Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim


Brother Parrish
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I have been doing a study on giants in ancient history, sometimes referred to as the Nephilim of the Bible (Numbers 13:32-33, Genesis 6:1-4), Sons of Anak, The Anakim, "Mound builders," Rephaim, The Adena, Ronnongwetowanca, or the Watchers. I am finding a lot of obscure references to old bones from all over the world---in Europe, Asia and North and South America, some of these refer to skeletons 10, 15, 25 feet and even bigger.

Of course some of these are going to be mere hoaxes (like the photoshopped giant human skeleton found in Saudi Arabia) and/or legends, but it is interesting that so many cultures have made mention of these giant men, the Nephilim, in ancient times, living all over the world.

One of the common traits seem to be "double rows of teeth" in some of the skulls, but I cannot seem to find any physical existing examples of those. Many of these references are from the 1800's or early 1900's, and several are from what is now the Ohio River Valley and New York. Anyone who has more information on the Nephilim, please let me know, here are a few links I have at least partially explored...


http://bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm

http://www.nwcreation.net/nephilim.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/830123/posts

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94629FD7CF

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0a.htm

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/charts/charts.html

http://www.geocities.com/age_of_giants/ ... lders.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html

http://paranormal.about.com/od/mysterio ... 060605.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/giants.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ton_2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Double rows of teeth?!

Anyway my dad who studies Creation believes that before the flood, with the absense of harmful UV rays and the increased atmospheric pressure caused by the water vapor canopy, that everything--plants, animals, and even humans--were able to grow much bigger. You can see many insects and reptiles that were huge back then....fruit that was huge...and archaeology and Bible references point to men who were huge as well.

Probably a mix of leftover genetics from antediluvian times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What about giants in modern history?
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of people aflicted with abnormal giantism even in modern times.
Do you suppose there were pituitary giants before the flood? Well...let's see...the human race was already cursed, people got diseases, there was most likely cancer, heart disease, genetic defects and hormonal anomalies....

Pituitary giantism
What do you suppose folks with growth hormone defects were called "in the earth in those days"??
Then you have groups like the Philistines with a population of untold thousands...what would be the chance of some individuals being aflicted with pituitary problems? Would one man say..."behold, there goeth a giant"? And another answer "Nay, he hath but a pituitary condition"? Of course not. If somebody like Robert Wadlow had lived in Biblical times, he would have simply been considered a "giant".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow
http://zhzh.info/news/2006-09-29-435

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are many other factors that contribute to how tall people become.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/ ... KL00.shtml

The Dutch are the world's tallest people thanks to their nation's health and wealth

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, Sep. 15, 2006
By ARTHUR MAX Associated Press Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Most of us are taller than our parents, who probably are taller than their parents. But in the Netherlands, the generational progression has reached new heights.

In the last 150 years, the Dutch have become the tallest people on Earth _ and experts say they're still getting bigger. It is a tale of a nation's health and wealth.

Prosperity propelled the collective growth spurt that began in the mid-1800s and was only interrupted during the harsh years of the Nazi occupation in the 1940s _ when average heights actually declined.

With their protein-rich diet and a national health service that pampers infants, the Dutch are standing taller than ever. The average Dutchman stands just over 6 feet, while women average nearly 5-foot-7.

Ask Pieter Gijselaar about the problems of the very tall.

At more than 6-feet-10 1/2, he spends a lot of time ducking through doorways and guarding against minor head injuries. In an economy-class airline seat, he only fits in the emergency exit row. He had to have the seat of his Volkswagen Golf specially fitted and blocks put under the legs to raise his office desk.

But Gijselaar, a 28-year-old real estate agent, says he has it easier than his father, who is 6-foot-5.

"Buying clothes and shoes is not a problem anymore. You can always find stores that sell large sizes," he said. "But it's not cheap. I don't get any discounts off the rack."

Though people tend to stare, Gijselaar says being head, shoulders and trunk above everyone else makes an impression. "People don't forget me. If you meet me a year from now, you'll remember who I am."

The Dutch were not noted for their height until recently. It was only in the 1950s that they passed the Americans, who stood tallest for most of the last 200 years, said John Komlos, a leading expert on the subject who is professor of economic history at the University of Munich in Germany. He said the United States has now fallen behind Denmark.

Many Dutch are much taller than average. So many, in fact, that four years ago the government adjusted building codes to raise the standards for door frames and ceilings. Doors must now be 7-feet, 6 1/2-inches high.

For years, the Dutch national air carrier had an agreement with the Tall People's Club to give preference to club members for front seats with extra leg room. The airline scrapped the deal last year because of complaints of discrimination by more normal-sized people, club spokesman Paul van Sprundel said.

Though that was a setback, the national railway did ask the club to try out seats for new railway cars.

"More and more people are becoming aware of our needs," Van Sprundel said.

The club has a membership of 2,000 individuals and families, or about 4,500 people including children. But Van Sprundel said the requirements are minimal, to conform with similar clubs in other countries _ about 6-foot-3 for men and 5-foot-11 for women.

By those standards, he estimates about 800,000 people would qualify in this country of 16 million.

It wasn't always this way.

In 1848, one man out of four was rejected by the Dutch military because he was shorter than 5-foot-2. Today, fewer than one in 1,000 is that short.

George Maat, an anthropologist at Leiden University Medical Center, cites a study done in 1861 correlating the height of conscripts to the availability and price of rye, then the main food crop. One year after a poor crop, the number of men rejected as too short shot up.

Height appears to come naturally with the territory. Two thousand years ago, the men of the Low Countries stood about 5-foot-9 _ tall for the age _ and were enlisted as guards for the Roman emperor, Maat said.

Average heights declined over the next 1,800 years as food supply failed to keep pace with population growth and people moved into disease-ridden cities, said Maat. He spoke from his office, cluttered with leg bones and skulls, overlooking a grassy quadrangle that is the burial site of thousands killed by plague in 1635.

Even during the 17th century, when Amsterdam was the world's richest city, wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few merchants and average height did not increase.

It took until World War I for the Dutch to regain the 4 inches they lost over two millennia.

As lifestyles improve, Maat said the average height of a Dutch man could reach 6-foot-3 within 50 years. The influx of immigrants from North Africa may slow the growth rate, but their descendants could catch up in a few generations.

But wealth doesn't explain everything. Scandinavians, who are among the world's tallest people at 6 feet, are not getting taller on average, apparently hitting their genetic glass ceiling.

"With better food, Pygmies will increase in height, but you will never make Dutchmen out of them. It's just not there in the genes," Maat said.

"Since we are still on the move, we don't know where it's going to end," he said. "It's upward, yes, but how far upward we don't know."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think that before the flood human beings had the best of all living environments - the most vitamin and mineral enriched food, the freshest air, the purest water, etc and this contributed to them being really tall. The Dutch have shown that just this alone makes people taller.

However, there are still many tall tribes in the world today. God created them to be that way. The men are seven feet tall and are not considered abnormal. They do not suffer from hyperthoriodism or anything of that sort. They dont take steroids or growth hormones to make them big either. They are just naturally TALL.

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Afric ... rica1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I think that before the flood human beings had the best of all living environments - the most vitamin and mineral enriched food, the freshest air, the purest water, etc and this contributed to them being really tall. The Dutch have shown that just this alone makes people taller.

However, there are still many tall tribes in the world today. God created them to be that way. The men are seven feet tall and are not considered abnormal. They do not suffer from hyperthoriodism or anything of that sort. They dont take steroids or growth hormones to make them big either. They are just naturally TALL.

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Afric ... rica1.html


Absolutely.
There were undoubtedly whole people groups then who were "giants" just as there are today. That would account for the ones in the Bible.
The "angel hybrid" proponents not only have to take this into account, but also the occurence of pituitary giants cannot be ruled out.
Like I pointed out, the ancients would not have stipulated that a person had a hormone problem; a person with pituitary giantism would have been called one of the "giants".
So, unless the "angels" did more "cohabiting" :loco .....AFTER the flood, both Goliath of Gath and king Og may have had this condition. Robert Wadlow was just short of 9' tall when he died at 22, and doctors said that he probably had not finished growing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Like I pointed out, the ancients would not have stipulated that a person had a hormone problem; a person with pituitary giantism would have been called one of the "giants"....
both Goliath of Gath and king Og may have had this condition. Robert Wadlow was just short of 9' tall when he died at 22, and doctors said that he probably had not finished growing.


One thing to note is that pituitary giantism today often tends to be crippling. If I recall Robert Wadlow was mostly confined to a weelchair. A considerable contrast to goliath who was "a man of war from his youth". Even big guys aren't going to make it in battle without plenty of speed and good reflexes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average height of Americans tends to be somewhat taller than most other nations, even though Americans are descended from numerous other cultures. Our access to diet and other health benefits could be a factor. The average height has been increasing on the past few years, so it could reasonably be argued that people back then were somewhat smaller, but more than a half a dozen inches short would be fairly implausible.

There, today, exists tribes in Africa with great height (averaging around 7 feet) and small stature (averaging around 4 feet). So it's also reasonable that a tall race of people could have existed in the levant at some point in history, but the Bible mentions them more as random occurances rather than people groups. Even Goliath's family, while mentioned, were not mentioned as being tall.

But there is another factor to consider. When groups have a genetically closed society for a long length of time, that particular gene pool takes on an intersting property. While bad genes get bred out, good genes don't necessarily get bred in. the result is that while they survive, they tend to be somewhat weakened. However, when two such groups get together and intermarry, their immediiate descendants have remarkable genetic strength. Excamples are the hybrid vigor found in mongrol dogs and the strength and endurance of the thorougbred horse, which is a cross between two genetically closed horse types.

When the sons of God (Seth's descendants) intermarried with the daugters of men (Cain's descendants) "men of reknown" were produced. That was the first mention of that phenomenon. The fallacious idea of genetic purity has haunted societies for millenia, and when those societies eventually intermarry woth other groups, traits emerge that were hidden before. It's very conceivable that such an event could produce giants of the stature mentioned in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


One thing to note is that pituitary giantism today often tends to be crippling. If I recall Robert Wadlow was mostly confined to a weelchair. A considerable contrast to goliath who was "a man of war from his youth". Even big guys aren't going to make it in battle without plenty of speed and good reflexes.


That's a good point. But there is no doubt that many guys like Robert Wadlow existed back then and would have been called "giants".
There are quite a few pro basketball players and a few pro wrestlers who are huge guys too.

I agree with you Danny: the sons of God were descendents of Seth. I also believe that sons of God are believers throughout the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, I guess you all might be correct, but it strikes me that those are mostly very naturalistic views.
I think the giants of the Bible were not merely tall tribes or victims of hormone issues, but a GLOBAL RACE of violent creatures unlike anything seen today, and they hold a key to understanding the fall of man, and also the reason for the destruction of the entire population of the planet. The word NEPHILIM means FALLEN ONES, and Israel was instructed to kill them all for a reason! They don't strike me as basketball players. That should stir the pot, lol... :thumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Wow, I guess you all might be correct, but it strikes me that those are mostly very naturalistic views.
I think the giants of the Bible were not merely tall tribes or victims of hormone issues, but a GLOBAL RACE of violent creatures unlike anything seen today, and they hold a key to understanding the fall of man, and also the reason for the destruction of the entire population of the planet. The word NEPHILIM means FALLEN ONES, and Israel was instructed to kill them all for a reason! They don't strike me as basketball players. That should stir the pot, lol... :thumb


The Bible says the earth was destroyed by a flood....
Now I'm going to give you the reason...
I KNOW the reason without a shadow of a doubt...
Are you ready for this???
Here goes...
>
>
>
>
>
>

because the "wickedness of MAN was great"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I think the giants of the Bible were not merely tall tribes or victims of hormone issues' date=' but a GLOBAL RACE of violent creatures unlike anything seen today, and they hold a key to understanding the fall of man, and also the reason for the destruction of the entire population of the planet.[/quote']

Creatures? The Bible teaches they were men. If you are trying to indicate that the sons of God were fallen angels, and therefore their "offspring" was mutated - the passage indicates the giants were there BEFORE the sons of God intermarried with the daughters of men.



Actually, they were instructed specifically to kill ALL the Canaanites - and a study of their religion and practices shows how evil they were as a whole. They had gotten to the point where they were now ripe for God's judgment:

Genesis 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Seems Americans have plenty to eat, but it seems the majority are getting broader more so than taller.

I'm just a bit over 5' 10', back in the early 90's when I met some of my birth family for the first time, one of my cousins asked me how I got so tall. Seems most that were on my mothers side of the family were all shorter than my 5' 10".

I noticed this with the kitten we have. We got it from a mother cat and Linda's dads. When we got it all of the kittens were the same size at Thanksgiving. Now the mother has just one left, its quite a bit larger than the one we have which I have been feeding it kitten cat food.

Maybe mothers milk grows stronger and larger cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


The Bible says the earth was destroyed by a flood....
Now I'm going to give you the reason...
I KNOW the reason without a shadow of a doubt...
Are you ready for this???
Here goes...
>
>
>
>
>
>

because the "wickedness of MAN was great"

Sarcastic, but cute.
Yes, I think it is possible the Nephilim corrupted everything and it's possible they were extremely violent!
"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." Gen 6:11
"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Gen 6:13

Many cultures around the world have at least some primitive record of these giants, did you take a look at the links I provided in post no. 1? I'm not talking about flying saucers here, I'm just saying I think it's very possible that these giants were a much bigger part of the antediluvian earth than many people realize! You don't want to believe it fine, but try and have an open mind. Some believe the Nephilim have left their handiwork all around the world in ancient ruins...

The fact is, there are cut stone pieces on mountains in Bolivia that weigh over 900 TONS, located at an elevation of over 12,000 feet. There is a giant wharf in Puma Punka with one cut stone at 440 TONS. Cutting and moving material this size and weight would be questionable even with today's technology, you can read about that here:
http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/bol ... anaco.html

The ruins of Baalbek in Lebanon contains the amazing 1000 TON Stone of the South, which weighs approximately as much as three Boeing 747 aircraft, along with the Trilithon---giant granite stones beautifully fitted together at a height of 20 feet above present ground level. These cut stones are fitted so tightly that you cannot fit a knife or even a needle between them, and it would be a serious challenge for even today's engineers to move something like that even a short distance, you can read about the Trilithon of Baalbek here:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5b3.htm

Again, I am not a stupid person, all I am suggesting is there are some things in the ancient world (like the Nephilim) which we have only begun to understand and may never really know about until the Lord shows us later. My study continues...

"...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." Numbers 13:32-33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Likewise, Boese said, the recent giant hoax "taps into people's desire for mystery and their desire to see concrete confirmation of religious legends."
Here's where the quote came from. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ton_2.html

The world laughs at us with good reason when we misinterpret the word of God and tell science FICTION stories...even from the pulpit. I once heard a preacher say that Goliath was 13 feet tall. Another told about angels "cohabiting" with women and dared you to disagree! Hate to break the news to you but angels did not "cohabit" with women. The Bible says "sons of God" MARRIED...did you read that?? They took WIVES. The bible says he that findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth favor of the Lord. I've got me one and I can tell you...the word of God is true. Did "fallen angels" obtain favour of the lord??


Giants were simply big MEN

2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of [great] stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

I once had a cat with extra toes on her feet....reckon she was descended from space aliens or angels? This man had six figers and six toes on all his limbs; That simply means he had birth defects. People today are born with this same condition. He didn't climb down the beanstalk and he didn't have angel DNA. He was the son of Goliath of Gath. How big was Goliath??? Read on.....

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.

"Six cubits and a span" happens to be about 9 1/2', give or take and inch or two. This is credible. Goliath was simply a very big man.
He was NOT an angel/human hybrid and he was only about six inches taller than Robert Wadlow.

Why don't we stick with the Word of God and leave the science fiction alone? I can find more than enough reality to amaze me without resorting to fantasy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Many cultures around the world have at least some primitive record of these giants, did you take a look at the links I provided in post no. 1? I'm not talking about flying saucers here, I'm just saying I think it's very possible that these giants were a much bigger part of the antediluvian earth than many people realize! You don't want to believe it fine, but try and have an open mind. Some believe the Nephilim have left their handiwork all around the world in ancient ruins...

The fact is, there are cut stone pieces on mountains in Bolivia that weigh over 900 TONS, located at an elevation of over 12,000 feet. There is a giant wharf in Puma Punka with one cut stone at 440 TONS. Cutting and moving material this size and weight would be questionable even with today's technology, you can read about that here:
http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/bol ... anaco.html


Biblical-giants book soars up charts
'The Nephilim' explains ancient pyramids, future events



All speculation about the origin of the Nephilim aside, there is some problem with assigning these feats of engineering to antediluvian (pre-flood) Nephilim. The Flood was a global, catastrophic event, which some scientists theorize would have reshaped the face of the earth, probably creating a lot of the mountains we see today. If that is the case, any mountain-top structures would have to be post-diluvian. Also, aren't the layers of sediment (and the fossils therein) considered by Creation scientists to be laid down by the flood? The Egyptian pyramids were largely created of limestone, which is a sedimentary rock. How could they be made before the Flood with rock created by the Flood?

I don't like to see such structures attributed to antediluvian anything, as such attributions seem to subtly undermine the actual vastness and effect of the Flood.

That being said, maybe they were built by post-Flood Nephilim! :wink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...