KJV mistranslates "nephilim" as "giants"?

[IM4given]

Someone said once that in all myths there is an element of truth. An example would be all the various accounts of the biblical flood throughout the world and in many cultures most of the story is bunk except for the part about the flood. I think this also goes for the giants (titans). Most ancient cultures talk about these giants even though they may embellish the stories with other myths.

Will

I am not doubting that there were giants in those days - the scripture clearly comes out and state that and archaeological evidence verifies it. What I am seriously doubting and deeply troubled by is the absolute insistence that they were the result of Angels and Humans interbreeding. That is the part about this whole discussion that makes not one shred of sense to me!

Why do giants HAVE to be the result of Angelic parentage? What makes it so? The Bible does not say that is true. Only by grasping at books that are not of divine inspiration and are based purley on pagan mythology can anyone come up with a good answer for this.

God created Angels and humans as two separate and distinctly different types of creatures. What is being touted as "biblical truth" here makes about as much sense to me as cats interbreeding with dogs. It cannot happen. It is a biological impossiblity. :loco

[IM4given]

Someone said once that in all myths there is an element of truth. An example would be all the various accounts of the biblical flood throughout the world and in many cultures most of the story is bunk except for the part about the flood. I think this also goes for the giants (titans). Most ancient cultures talk about these giants even though they may embellish the stories with other myths.

Wil

Are you now trying to say that the myths such as the following are based in truth????

Zeus (in Greek: nominative: ???? Ze

[Guest Guest]

Are you now trying to say that the myths such as the following are based in truth????

Zeus (in Greek: nominative: ???? Ze

[Calvary]

@ Janet

The number of angels is enormous. Jacob meets a host of angels; Joshua sees the "captain of the host of the Lord"; God sits on His throne, "all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on his left"; the sons of God come "to present themselves before the Lord" (Gen. xxxii. 2; Josh. v. 14, 15; I Kings, xxii. 19; Job, i. 6, ii. 1; Ps. lxxxix. 6; Job, xxxiii. 23). The general conception is the one of Job (xxv. 3): "Is there any number of his armies?" In the book of Revelation, the number is "a thousand thousands, and many tens of thousands

So you quote authors that you don't agree with? And I'm crazy?

I admit I sped read the article, but found a lot of errors in it Janet. It's usually suspect when a man just puts up ther efs without the verse in quotes. That means that you have to just believe him. This author has Exodus' burning bush as an angel. :puzzled:

There is nothing hateful about my last post sis, it's just that you said "I believe" a few too many times for me. So I figured you are your own authority.

@ Jerry,
Brother, I don't know why you get all worked up all the time. I said what I said understanding that you were talking about Genesis 19. It still doesn't matter what Lot thougt about the men that came to his house. We NOW know that they were angels. So WE understand that men wanted to have sex with them and that tells us that men who were perverts didn't think twice about their not being able to physically. That was the point of brother Kubel, and I still say amen, amen and amen. His was good posting. There is nothing in genesis 19 that would cause me to think that angels couldn't have had the sex. I'm not saying they did, but there is nothning to indicate that they were incapable of it.

GB,

Calvary

[IM4given]

There is nothing hateful about my last post sis, it's just that you said "I believe" a few too many times for me. So I figured you are your own authority.

When I say "I believe" something or "it is my belief" that does not mean I am my own authority. I merely mean that I believe what I believe because I have read my Bible and those are my conclusions based on what I have read there, and you are free to believe what ever it is that you believe. There is no need to get hateful or sarcastic on this thread.

When you ridicule me for my beliefs, then that sounds to me like you are making YOURSELF your own authority - You are not God and you did not write the Bible. Yet you twist the words of scripture to make them mean what ever it is that you think they mean. I do not make balloon animals out of scriptures, to do so is sacrilegious in my opinion. I do not invent my own doctrines, I just study and pray and use my mind to reach an greater understanding.

I have never asked anyone here to agree with my "exegesis" - I didn't even know what "exegesis" was until I came to this message board. If you do not like my logic, so what? I am not asking you to agree with anything I say or reach the same conclusions that I have reached. My one and only authority is the King James Bible. That is all that I have and all that I need.

I posted the articles only to show that there are people who have made a life time career out of studying angels, but they did not base their studies on scriptures, they based their studies on PAGANISM, and these paganistic theologies have been tightly interwoven into scripture, until one has difficulty distinguishing PAGANISM for BIBLE. Roman Catholicism is masterful at weaving these fanciful paganistic tales, if you do not believe just open up the Book of Traditions sometimes, and read what all they believe about angels.

Rather than speculate and conjecture about the true nature of angels, such as what gender they are, why not just go by what the Bible says that they really have no gender, and only APPEAR as males from time to time? Why make the huge leap of logic to create a doctrine that says angels intermarried with human beings, when there is no Bible to back that up? Why ridicule me for my belief that Angels are created beings of pure light, when I even presented scripture that says that is what they are? You honestly don't think that Angels look like Michael Landon or John Travolta in Halos do you? That is what Hollyweird would want you to believe. Do you really believe the way that Renaissance Painters depicted Angels during the Middle Ages? That was what the Roman Papacy would want you to believe. Are you saying that Religious Icons show the true nature of Angels? That is how the pagans reconciled themselves to incorporate their ideas of fairies into the idea of Angels. If you believe what the New Age movement thinks about Angels, then you can buy into Angels really being female such as those on the Television Program "Touched by an Angel."

Nope, I am NOT my own authority on these issues, Bro. Calvary. My only authority is what I read in the Holy Bible.

[heartstrings]

Calvary,

The term "sons of God" referrs to believers. You, nor anyone else has shown any scripture which defines a "son of God" as an angel. Absolutelu none. But you can find scripture to the contrary. "............unto which oif the angels.....thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?".
If God preserved His Word, for English speaking people, in the KJB, then the term, "sons of God", means the same thing in the OT as it does in the NT. I don't care what the greek or Hebrew says. If the King James is insufficient, then none of us have a leg to stand on.

And I don't detect the Spirit of God, in your sarcastic comments.

[Calvary]

Heb 1:5 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?

I hope you noticed the capital S, which by your typo disallows your verse as any proof text.


If you're going to stand on the KJB, then at least quote it correctly. The context of Hebrews 1 first of all has absolutely nada to do with the nature of angels or their titles. It has to do with the plain easy reading sense of Jesus is not an angel. Period.

But I am not surprised by the often mis applied scriptures and wrenched contexts you employ.

As far as my spirit, :zzzz

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment:

Rather than speculate and conjecture about the true nature of angels, such as what gender they are, why not just go by what the Bible says that they really have no gender, and only APPEAR as males from time to time? Why make the huge leap of logic to create a doctrine that says angels intermarried with human beings, when there is no Bible to back that up? Why ridicule me for my belief that Angels are created beings of pure light, when I even presented scripture that says that is what they are? You honestly don't think that Angels look like Michael Landon or John Travolta in Halos do you? That is what Hollyweird would want you to believe. Do you really believe the way that Renaissance Painters depicted Angels during the Middle Ages? That was what the Roman Papacy would want you to believe. Are you saying that Religious Icons show the true nature of Angels? That is how the pagans reconciled themselves to incorporate their ideas of fairies into the idea of Angels. If you believe what the New Age movement thinks about Angels, then you can buy into Angels really being female such as those on the Television Program "Touched by an Angel."

So I am to suppose that this type of sarcasm is Holy Spirit filled?

I guess it's all in who you agree with.

[heartstrings]

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time' date=' 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?

I hope you noticed the capital S, which by your typo disallows your verse as any proof text.

Calvary....does it say "For unto which of the angels saith he at any time, Thou art my only begotten Son??(why isn't "he" capitalized?)
And why might it use "a Son ", instead of "the Son"?

My friend, to be a son you must first be begotten.

If you're going to stand on the KJB, then at least quote it correctly. The context of Hebrews 1 first of all has absolutely nada to do with the nature of angels or their titles.

Maybe the context doesn't, but it seems to me that an angel can neither be the Son, nor a son. Or will you now say that they were sons alright.....God just didn't address them as such: "this day have I begotten thee".




It has to do with the plain easy reading sense of Jesus is not an angel. Period.

But I am not surprised by the often mis applied scriptures and wrenched contexts you employ.

Other than this one, please point out a few of mine. Lets's see....the book of Jude comes to mind. Angels went after strange flesh??? Did you use that one? Slips my mind. If so, I don't think you can use that one anymore.

As far as my spirit, :zzzz

Yes, You are sarcastic.

[Bakershalfdozen]

" 'round and 'round she goes and where she stops, nobody knows".

Seeing that we have yet another new thread on this topic...

Until next time.... (wonder how long that will take? Oops, pardon my sarcasm.)