Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ronda said:

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.

Where do you get that from?   God destroyed the world in the flood because it was full of violence.

 

Luke 3:38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brethren,

I have been following this thread and have not responded for a few reasons.

1. John Young covered this issue of Genesis 6:1-7 very throughly in his thread, "The sons of God were not Angels."

    Here is that link: http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23268-the-sons-of-god-are-not-the-angels/#comment-403605

2. I completley agree with Pastor Markle and his interpretation. Pastor markle is doing an excellent job and I do not want to detract from his teaching.

3. I had already made a passing remark on this issue in the Revelation thread.

Here is that link: http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23115-revelation-chapter-19-22-study/?page=3

4. This thread was originally concerning, "The Kingdom," now it is on Genesis 6:1-9; "The sons of God and angels." Maybe we got off-topic? :15huh: 

Edited by Alan
added reason # 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not understanding how people take the simple, stand-alone phrase, "And there were giants in those days;" to mean anything other than "There were giants in those days."

Chances are, EVERYONE were giants. I have speculated that people who have 'gigantism', are actually a throwback to that giant-potential that we all have in our DNA. Notice that people with gigantism often continue to grow through their normally short lives. Why? If they lived say 200 years, 500 years, might they stop growing much later than their 'normal' short fellows?

See, I believe that the potential is there in everyone. That when we lived 800-900 years, we didn't stop growing at 18-20 like we do now, but maybe 50-60-100 years. But see, today, people who have gigantism suffer because of the difference in the atmospheric pressure and oxygen content today, and so their bodies can't handle the size. But when there was 50% more oxygen, they COULD survive much heartier.

And in the context, the wording does not attach the giants to the sons of God and daughters of Men, specifically. It is a statement in itself, and then a statement about the SOG and DOM and their offspring, but is says "And also after that," clearly separate.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

And in the context, the wording does not attach the giants to the sons of God and daughters of Men, specifically. It is a statement in itself, and then a statement about the SOG and DOM and their offspring, but is says "And also after that," clearly separate.

   

Yes, the 'giants' clause, in Genesis 6:4 is followed by a semicolon, meaning it's separate but related. Remember that Moses was writing this prior to the Israelites' entering Canaan. "Giants" were greatly feared militarily at that time whereas today, size of a soldier is not an issue. But as a pre-Canaan-dwelling Israelite might read this Genesis 6:4 account, the mention of the "giants" would have the same effect that the "evil report" did in Numbers 13:32-33: It was about military might. The "also after that" clause which follows the semicolon, is definitely telling us that God's people were aligning themselves in response to the existence of these giants. I think they were making political alliances with the world(marrying the daughters of men) growing very large tribes/nations(all the "begetting" in Genesis 5) and becoming economically and militarily powerful in response to the threat and violence of the time. Maybe there was an "arms race" like in modern times.

 

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister Ronda,

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronda said:

The word "N'filiym" is related to the verb series "to fall" (naphal) in Hebrew. It also denotes a "bully" or "tyrant."

Actually, the etymology for the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" is somewhat uncertain.  However, the best possibility is (as you indicated) the word family of the Hebrew verb "naphal."  Indeed, the basic meaning of the Hebrew verb "naphal" is "to fall," with usages such as "to fall down, to fall away, to fall upon, to fall out, etc."  The noun form of "n'philiym" appears then either to carry the meaning of "those who have fallen away in rebellion and apostasy" or of "those who fall upon others with attacking and violence."
 

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronda said:

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.)

I am not exactly certain as to why you brought Goliath into the discussion, since I did not at all mention Goliath, but did only reference those Old Testament passages wherein the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" is to be found (that is -- only in Genesis 6:4 and in Numbers 13:33).
 

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronda said:

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)

The problem with your above presentation is that the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" is employed TWICE in Numbers 13:33.  Now, with the second of these times the prepositional prefix "min" is indeed included.  However, with the first of these times that prepositional prefix is NOT included with the word, which means that your distinction between the terminology of Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 is NOT valid.  In Genesis 6:4 God's Word indicates, "There were giants ["n'philiym" without the prefix "min"] in the earth in those days."  The opening statement of Numbers 13:33 reveals the report of the spies that they saw in the land of Canaan "the giants [also "n'philiym" without the prefix "min"]."  The comparison of the Hebrew terminology in these two statements does NOT indicate that what the spies saw in the land of Canaan was something similar to that which existed at the time of Genesis 6:4.  Rather, the comparison of the Hebrew terminology in these two statements indicates that what the spies saw in the land of Canaan was the exact same thing as that which existed at the time of Genesis (however those "n'philiym" are to be defined). 

So then, what is the meaning of the Hebrew noun "n'philiym," that includes the prepositional prefix "min," in its second usage in Numbers 13:33?  On the one hand, grammatically the first usage of the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" in Numbers 13:33 serves as the direct object for the verb "saw."  On the other hand, grammatically the second usage of the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" in Numbers 13:33, with which the prepositional prefix "min" is included, serves as the object of the preposition "min."  As such, grammatically the prepositional phrase "min-n'philiym" serves as an adjective phrase that modifies the phrase, "the sons of Anak."  Now, the Hebrew preposition "min" is related to the Hebrew noun "men," which carries the basic meaning of "a part of, a portion of."  Even so, the basic meaning for the Hebrew preposition "min" is "out of, out from, away from;" and this preposition indicates, not a similar likeness, but a part (sub-set) out of, out from, away from the whole.  Therefore, the meaning of the Hebrew prepositional phrase "min-n'philiym" ("of the giants") in Numbers 13:33, being a modifier for the phrase, "the sons of Anak," indicates that "the sons of Anak" were a sub-set part out of the whole set of the "n'philiym"  ("the giants").  As such, this does NOT indicate "the sons of Anak" were similar with a likeness to the "n'philiym."  Rather, this indicates that "the sons of Anak" were A VERY PART OF the "n'philiym."  Thus God's own Word reveals that the "n'philiym" still existed at the time of Numbers 13:33.
 

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronda said:

The word  "N'filiym" is related to the verb series "to fall" (naphal) in Hebrew. And so I would ask to fall from what?

Yet as I have presented above the possible connection of the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" to the Hebrew verb "naphal" provides two possibilities for its meaning -- either (1)  "those who have fallen away in rebellion and apostasy" or (2) "those who fall upon others with attacking and violence."  Therefore, before you can legitimately discard one of these possibilities, it is necessary that you should demonstrate through grammatical, contextual, or Biblical evidence that one of the possibilities is more favorable than the other.  Now, I myself would contend that the matter of violence is more central to the contexts of both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33, than is the matter of rebellion.  Furthermore, I would contend that the inclusion of Numbers 13:32 as the context for Numbers 13:33 actually reveals that being of "a great stature" IS the primary thrust of the noun "n'philiym," not being in a "fallen" condition.

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronda said:

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.

Except that "min" is not a Hebrew adjective, but is a Hebrew preposition, even as I have presented above.  Except that this Hebrew preposition does NOT mean "similar, like," but means a part "out of, out from, away from" the whole, even as I have presented above.  Except that in its first usage Numbers 13:33 DOES use the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" without the preposition prefix "min," in order to describe those whom the spies saw in the land of Canaan.

Sister Ronda, I wish graciously to point out that while you have attempted to demonstrate a distinct difference between the Hebrew "n'philiym" and "min-n'philiym," you have actually revealed a complete misunderstanding concerning Hebrew grammar.  Furthermore, I would present that the original translators of the King James translation were far, far, far, far superior to myself in their understanding of the Hebrew; and that which they translated in both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 does provide a precisely accurate rendering in English, including the usage of the English word "giants" for both verses.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Still not understanding how people take the simple, stand-alone phrase, "And there were giants in those days;" to mean anything other than "There were giants in those days."

The original Hebrew word is nephilim.  The (Greek) Septuagint translated nephilim to gigantes (as well as the Latin Vulgate). Gigantes does not strictly mean "giant", but rather great strength and aggression. Perhaps it would have been better to just leave the Hebrew word "untranslated" rather than use the Septuagint to aid in the translation.  Sons of God mated with human women and produced nephilim.  Pretty straight-forward to me and I don't have to "wrestle" with the scriptures like Augustine and the early Catholic Church.

Edited by beameup

Share this post


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

The original Hebrew word is nephilim.  The (Greek) Septuagint translated nephilim to gigantes (as well as the Latin Vulgate). Gigantes does not mean "giant".  It would been better to just leave the Hebrew word "untranslated" rather than use the Septuagint to aid in the translation.  Sons of God mated with human women and produced nephilim.  Pretty straight-forward to me and I don't have to "wrestle" with the scriptures like Augustine and the early Catholic Church.

And the original Hebrew word "nephilim" ("n'philiym") is also found in Numbers 13:33, where the joining context of Numbers 13:32 indicates that these individuals were defined as "men [men, not hybrids] of a great stature."  Which truth I have presented in earlier posting in this very thread; however, it must be remembered that Brother "Beameup" has blocked my postings from his observation and awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the OP

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.  Exodus 19:5-6
 
 

ezekielland_mil.gif

Share this post


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

And the original Hebrew word "nephilim" ("n'philiym") is also found in Numbers 13:33, where the joining context of Numbers 13:32 indicates that these individuals were defined as "men [men, not hybrids] of a great stature."  Which truth I have presented in earlier posting in this very thread; however, it must be remembered that Brother "Beameup" has blocked my postings from his observation and awareness.

So are you saying that born again Christians (aka sons of God) marrying and having children with unsaved women (aka daughters of men) will produce offspring 9 to 15 feet tall?  Because that's the stature of the giants in the bible.

Edited by Critical Mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sons of God did not produce the giants; they were contemporaries with them. The only recorded height of a giant, in the Word of God is "six cubits and a span". A cubit is distance from your elbow to the tip of your finger, which is an average of about 18" and a "span" is the width of your open-stretched hand, which is about 8" I think.. This would make Goliath around 9' 8" tall. The only other person in recorded history which compared to that was Robert Wadlow, who stood 8' 11" and was still growing when .he died at age 22. So the height of 9" 8" is not far-fetched, but 15 definitely is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, beameup said:

Back to the OP

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.  Exodus 19:5-6
 
 

ezekielland_mil.gif

Note that their is no mention of "priest", "priests", or "priesthood" in any of the Epistles of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Stealing someone else' promises (Israel) and misapplying them to yourself (Body of Christ) is false-teaching.

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.  Exodus 19:6a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,  2 Samuel 7:8-10
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, beameup said:

The original Hebrew word is nephilim.  The (Greek) Septuagint translated nephilim to gigantes (as well as the Latin Vulgate). Gigantes does not strictly mean "giant", but rather great strength and aggression. Perhaps it would have been better to just leave the Hebrew word "untranslated" rather than use the Septuagint to aid in the translation.  Sons of God mated with human women and produced nephilim.  Pretty straight-forward to me and I don't have to "wrestle" with the scriptures like Augustine and the early Catholic Church.

God created each creature to reproduce after their kind. Angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans are of different kinds, created with different purposes, and do not reproduce. I'm sorry, they do not, they cannot.

Share this post


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

Note that their is no mention of "priest", "priests", or "priesthood" in any of the Epistles of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Stealing someone else' promises (Israel) and misapplying them to yourself (Body of Christ) is false-teaching.

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.  Exodus 19:6a

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev 1:4-6)  Written by John the Apostle to the churches. Kings and priests.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9&10)  Those redeemed of God from ALL kindred and tongue and people and nation, made kings and priests, to reign on the earth."  

Israel was made to be a holy nation, a nation of kings and priests to God, and so they were for some 1500 years until Christ came and they rejected their Messiah.   This is not to say all promises have been taken away from them-certainly there will be a remnant saved of Israel, but that promise to be a nation of kings and priests was given and fulfilled, and subsequently rejected by them when they rejected the expected Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

God created each creature to reproduce after their kind. Angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans are of different kinds, created with different purposes, and do not reproduce. I'm sorry, they do not, they cannot.

Another good point and in addition:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It is logical to believe that angels were created individually and not through procreation as indicated in Matt 22:30 and Mark.

Without procreation it would be logical to believe there would be no need of genitals, hormones or sex. Fallen angels may be different but there is no indication of this in Scripture.

There is just too many clues against the devil/human hybrid theory. Although it is strangely fascinating to imagine, it makes the least Scriptural sense among theories IMO. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

God created each creature to reproduce after their kind. Angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans are of different kinds, created with different purposes, and do not reproduce. I'm sorry, they do not, they cannot.

Are you sure extraterrestrials didn't reproduce with humans?

s-l300.jpg

tumblr_m7yp12J9Fq1qcmlw4o1_500.jpg

Share this post


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

Another good point and in addition:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It is logical to believe that angels were created individually and not through procreation as indicated in Matt 22:30 and Mark.

Without procreation it would be logical to believe there would be no need of genitals, hormones or sex. Fallen angels may be different but there is no indication of this in Scripture.

There is just too many clues against the devil/human hybrid theory. Although it is strangely fascinating to imagine, it makes the least Scriptural sense among theories IMO. 

 

We had a pastor once, who when teaching this stuff, would say that this only counted for the angels "In heaven". But as he would say, the ones which came to earth "cohabited with women" even though the Bible says "took them wives".  I guess maybe it makes the story more fascinating for some people.

Share this post


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

We had a pastor once, who when teaching this stuff, would say that this only counted for the angels "In heaven". But as he would say, the ones which came to earth "cohabited with women" even though the Bible says "took them wives".  I guess maybe it makes the story more fascinating for some people.

As angels are spirit beings, I cannot see how they can marry anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev 1:4-6)  Written by John the Apostle to the churches. Kings and priests.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9&10)  Those redeemed of God from ALL kindred and tongue and people and nation, made kings and priests, to reign on the earth."  

Israel was made to be a holy nation, a nation of kings and priests to God, and so they were for some 1500 years until Christ came and they rejected their Messiah.   This is not to say all promises have been taken away from them-certainly there will be a remnant saved of Israel, but that promise to be a nation of kings and priests was given and fulfilled, and subsequently rejected by them when they rejected the expected Messiah.

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly".  Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].  Synagogues are called an "assembly".  You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect".  You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

Edited by beameup

Share this post


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

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly".  Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].  Synagogues are called an "assembly".  You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect".  You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

John was a Christian and a Hebrew.  He was part of Israel and part of the Church.  God has only one group of elect, believers in all ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, beameup said:

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly".  Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].  Synagogues are called an "assembly".  You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect".  You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

unless my memory is faulty, there was only once that the word 'church' was used to indicate anything BUT the New testament churches, and that was when speaking of the church in the wilderness, the children of Israel in their wanderings. It fit the general description as a called-out assembly, being the Hebrews called out of Egypt.

Apart from that, the term church always refers to the body of Christ, the New Testament local churches, and the context is quite clear that this is to whom those seven letters are addressed. At this point, the synagogues had rejected Jesus and God completely-why would we assume their candlesticks were in place? And are you intimating that the synagogue at Philadelphia was doing things so perfectly that the Lord had nothing but commendation for them? A synagogue full of Jews who had rejected Jesus?  No, I think you're reeeeally reaching here.  The churches are those to whom these seven letters are written, though as a whole, they and the entire book are written to him that has an ear to hear.

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, 461 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...