Featured The Nephilim

Yhet went after "strange flesh", and how much stranger for an angel be human women? And think that could very well be BOTH fallen angels possessing bodies of sinful men to accomplish the offspring!

 

What do you think about Gen. 18, then? Spiritual beings enjoying a nice meal, an act that seems strangely fleshy to me.

 

Who were the Nephilims's -


Where did they come from -
.....out of the wombs of human women who had become wives of Angels who came to earth, appeared in the flesh, and then became out cast to return to heaven.

Who were they -
.....men of extraordinarily large stature, called by the names; such as the Anakims and Emims and likely other names.

What -
.....offspring of unholy Angels and human earthly women.

When -
.....in the same era of Moses and Joshua

Where -
..... Moab, from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, and likely other places

How -
.... Power given them of God

Why -
....Scripture does not reveal the reasoning -
....However Scripture does reveal spirits can take on himself the flesh likeness as a man, and be called a man.
....And it is NOT a HOLY act for a spirit to mate with a human.
....And when a spirits seed fertilizes a human womans egg, the offspring produced is of extraordinary stature.

IMO based in scripture, it is a foreshadowing of explaining WHY when the Messiah comes to earth, from heaven, in the likeness as a flesh man, called a man, he is not a HUMAN man, nor was Mary's "egg" in any way involved in the manifestation of Jesus.

 

Disagree with your points in red.

1) Wives who produced offspring absolutely did copulate with their husbands, (who were angels come down from heaven, appeared in the flesh mated with human women) and precisely how offspring is to effected.
(save Jesus and Mary the exception)

2) Angels of God in heaven do not marry.
The Angels who mated with human woman were holy Angels (sons of God), who came to earth, saw daughters of men, and became UNholy, thus, they were not CAST FROM Heaven, but rather lost their estate IN HEAVEN, ie no longer returned to Heaven.

Therefore Matt 30 and Mark 12, does not apply to them.

Matt 30
[30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12
[25] For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven

3)
sons of God applies to holy angels (which those angels were when they came to earth).
sons of God also applies to a human man who has been saved and born again.

 

No.

Spirits can and have and do take on the likeness of man in the flesh.


Gen.18
[1] And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
[2] And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
[3] And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

[8] And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

[16] And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

[20] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
[21] I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
[22] And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

Heb 13
[2] Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

 

'Sons of God' in Gen 6=Angels--either 'fallen' or falling in this act. Basically every major modern commentary on 2 Peter & Jude have no question that 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 refers to the Angelic interpretation of Gen 6 {NAC; BECNT; Pillar; NIVAC; WBC; ect]--& the original language; history of interpretation; & NT evidence all heavily favor the angelic reference in Gen 6--not to mention how 'chained angels' in intertestamental literature most often refers to the angels in Gen 6--while I could go on-- I don't know if I need to get sucked into this debate b/c I've posted extensively on this issue in the past on the BB-----regardless--i realize despite how much evidence is offered--some will not be able to get past the 'illogical' notion of angels & humans producing offspring--& it is a 2nd rate doctrine--so you have the right to be wrong on this one--lol---God bless

 

Well aware of all the works mentioned---[& you forgot Matthews NAC]--& while all of these are credible-- most are either outdated or do not give the detail needed to the debate---here is an outline I wrote for my thesis on this topic--

Who are the “daughters of man”? Human woman (no family classification)

Since “ha’adam” is used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in verse 1, it should also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of ‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In essence, based on the original language & the context-- these daughters cannot be limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of ‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the logical identity of the these daughters. However, this misses the point of the text. Basically all that it is saying is that more women were born in the pre-flood world, than one might expect based on the genealogies given in Gen 4-5. The Main focus of v 1 is: The multiplication of mankind (population expanse) and in particular the existence of women. Verse 2 explains what specific role these human woman played.


Who are the “sons of God”? Angelic/celestial beings (fallen angels or angels that fell b/c of this sin)

Evidence for angelic interpretation of “sons of God”:

The original language: ‘Sons of God’ (Hebrew: bene ha’elohim) is Hebrew idiom for angelic/celestial beings. The only other time the exact phrase is used in Scripture is in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; & the LXX of Deut 32:8—all of which clearly refer to celestial creatures. The closest other use of the phrase is in Ps 29:1 & 89:6, both of which refer to angels. There is no instance in Scripture where this idiom refers to anything other than superhuman entities. The closest argument against this would come with Ps 82. But the exact Hebrew phrase is not used & more modern scholars are opting for a celestial interpretation of this passage as well (see Michael Heiser)



The context of Gen 6:2, 4-In the Hebrew the phrases “sons of God” & the “daughters of men” are meant to be contrasted from each other. The contrast that is implied between ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere) is achieved in an angelic view but not with a purely human view.



The NT evidence (esp 2 Peter 2:4 & Jude 6, & possibly 1 Pet 3:19, 1 Cor 11:10)-- There is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6 existed during NT authorship (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—some of these Jewish writings even describe the angels of Gen 6 as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6), while 1 Enoch actually uses the rare term Tartarus that is found in 2 Pet 2:4 (Greek tartarosas). There is no biblical or historical record of any other chained angels that would be relevant to NT readers besides the “sons of God” in Gen 6 (the context & grammatical structure of Rev 20 maintains this). As Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Although Jude does not follow his description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on this, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he is referring to another group of chained angels. [ie, Jude talks about angels being chained—he then a few sentences later shows familiarity with 1 Enoch—considering the brevity of Jude’s letter & emphasis of the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in 1 Enoch, it seems most logical that Jude agrees with 1 Enoch’s identification of the sons of God in Gen 6 as angels]. Further, Jude follows his description with a reference to Sodom & Gomorrah, linking the sexual sin of two with the Greek phrase: ton homoion tropon toutois or “in the same manner as these.” As Schriner explains, “this establish a parallel between the sexual immorality of the angels and the sexual immorality of Sodom.”



The History of interpretation- The angelic view can be dated back to the early 3rd century BC (with parts of 1 Enoch). It was maintained by Jews & Christians alike until late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. The Sethite view did not originate until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal. It was not popularized until the 4th century AD when Augustine favored it. Regardless, the angelic view dominated the first 300 years of Christian thought being supported by such thinkers as: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius (to name a few). In addition, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) actually translates Gen 6 as angels, although some scholars question if this is original.
I have a lot more to add---but like i said i don't need to get sucked into this debate--& i've debated this for so many years--i'm well aware some just won't get past the difficult premise--God bless

 

Jon C--I actually do agree with one statement you made---'that Gen 6 is about the wickedness of man'--totally agree---i deal with that in a talk i gave about 5 years ago--I'll give the link below--but I wanted you to know--we do agree there--

 

LOL--i'll just post some more of the basic outline i give out when teaching on this--it covers all the questions you asked--& like i said i know the angelic interpretation is difficult--so if its not for you--no problem--but the info is always interesting to consider--God bless--

Common objections to angelic interpretation refuted

What about the NT statement that “angels do not marry”?

The most common objection to the angelic view comes in Jesus’ statement in Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; and Luke 20:35-36. In these verses Jesus explains that, in the resurrection believers’ will be like the “angels of God in heaven,” who do not marry. Thus, some believe the sons of God in Gen 6 cannot be angels. But this assumption is erroneous.

· First, the angelic beings referred to by Jesus are clearly elect and holy angels, whose home is “in heaven.” This qualifying phrase distinguishes the angels Jesus refers to from the angels in Jude 6 who “left their natural habitat” & were punished for it. Although, the angels in heaven do not marry, the angels referred to in Gen 6: 1-4 as sons of God were no longer in heaven as Jude 6 explains. Many theologians feel that the only reason for Christ to modify and qualify his statement was to differentiate between the two groups of angels.

· Second, one has to remember that Jesus is speaking of heaven & the resurrection life. Since fallen angels will not be in heaven they would not qualify for this comparison, thus only those who remained loyal & holy fit the description of not marrying.

· Finally, Jesus is speaking to Sadducees in these verses. Ironically, they did not believe in angels or the resurrection (Acts 23:8). For Jesus to include angels in the statement when the resurrection is the focus, probably hints at his attack on their faulty belief system, not his exegesis against the angelic interpretation of Gen 6.



How could angelic beings have sexual relations? Simply put, spirit possession (celestial beings entering human bodies) or angels taking human form in an angelophany (when an invisible spirit takes visible form) could easily explain the means by which this act was performed. Further, this is the Bible we’re talking about—events that supersede human logic often take place (ie the virgin conception of Jesus, miracles in general, & the resurrection of Christ from the dead—to name a few). Thus, the inability to logically perceive an event should not limit ones interpretation of Scripture.



Other questions relating to the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 (these are brief summaries taken from theological debates I’ve had over the years)

How is it possible for angels to have sex--The question often comes up well how is this possible that angels could even have intercourse with human women—well it’s possible by angels possessing men or by angels taking the form of men in an aneglophany (when something invisible takes visible form). Further, this is the Bible we’re talking about—events that supersede human logic often take place (ie the virgin conception of Jesus, miracles in general, & the resurrection of Christ from the dead—to name a few). The inability to logically perceive an event should not limit ones interpretation of Scripture—especially when biblical evidence overwhelmingly favors the idea

 

although I'm very aware of the '2nd wave theory' & the Numb 13 use of the Nephilim term--i personally think the angelic/human women incident was limited to the pre-flood world--with Numb 13 being language comparison & not literal [speaking in hyperbole to make a point of their size]--i'm not totally opposed to the theory that says their DNA made it on the ark through one of Noah's sons wives [esp Ham]--but this is speculative & its hard enough to convince people of the angelic understanding of Gen 6 with out adding more difficulty to the equation--so I leave it as a pre-flood world enigma---good talking to ya brother & if you ever want to talk about this issue again--feel free to contact me--God bless