I usually cannot read their responses.  Most bb software does not allow someone to respond if they are on "ignore".

There are "records" in several continents with dozens of civilizations that record the Flood.  Can we then assume that the Flood is a "myth" because of these outside sources.  I understand that "search engines" such as "Google" often supply information for those who desire "information".  Ancient rabbinical records might be a good place to look... unless, of course, you are not really interested in "looking".

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:37 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. Luke 17:26  For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.  Mark 13:22  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24:24

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2016 at 11:20 PM, beameup said:

Noah was NOT a "Hebrew", "Jew", Israelite", etc.  The first "Jew",-"Hebrew" was Abraham.  The verse concerning Noah demonstrates that the understanding of not corrupting the DNA of humans (by cross-breeding with fallen angels) was understood.  There was always the possibility of a non-Jew (non-Hebrew) to become a Jew (Hebrew); they were called proselytes. Of course, this knowledge only comes with understanding Judaism to some extent. 

Noah was "perfect in his generations" [ie: 100% HUMAN]

Jews were the descendants of Judah, but as far as I can trace they were not called Jews till the time of Ezra.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Genesis 6 is the continuation of Genesis 5. The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are the named individuals of Genesis 5 who were also the first in the lineage of Christ. They are called "the sons of God" because they were believers.  Each one of them lived for hundreds of years and saw their families grow into huge populations during their lifetimes making them economically and militarily powerful. Likewise, via the practice of "marrying and giving in marriage" they had become politically powerful as well. These factors made them "mighty men", and worldly like the giants. They were NOT the giants, neither were they the descendants of the giants, nor did they produce the giants. They simply were contemporaries.   At least two (2) of the "sons of God", Lamech and Methuselah, were ALIVE while Noah was building the ark. But these two guys, even though they were believers and direct ancestors of Christ, are NOT mentioned as "walking with God" or as "perfect in their generations" because they were worldly, disobedient backsliders at the time. One of these two, Methuselah, died the very same year the flood came, It is believed that God waited in longsuffering, until Methuselah had died, before bringing the flood. The fact that he was the oldest man who ever lived, would be a testament to that longsuffering.

Interesting food for thought also but is basically as much a stretch as the devil/human theory. Your idea does take science fiction out of play though.

I wonder what Job would say about these giants? Genesis 6:4 demonstrates grammatically that the first part of the verse about giants is unrelated to the remainder of the verse. Since we are all speculating in the thread; lets throw Barney into the mix. After all Barney bones have been found in several parts of the world, the jolly green giants however, have not (yet anyway)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis 6:4 (In Hebrew)  haN'filiym häyû vääretz BaYämiym hähëm w'gam achárëy-khën ásher yävoû B'nëy häélohiym el-B'nôt häädäm w'yäl'dû lähem hëMäh haGiBoriym ásher mëôläm an'shëy haSHëm f

As you can see... "N'filiym" was translated into English as "giants"
If you wonder where people GOT the word "nephalim", it came from the Hebrew "N'filiym"

The term "rapture" came from Latin word "rapturo" which was translated from (Greek to Latin) from the Greek word "harpazo"
And the Greek word "harpazo" was translated into English as "caught up together" in 1 Thes. 4:17, yet many of us use the term "rapture" (which also is not in the Bible as such)

It's actually hypocritical for those who use the term "rapture" which came from the Greek "harpazo", and later the Latin "rapturo", and that seems to be "permissible" to do???
And it's also "permissible" to use the word "fill" for "replenish" in Gen. 1:28 (because the Hebrew word is "mil'û" which means to FILL and not REFILL), and again that is "permissible"
But for some reason... it's NOT "permissible" to use the Hebrew word "N'filiym".

Sounds like a bit of hyposcrisy to me. So to sum it up... anyone who wants to believe that "giants" simply means big/tall /tall people... feel free! But it's sad when some mock others for actually studying the Bible and delving into word meanings such as the Hebrew word "N'filiym"
And as I've stated several times, it makes no difference NOW because whether a person calls them "giants" (English) or whether a person calls them "N'filiym" (Hebrew) it doesn't matter, because they NO LONGER EXIST! 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Genesis 6:4 (In Hebrew)  haN'filiym häyû vääretz BaYämiym hähëm w'gam achárëy-khën ásher yävoû B'nëy häélohiym el-B'nôt häädäm w'yäl'dû lähem hëMäh haGiBoriym ásher mëôläm an'shëy haSHëm f

As you can see... "N'filiym" was translated into English as "giants"
If you wonder where people GOT the word "nephalim", it came from the Hebrew "N'filiym"

 

Sounds like a bit of hyposcrisy to me. So to sum it up... anyone who wants to believe that "giants" simply means big/tall /tall people... feel free! But it's sad when some mock others for actually studying the Bible and delving into word meanings such as the Hebrew word "N'filiym"
And as I've stated several times, it makes no difference NOW because whether a person calls them "giants" (English) or whether a person calls them "N'filiym" (Hebrew) it doesn't matter, because they NO LONGER EXIST! 

Sister Ronda,

As I believe that you may be aware, I myself have no problem considering the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved original Hebrew and Greek.  Indeed, in the case of Genesis 6:4 the English word "giants" is translated from the Hebrew word "n'philiym."  Even so, I must ask two questions of you, both based upon an actual study of the Bible and of delving into original language word usage and meanings.

Question #1 -- Why do you say that those "giants" ("n'philiym") "NO LONGER EXIST"? 

If your answer is because you believe that they were all destroyed in the world-wide flood, then you need to consider that the same Hebrew word is also used twice (as well as translated with the English word "giants") in Numbers 13:33 -- "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."  Certainly, this event occurred hundreds of years AFTER the flood.

Question #2 -- Why do you imply that the word "giants" ("n'philiym") does not mean "big/tall people"?

If your answer is because the Hebrew word "n'philiym" is intended to indicate some specialized meaning of "hybrid between angels and humans," then again you need to consider the usage of the word in Numbers 13:33 along with the contextual explanation for the word in Numbers 13:32-33 -- "And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."  So then, if we employ actual Bible study concerning this Hebrew word, comparing Scripture with other Scripture, we do not get the meaning of "a hybrid between angels and humans;" but we DO get the meaning of "men of a great stature."

__________________________________________________

By the way, you might NOT want to suggest that I could do a better job of explaining the matter in this case, since I do NOT actually agree with the position that you (and others) have taken concerning Genesis 6:1-4 and concerning Genesis 6:9.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
added closing line of 2nd paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, wretched said:

Interesting food for thought also but is basically as much a stretch as the devil/human theory. Your idea does take science fiction out of play though.

I wonder what Job would say about these giants? Genesis 6:4 demonstrates grammatically that the first part of the verse about giants is unrelated to the remainder of the verse. Since we are all speculating in the thread; lets throw Barney into the mix. After all Barney bones have been found in several parts of the world, the jolly green giants however, have not (yet anyway)

 

 

On the contrary. The first part of the verse is related, but not as some people think. Genesis 6:4 makes a matter of fact statement, followed by a semicolon. The semicolon indicates the two sentences are related and this is how.....

Genesis6:4  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.

Wrap your head around this for a moment: the whole account of Genesis 6 is taking place "in those days", correct? Ok, so then how could the term "after that" mean  "at a later time"? Someone will say that the "after that" means sometime after the flood but If it was it would be followed by a period instead of a comma which connects it to the rest of the sentence. Only then, the phrase about the giants would no longer make sense. It would be a sentence out of place. So what does "after that" mean? In this context it means "in imitation of", "subsequent to", "concerning", "in consequence of". So what is Genesis 6:4 saying?

Genesis6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days;  and also (in imitation of that/concerning that/in consequence of 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.

 

Each one of the believers of Genesis 5 was "begetting" lots of sons and daughters, and living for HUNDREDS of years. Read Genesis 5 my friend. When my father in law died at 83, he had 8 children, 24 grandchildren and just a small handful of great grandchildren; Imagine how huge his family would have been if he had lived 700, 800,. or "969 years"! Not only that, but what does Genesis 6 say was the order of the day? Violence. Put it together and you have races of big tall, mighty warriors (giants), war and bloodshed (violence) and huge families of God's people(sons of God) mixing and mingling with the world,(most likely polygamists) ; Superpowers. That's the nearest I have come to understanding it. But I certainly don't believe it was angels procreating with humans and all that.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

And just where are these "ancient records"? If there is a record it stands to reason that they exist.

Brother Beameup,

The above question arose in my mind because you indicated that ancient records exist. You seemed to offer this as some sort of proof of human beings of gigantic size.

Records are something that is verifiable by personal observation. Since you offered this as some sort of proof, it is reasonable to assume that you have seen and verified the authenticity of these records. Or at the very least someone, at some time has verified their authenticity.

Since you have not directed me to any source that I could go to, I have to assume that these so called "records" may be simply something you have read about third person. In that case the "so-called" records would be in the possible form of myths, or some person's personal opinions.

Your response where you also introduced the topic of the flood as having records is in this category. There are no actual "records" of the flood outside of the Bible, but rather different civilizations having either myths or the writings of men that seem to indicate that they believed that there was such an event.

So, in respect to my original question asking where these records are, I will ask quite simply; have you seen these records?

If you have not, then how can you offer them as proof for your argument? Your assertion of men  20 feet to 30 feet in height would then be considered "hearsay" at best and mythical at the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

As I believe that you may be aware, I myself have no problem considering the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved original Hebrew and Greek.  Indeed, in the case of Genesis 6:4 the English word "giants" is translated from the Hebrew word "n'philiym."  Even so, I must ask two questions of you, both based upon an actual study of the Bible and of delving into original language word usage and meanings.

Question #1 -- Why do you say that those "giants" ("n'philiym") "NO LONGER EXIST"? 

If your answer is because you believe that they were all destroyed in the world-wide flood, then you need to consider that the same Hebrew word is also used twice (as well as translated with the English word "giants") in Numbers 13:33 -- "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."  Certainly, this event occurred hundreds of years AFTER the flood.

Question #2 -- Why do you imply that the word "giants" ("n'philiym") does not mean "big/tall people"?

If your answer is because the Hebrew word "n'philiym" is intended to indicate some specialized meaning of "hybrid between angels and humans," then again you need to consider the usage of the word in Numbers 13:33 along with the contextual explanation for the word in Numbers 13:32-33 -- "And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."  So then, if we employ actual Bible study concerning this Hebrew word, comparing Scripture with other Scripture, we do not get the meaning of "a hybrid between angels and humans;" but we DO get the meaning of "men of a great stature."

__________________________________________________

By the way, you might NOT want to suggest that I could do a better job of explaining the matter in this case, since I do NOT actually agree with the position that you (and others) have taken concerning Genesis 6:1-4 and concerning Genesis 6:9.

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

It means "These are what Noah generated: Noah was a just man and perfect in his gendering/begetting (or what he produced), and Noah walked with God 10. And Noah begat/produced/gendered three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

 

Noah was not "marrying and giving in marriage", "taking wives of all". He had one wife(God's way) and he "generated" God's way. that's the way I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

On the contrary. The first part of the verse is related, but not as some people think. Genesis 6:4 makes a matter of fact statement, followed by a semicolon. The semicolon indicates the two sentences are related and this is how.....

Genesis6:4  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.

Wrap your head around this for a moment: the whole account of Genesis 6 is taking place "in those days", correct? Ok, so then how could the term "after that" mean  "at a later time"? Someone will say that the "after that" means sometime after the flood but If it was it would be followed by a period instead of a comma which connects it to the rest of the sentence. Only then, the phrase about the giants would no longer make sense. It would be a sentence out of place. So what does "after that" mean? In this context it means "in imitation of", "subsequent to", "concerning", "in consequence of". So what is Genesis 6:4 saying?

Genesis6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days;  and also (in imitation of that/concerning that/in consequence of 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.

 

Each one of the believers of Genesis 5 was "begetting" lots of sons and daughters, and living for HUNDREDS of years. Read Genesis 5 my friend. When my father in law died at 83, he had 8 children, 24 grandchildren and just a small handful of great grandchildren; Imagine how huge his family would have been if he had lived 700, 800,. or "969 years"! Not only that, but what does Genesis 6 say was the order of the day? Violence. Put it together and you have races of big tall, mighty warriors (giants), war and bloodshed (violence) and huge families of God's people(sons of God) mixing and mingling with the world,(most likely polygamists) ; Superpowers. That's the nearest I have come to understanding it. But I certainly don't believe it was angels procreating with humans and all that.

 

 

 

Sounds good to me..You got my vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Question #1 -- Why do you say that those "giants" ("n'philiym") "NO LONGER EXIST"? 

I do agree the Hebrew word "haN'filiym" is found BOTH in Genesis 6:4 as well as in Numbers 13:33.
In Numbers 13:32 the Hebrew word "an'shey" (a man of/or men of) along with "miDot" (great stature), prior to the use of "N'filiym" in verse 33 clearly is speaking of the size and stature, of that I agree.

The word "N'filiym" is related to the verb series "to fall" (naphal) in Hebrew. It also denotes a "bully" or "tyrant"
However, it is NOT the same word used in describing Goliath Nowhere in the account pertaining to Goliath (in 1 Sam. 17, 1 Sam. 21, 1 Sam. 22, 2 Sam. 21, nor 1 Chron. 20... all in reference to Goliath) do we see the term "N'filiym" used as a desription of Goliath.
(Even though Goliath also fell , when David slew him,  and Goliath also was a "tyrant/bully", yet the word "N'filiym" is NOT used to describe Goliath.)
However, in Numbers 13:33 we see something here that we don't see in Gen 6:4:

In numbers 13:33 "haN'filiym B'ney anaq min-haN'filiym". There the "min" prior to the "haN'filiym" denotes a likeness to or like unto a Nephilim.
So "haN'filiym" is not the same as "min-haN'filiym"...
My understanding is that Gen.6:4 means "nephilim" and Numbers 13:33 means "like a nephilim" (or similar in appearance to a nephilim)

Next, we need to address the "sons of God" noted in Genesis 6. There are 2 arguments for the "the sons of God":
One could say that the "sons of God" means the lineage of which Jesus would come:

"heartstrings" said as much above,here is what heartstrings said (in part): " The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are the named individuals of Genesis 5 who were also the first in the lineage of Christ. They are called "the sons of God" because they were believers."

OR the 2nd argument could be made (which would be my belief),
In Job 2:1 "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."
Is there any doubt here who the "sons of God" were in this instance? (I guess I shouldn't even ask this question on this forum since there will most likely be some who DO doubt the reference to the fallen angels).
I believe the "sons of God" in Job 2:1 are the same "sons of God" in Gen.4:6, and I believe in both instances it is a reference to the angels who also revolted along with the devil. 

The word  "N'filiym" is related to the verb series "to fall" (naphal) in Hebrew. And so I would ask to fall from what?
My understanding is that the devil took 1/3 of the angels with him in the fall (Rev. 12:4) I further believe that the "sons of men" in Gen. 6 are a reference to these exact beings (fallen angels). I further believe they are no longer an issue since they are now in chains (in hell) awaiting judgment (Jude 1:6, 2 Pet. 2:4).

So my conclusion in why I believe they (the nephilim of Gen. 4:6) no longer exist is this: They were wiped out in the flood.

And my conclusion that "giants" (such as Goliath) still existed after the flood, and people such as those in the land of Canaan which the Israelies spied out) were not actually nephilim ("haN'filiym") but were like-unto (similar in appearance and stature) in Numbers 13:33 "min-haN'filiym" The "min" being an important adjective in this case. So those who look like nephilim (but aren't actually nephilim) still existed after the flood as well. And even to this day there are what we may also consider to be "giants" (many basketball stars, etc as an example... there are also hormonal dysfunctions which can cause gigantism as well).
Those people may LOOK reminiscent to a nephalim (and would be "min-haN'filiym") but they are actually NOT nephilim ("haN'filiym").

 

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Question #2 -- Why do you imply that the word "giants" ("n'philiym") does not mean "big/tall people"?

I do not contend that the word "giants" ( "haN'filiym") does, in fact, mean big/tall people (in part), however, as I stated above, it isn't JUST a reference to their stature (as it would have been in the case of Goliath who was NOT called  "haN'filiym".).  But I do contend that in the context of what I believe the "sons of God" to be what I would call the angels who revolted along with the devil. (And I do agree with your other post on another thread, that this revolt happened after creation, and I do not subscribe to the "gap" theory).  And in Gen 6:4 these "sons of God" "came in unto the daughters of men", and they procreated, "bare children to them", I believe it was an abomination to the Lord and He needed to wipe out that evilness from the face of the earth.  I further believe (and some contend on this point also) that Noah was "perfect in his generations" means that he was NOT contaminated by the evilness of what had occurred between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" in procreating unclean lineage. Noah was chosen out because of several reasons given in the Bible: #1. Noah's lineage was pure, and was traced all the way back to Adam (as I gave reference to in another post), #2. Noah was a just man (Gen.6:9), #3. Noah "walked with" God (Gen 6:9), #4 Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8), and #5. Noah was perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9)... and I believe that means MORE than just #1-#4, but that he (and his wife and offspring) were not contaminated by any lineage of the "sons of God" co-mingled with the "daughters of men".

And yes, I did refer brother John_81 to either pastor Markle or brother Alan for an explanation (even though it is contrary to my own understanding, not knowing prior to this that it WOULD be in contradiction since I cannot read minds), but nonetheless... my statement stands, and Pastor Markle has given his explanation. so now brother "John_81"now has an answer from pastor Markle (which is contrary to my own), but is the answer he desired. I am now (in this post) answering the questions pastor Markle put forth (to the best of my ability).I now know we disagree, but again since I (personally) do not believe any of those specific types of giants exist any longer ("haN'filiym"), I do not think the entire subject matters, even thought there ARE still those in existence those who look similar in stature/size (like unto) to them (min-haN'filiym as in Numbers 13), they are not the SAME thing as those referenced in Genesis 6 (haN'filiym). I hope I have answered satisfactorily as to the differences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ronda said:

 

"heartstrings" said as much above,here is what heartstrings said (in part): " The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are the named individuals of Genesis 5 who were also the first in the lineage of Christ. They are called "the sons of God" because they were believers."

OR the 2nd argument could be made (which would be my belief),
In Job 2:1 "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."
Is there any doubt here who the "sons of God" were in this instance? (I guess I shouldn't even ask this question on this forum since there will most likely be some who DO doubt the reference to the fallen angels).
I believe the "sons of God" in Job 2:1 are the same "sons of God" in Gen.4:6, and I believe in both instances it is a reference to the angels who also revolted along with the devil...........

 

 

The sons of God in Job 2:1 were believers as well, and they included brother Job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...