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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I just found something very disturbing.
The link below has actual footage of a possible Nephilim descendent.
Though the features are strikingly angelic, I can't decide if this was inherited from the angel or "fair women" side. Anyway...view at your own risk. Please...if you are easily frightened or prone to having nightmares, DO NOT click on this link. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/774518/six_fingers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Advanced Member

The Giants in Gen 6 are not the offspring of the "sons of God and daughters of man".
All it does it mention that there where giants, then it goes on to talk about the SOGandDOM breeding. It's pretty easy to see they are not connected.

Also, the theory of genetically bottled tribes mixing it up and getting genetically strong children is very true. But we're talking about a generational gap of 4? 6 generations? That is not enough. We're also talking about pre-flood... Adam would of been genetically perfect, as well as Eve. (unless you think God makes flaws). We would not be talking about genetic problems for many generations.. so much so that it wasn't until Moses that God even told us to stop marrying siblings. The Genome was strong enough back then that brother and sister could marry and have no worries about the children.

Finally, the double row of teeth, this would of course just be a theory on a whim, but double the size of your teeth and imagine what they would look like. At a glance, it would look like you have 2 rows of teeth, and would require examination to see that no, it's just a really big tooth. I'm guessing if a 20' guy was running around in the woods by me, I wouldn't be interested in getting close enough to give him a check up. Of all the giant size bones I've read about, I've seen horns, tails, and other oddities, but never double row of teeth. Doesn't mean they didn't have em...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I just found something very disturbing.
The link below has actual footage of a possible Nephilim descendent.
Though the features are strikingly angelic, I can't decide if this was inherited from the angel or "fair women" side. Anyway...view at your own risk. Please...if you are easily frightened or prone to having nightmares, DO NOT click on this link. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/774518/six_fingers/


This is much more common then people know. Talk to someone who works maternity ward and they will tell you that when a baby comes out with extra digits, they take the baby out of the room, give it a quick snip, and never even tell the parents. I had someone tell me this and I found it kinda unbelievable. Not so much babies are born that way, but that a hospital would perform an operation on a newborn without letting the parents know. I had it confirmed though, and learned enough that if I ever have kids, they will not leave my sight until we are out of the hospital, no exception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
The fact is' date=' 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:[/quote']

I know how to move a 900 stone, by myself, without any power tools, anywhere you want it to go.

There is a guy in scotland right now, building his own stone henge. He's pouring 300 ton pillars of concrete. They are poured laying down, and not where he wants em. After they cure, he then moves them across his field, stands em up, and starts on the next one. He has yet to use any power tools.

When you grow up always having a dodge pick up, you start thinking that if your dodge can't handle it, then it can't be done. Back then people didn't have cranes and bulldozers, but they had other ways of doing things, and those ways where not limited by horsepower and cable strength.

Build a giant pyramid? ok... I could do it without anything but hand tools, but if you want it done in this life time I would ask that you give me lots and lots of slaves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We don't need giants to account for the moving and using of large stones. Check out the tonnage of the stones used in Solomon's temple and those used in the pyramids - we know ordinary MEN built these. We may not know 3-4000 years later HOW they built them, but we know they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
We don't need giants to account for the moving and using of large stones. Check out the tonnage of the stones used in Solomon's temple and those used in the pyramids - we know ordinary MEN built these. We may not know 3-4000 years later HOW they built them' date=' but we know they did.[/quote']

Yup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


I saw that on TV., or someone like him, moving humongous stones by himself using simple stuff. Image what a whole gang of men like that could move. The people on Easter Island weren't giants but they moved huge stones too.
I agree ,you don't need giants to move big stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


LOL, the world laughs at us even if we interpret the word of God properly, so your point is moot.
I do not let the WORLD determine my beliefs. As for the height of Goliath, depends on which CUBIT you are using, standard or forearm cubit, see here:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/cubit.htm



Dogmatic, I love it. You sound like the preachers you mock. But it makes you seem rude and there is no need for that here.
How was Mary impregnated? By a SPIRIT? Yes, she was.

Does it say married? My Bible says, "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." It is implied they procreated, but I do not see marriage.

LOL, the battle of men and the strange Nephilim which left their first estate, is perhaps more obvious if you have an open mind... is this not a forum for discussion, or merely dogmatic views on grey areas?

"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 5-7



Maybe, maybe more than simply big men. The Bible says, "they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." This sates they were men who were above others, in both size and ability. Could explain things like 900 ton cut stones on top of mountains. Maybe the gigantic offspring of women and demonic spirits, I sure don't know.
Funny thing, angels ALL APPEAR AS MEN in the Bible, and they still do today!
If you had an stranger next to you in the car he could be an angel and you wouldn't know it.
"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the MEN which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Gen 19:5

By the way, if you married an axe murdering wife, does that mean you found favor with God? Some men have done that you know. Let's not be so condescending.



See my notes above on the CUBITS.


More condescending behavior.
You may not realize it, but to some the idea of a God in heaven is SCIENCE FICTION.
I'm not one of them.
Look, it's my thread, science fiction or not, I'm not being dogmatic here and I think it's okay to explore some of these things, and if you get offended or anything, kindly buzz off and stop telling me how to think. You are sold on the idea that the ?sons of God? were descendants of Seth, we get it, and I can respect that. Aside from the fact that the "sons of God" is used exclusively of angels in the Old Testament, there IS ROOM for more than one opinion here, as clearly shown by open minded Christian authors who present not only YOUR view but also this:

"?Sons of God? is clearly used of angels in Job 38:7. The Septuagint (LXX) here translates ?sons of God? as ?angels of God.? This need not mean that evil angels, or demons, actually cohabited with women. Nevertheless, evil angels on earth could have used the bodies of ungodly men, by demonic possession, to achieve their evil purpose of producing an evil generation of people (Gen. 6:12).7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hilim9.asp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
We don't need giants to account for the moving and using of large stones. Check out the tonnage of the stones used in Solomon's temple and those used in the pyramids - we know ordinary MEN built these. We may not know 3-4000 years later HOW they built them' date=' but we know they did.[/quote']
Actually there are some structures which are still puzzling. Did you read this?
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5b3.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Does it say married? My Bible says, "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." It is implied they procreated, but I do not see marriage.


Then you need to back up a couple of verses and tell me what it says.

Genesis 6:1
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Bible says the "sons of God" took wives.
This would have been Seth, Enoch, Methuselah and the others. They were believers. Believers = sons of God.

And the book of Jude does not say angels went after strange flesh. Their sin was that they "despised dominion".
Sodom and Gomorrah went after strange flesh.

If "sons of God" meant angels, it certainly would have said so.
There are several direct definitons of "sons of God" in the Bible, and they are all referring to Believers.
There is absolutely no direct defintion of sons of God as angels. It only says "morning stars" sang together and "sons of God shouted for joy. Make what you want out of it. But are you absolutely sure it means what you might think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Correct you are, the Nephilim took wives down here on earth!
And notice in that same passage how it carefully denotes first MEN, then the SONS OF GOD... :thumb


I agree, sons of God are fallen angels. We have had that discussion on here some 6 months or so back. Some were not to kind about my stand and got quite smarty in their remarks and I see thats coming again from those who believe they are not angels.

I know many good men who don't believe they're not angels who don't get the lest bit smarty on this subject when discussing it with someone who believes they were angels.

The thing is many people use human logic and say its not possible instead of taking things in the Bible in proper context on this subject.

But this is a subject that I can agree to disagree on. But thinking people will think the Bible is science fiction is not a logical reason for not teaching sons of God are not angels. Seems to me we can gather from God's Word that the big majority of people are not going to believe the Holy Bible is God's true word to mankind.

And I believe that is where many of the lost people who write science fiction stories got many of their ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I agree, sons of God are fallen angels.


Why would God, in Genesis, give a term to fallen angels - when elsewhere in the Word of God it always refers to holy (angels, Jesus, Adam before he fell) or redeemed (believers) creatures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am not arguing that sons of God could refer to angels. I believe it does in various places. But those are holy angels or the angels before they fell. Are there any times in the whole Bible where this term is used to refer to an unholy creature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for your comments Bro. Jerry80871852, and thanks to everyone else!

Yes, I am not really here to argue, and I am not being dogmatic about any of this... just saying I have spent some time studying this and simply sharing my findings, as I said before, others may be right and I could be wrong, CAN I MAKE THAT ANY MORE PLAIN? But at the same time my friends---I think it is possible there may be more to these giants the Nephilim, entire books have been written on the subject, and I do find it very interesting! :thumb

Isn't it great that after being saved for 27 years and teaching adult Sunday School for over 10 years that one can still find the Bible so interesting? I love the Bible, and I do find it very interesting that the Hebrew word for Nephilim is "FALLEN ONES," and they were known as the Rephaim (Hebrew for 'PHANTOMS').

I also want to mention that I am well aware of the passage in Matthew 22, particularly the last two words in that passage, "IN HEAVEN". If we look at this without changing the KJV text, it is at least possible that the angels who left their first estate (Jude) GAVE UP HEAVEN in order to have relations with human women, and corrupt the DNA of man. They could not take wives in HEAVEN, but they looked upon the daughters of MEN and made a decision. Were the Nephilim stupid? Or were they attempting to corrupt all flesh with violence and destroy God's creation? I sure don't know.

"In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her." But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels IN HEAVEN." Matthew 22:23-30

It is interesting that in Genesis 3, God talks about putting enmity between "thy seed and her seed," and in the context, this appears to be referring to the SEED of the fallen angel, Lucifer!

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy SEED and her SEED; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:14-15

Here a few more opinions on the Nephilim...

http://www.bibledefenders.com/id17.html
http://bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm
http://raptureready.com/faq/faq333.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Thanks for your comments Bro. Jerry80871852, and thanks to everyone else!

Yes, I am not really here to argue, and I am not being dogmatic about any of this... just saying I have spent some time studying this and simply sharing my findings, as I said before, others may be right and I could be wrong, CAN I MAKE THAT ANY MORE PLAIN? But at the same time my friends---I think it is possible there may be more to these giants the Nephilim, entire books have been written on the subject, and I do find it very interesting! :thumb

Isn't it great that after being saved for 27 years and teaching adult Sunday School for over 10 years that one can still find the Bible so interesting? I love the Bible, and I do find it very interesting that the Hebrew word for Nephilim is "FALLEN ONES," and they were known as the Rephaim (Hebrew for 'PHANTOMS').

I also want to mention that I am well aware of the passage in Matthew 22, particularly the last two words in that passage, "IN HEAVEN". If we look at this without changing the KJV text, it is at least possible that the angels who left their first estate (Jude) GAVE UP HEAVEN in order to have relations with human women, and corrupt the DNA of man. They could not take wives in HEAVEN, but they looked upon the daughters of MEN and made a decision. Were the Nephilim stupid? Or were they attempting to corrupt all flesh with violence and destroy God's creation? I sure don't know.

"In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her." But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels IN HEAVEN." Matthew 22:23-30

It is interesting that in Genesis 3, God talks about putting enmity between "thy seed and her seed," and in the context, this appears to be referring to the SEED of the fallen angel, Lucifer!

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy SEED and her SEED; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:14-15

Here a few more opinions on the Nephilim...

http://www.bibledefenders.com/id17.html
http://bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm
http://raptureready.com/faq/faq333.html



"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy SEED and her SEED; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:14-15

Serpents have "seed" - angels do not! No such thing as angel/human hybrids - never was - never will be. It's not Biblical.

If God wants to make human beings itty biddy and small (pygmies and Picts, for instance) or great big and Giant - like Watusi or Goliath - that is up to him and perfectly within his power to do so. Perhaps just the mere fact that they were so tall and overpowering was what made them so MEAN! Most large people tend to be rather irritated by the short people among them (speaking as a short person myself).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...