Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The Bible uses figurative language. But that is no justification for eliminating any and all literal references on a whim. This is the sort of interpretation which dominated biblical study in late antiquity and the middle ages, and its pretty much pointless. This would make a good sermon, I suppose, and might be an acceptable application of the passage, but it is not a proper interpretation. Just because the earth doesn't have foundations in the same way that man-made buildings do does not mean that Job 38 is not talking about the earth at all! The language is figurative, yes. But it is clearly talking about the earth because it says so - the passage makes little sense otherwise.

Love,
Madeline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

If there was other symbolic terminology in that passage, you might be able to say the foundations was also symbolical - but the fact is other passages dealing with creation ALSO refer to the foundations of the earth. Even other places in the NT refer to the creation week in those terms.

Besides, if it was symbolical, where is the actual foundation laying it is symbolic of? The other symbols used in the Bible all refer to actual people or events, and use that as the springboard for the symbol that is used at a later time. For example, Babylon is an actual literal city, but is used in Revelation symbolically - the symbol being used to show that endtime Babylon would be similar to real Babylon in certain ways. Same with Gog and Magog in Revelation 20 referring back to the real Gog and Magog in the book of Ezekiel.

Where is the literal declaration of foundations of the earth being laid - if these are supposedly symbolical?

Besides, it is not referring to day one, but day three - as a comparison with Job 28, Psalm 104, and Genesis 1 shows. The foundations of the earth is referring to the continents, when the land masses were separated from the water. There was a very literal time when that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If there was other symbolic terminology in that passage, you might be able to say the foundations was also symbolical - but the fact is other passages dealing with creation ALSO refer to the foundations of the earth. Even other places in the NT refer to the creation week in those terms.

Besides, if it was symbolical, where is the actual foundation laying it is symbolic of? The other symbols used in the Bible all refer to actual people or events, and use that as the springboard for the symbol that is used at a later time. For example, Babylon is an actual literal city, but is used in Revelation symbolically - the symbol being used to show that endtime Babylon would be similar to real Babylon in certain ways. Same with Gog and Magog in Revelation 20 referring back to the real Gog and Magog in the book of Ezekiel.

Where is the literal declaration of foundations of the earth being laid - if these are supposedly symbolical?

Besides, it is not referring to day one, but day three - as a comparison with Job 28, Psalm 104, and Genesis 1 shows. The foundations of the earth is referring to the continents, when the land masses were separated from the water. There was a very literal time when that happened.


How do you know "foundations" were continents? Wouldn't islands have foundations too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All those of you who actually consider a "rat's rear end" to be offensive language please grow up. :cool
Although I can appreciate the sanctimonious rebuttal, I am sure some of you have far worse on your living room TV every day.

Here is a Wiki reference page to the Book of Enoch...
Certainly not an inspired Biblical reference, but interesting reading with regard to the topic:

The first section of the book depicts the interaction of the fallen angels with mankind; S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Parrish' date=' If I was the pastor of your church or one of the parents of the kids you teach, you wouldn't be teaching my kids' Sunday school class, using vulgar language like that.[/quote']

Don't worry---I reserve that kind of language for sanctimonious brethren who think they know everything about the Bible. :Green
I tried being nice with you gents, we can get back to that if you want, choice is yours... but you'll have to start by admitting you could be wrong about the Sons of God. See I actually admitted I could be wrong earlier, but the fact is, I have a real problem with intolerant Bible experts who get dogmatic about gray areas. NOW, HOW ABOUT STICKING TO THE TOPIC AND LEAVING ME OUT OF IT. :cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Dearest Bro Jerry,
When doing research, have you never LOOKED AT archaelogical evidence, any unbelievers' writings or other references BESIDES the Bible? Are you serious?

And might I add, all I have proposed from the start is gathering information on my study with regard to the Nephilim, some of us are actually in agreement here, I think we can see who is "debating." It wasn't ME who stated what another member thought about this was SCIENCE FICTION, now was it? I suggest that everyone keep an open mind---and seriously, if anyone doesn't have anything to add about the GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim, consider buzzing off, I promise you won't hurt my feelings and I'm sure we can regroup with joy on another topic later. :thumb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jerry80871852, here is an interesting article on the "Sons of God," also draws a distinction between the Nephilim and Giborem...
I thought it was funny this Jewish fellow actually believes the same way I do about Matthew 22:30... imagine that!

Sons Of God...Sethites Or Fallen Angels?
"The following article is only a portion of a Biblical study on Demonology: The Doctrine of Fallen Angels- Dr. A.G. Fruchtenbaum. Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Messianic Jewish believer and founder of http://www.ariel.org in San Antonio Texas. He comes from a family line of Levite Priest (father and grandfather) and has knowledge of scripture that is just uncanny, nonetheless having become a believer in Christ at a young age, his father threw him out of the house for converting from Judaism to Christianity at the age of 17 or 18..."
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum ... =23&t=1327

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here is an excellent article on THE SONS OF GOD and the Nephilim...
well thought-out and well presented... :thumb

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men
(Genesis 6:1-8)
By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

"I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.
This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ?sons of God,? it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the godly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ?in Satan?s pocket,? Satan knew from God?s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood..."
http://www.bible.org/author.php?author_id=9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
All those of you who actually consider a "rat's rear end" to be offensive language please grow up. :cool
Although I can appreciate the sanctimonious rebuttal, I am sure some of you have far worse on your living room TV every day.


Umm...actually no, we don't in this house. Eph 4:29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

<>

I consider that is not very reflective of Christ to use such words. Why reserve that language for anyone? It should not come out of a saved person's mouth. It does not add no creadblity at all to what you post, but just the opposite.

I do find that offensive. I rightly don't want to get over it. I do not care to see that type of language used on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find that offensive. I rightly don't want to get over it. I do not care to see that type of language used on this board.


:amen: I personally lean toward the fallen angel theory so it isn't that I disagree with the basics of what he is saying, but vulgarity is out of place for a Christian and certainly adds nothing beneficial to the discussion...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...