according to Genesis
Quote1. When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
2. the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
3. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Many people say they were Women impregnated by Demons, producing giants.
I think this will be an unsolved mystery until the end. When the end comes if giants appear, then there must be something to this story, and we'll have to muster up King Davids to get rid of them. Some say they have developed flying technology and left and went to another star system and may return at the time of the end and, they might possibly be related to the 4 horsemen in the book of revelation, who seem to come from heaven, and they are violent and full of death, just like those giants of old.
So shall it be as in the days of Noah, they planted, married etc
It is also interesting that in Daniels book, the fourth kingdom on the earth is made of iron, and it degrades into part iron and part clay, and these do not mix with each other. The clay part could be the human part, since man is made of clay, that men break into civil war, and causes a split between the iron and the clay. This could be because the kingdom is set up by the giants, or non human source hence iron does not mix with the seed of men.
1. The image of the statue is massive
2. The iron kingdom, is cold hearted and unlike others cannot break by wielding a sword, but God will destroy it :)
3. The fourth beast of Daniel later on is made of iron, the rest are made of beast made of blood. Which suggests that the fourth kingdom is not of men
4. The little horn, scatters the power and gives honour to a god of forces, he gives part of his kingdom to ???? possibly either men, or to these giants
So if you believe this, start stocking up on some slingshots :icon_joker:
But bare in mind, that these giants may not be part of the kingdom at all and might just be a distraction that the devil, unleashes, while his other armies go to work and build the fourth iron beast kingdom.
Also bare in mind I have no idea who the 4th iron kingdom is, therefore this is just speculation. But considering that the 4 beast is the very last beast and the begining of the end for satan, then I assume that this last kingdom, will be diverse from the others and be set up by the devil and his angels Rev12, says the dragon was cast out into the earth. It is crazy, but it seems that in the very end people will actively worship the dragon, the beast, the false prophet, also the book of Romans say that God gave up their natural affections and they burned in lust for one another, they set up idols and worshipped the creature more than the creator. So basically they worship anything but God.
It is of my opinion that the Nephilim are the children of "Heaven born" creatures who have espoused themselves to human women.
Heaven-born; angel, cherub, seraph - these seem to be positions of office, rather than the name of a sentient spiritual species or race beyond humanity. But what ever species of creature constitutes the bulk of Heaven's populace, these "sons of God" that is what I mean by the term "Heaven born".
I do not necessarily think that all the Nephilim are evil, neither that the angelic persons who took wives of the daughters of men were necessarily demonic. I think that some of the angels merely saw these women as exceedingly beautiful, and beautiful enough to fall in love...literally. And so took them as wives, which implies more than just a one-night stand, but an actual relationship involving marriage. These relationships produced children.
Some of the angelic creatures may have been evil and fallen, some may have been quite noble and good, we are not really told that in Genesis; we are only told that the sons of God took human wives and had children who were men of renown or fame. The term "sons of God" however tells me that for the majority of the case, these angels were still in God's favour, and still members of God's court. Legion didn't call God "Father", neither did Satan when he accused Job in Heaven, the devil is hardly ever called a son of God.
The Nephilim themselves, I don't think were all evil. But it would seem to me that these men were of a certain quality different from humans, perhaps in size, but not necessarily. Power perhaps, status perhaps, having angelic features, and such.
These Nephilim became men of renown, and fame. I am sure that they were like many humans around them - prone to evil, but not without goodness either. Some may have done terrible deeds, becoming famous as Hitler is famous - and others may have been great heroes until they too began to fall under the dark influence that was covering the earth, which brought the flood upon them. Human and Nephilim alike.
Angels are said to often appear in human flesh. Other examples include the angel that appeared to Balaam in Numbers 22:31 and another to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13. If spirits have the ability to manifest in human flesh, and if they can even eat food, then it follows that they could also have the ability to have sexual relations with women and even to produce children by them. Of course, they only had this ability after taking human flesh.
These angels were called Nephilim, or "giants" in Genesis 6:4. This is the plural form of nephil, "a feller," or one who cuts others down; hence, a bully or tyrant. The root word is naphal, "to fall." This is probably the origin of the idea of "fallen" angels. Though Nephilim applies primarily to their actions in cutting down others, it carries this secondary meaning of having been felled by God in the flood.
The angels are thus "fallen," but this is not to enter into the debate about whether or not angels have free will. That is a separate question. If angels do have free will, then they fell of their own free will. If not, then they were caused to fall for purposes known fully by God alone. We must limit our scope for now to the simple assertion that they are "fallen." The nature of their "fall" in the sense of their disobedience is given in Jude 6,
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/COLDFUSION/Chapter.cfm?CID=81
Understanding first that the spiritual implications have greater value here than the natural events themselves, I would venture to say that there are many experiences Scripture refers to that many readers struggle with trying to articulate them. Having said that, I believe there was some spiritual perversions taking place here where spirit beings were being intimate with natural flesh. The question I would love to see someone address would be "why"? Why did the fallen angels leave their first estate to procreate with flesh? What was their purpose?
If you follow the Nephilim through Scripture, you'll find they are more than just giants . . .There are many references to giants but not all are defined as Nephilim. They weren't just large in size, but they were evil as well. It was these same decendants that put so much fear in the scouts of the Israelites that it kept them from entering into the promised land.
I disagree with the idea that some were good and some were bad . . . if we are to render this literally, they were fallen angels . .they were angels that were created to operate in a higher realm than the earth, yet they chose to leave their higher post for this lower state. Which again begs the question . ."Why?"
:cloud9: Their purpose was/is to get into the bloodline of Adam, which they know is going to be completely cleansed, sins not only covered, but REMOVED. My :2c:
Quote from: Nathan on April 06, 2011, 06:52:34 PM
Understanding first that the spiritual implications have greater value here than the natural events themselves, I would venture to say that there are many experiences Scripture refers to that many readers struggle with trying to articulate them. Having said that, I believe there was some spiritual perversions taking place here where spirit beings were being intimate with natural flesh. The question I would love to see someone address would be "why"? Why did the fallen angels leave their first estate to procreate with flesh? What was their purpose?
If you follow the Nephilim through Scripture, you'll find they are more than just giants . . .There are many references to giants but not all are defined as Nephilim. They weren't just large in size, but they were evil as well. It was these same decendants that put so much fear in the scouts of the Israelites that it kept them from entering into the promised land.
I disagree with the idea that some were good and some were bad . . . if we are to render this literally, they were fallen angels . .they were angels that were created to operate in a higher realm than the earth, yet they chose to leave their higher post for this lower state. Which again begs the question . ."Why?"
Maybe for the same reasons that humans have a propensity to gravitate to the lower states of spiritual existence.
Quote from: Cardinal on April 06, 2011, 07:02:49 PM
:cloud9: Their purpose was/is to get into the bloodline of Adam, which they know is going to be completely cleansed, sins not only covered, but REMOVED. My :2c:
I have heard this before, even they ( assuming that "they" are the Nephilim) claim this, albeit with a sleight twist.
Does this mean they have repented? If they are williing or trying to have their sins cleansed?
I not only have heard that before, I've preached it as well. That was why I asked the question. But anymore, I do the Rob Bell thing when people start asking questions. I try to answer by diverting the question toward areas that I think are more productive, not saying it's not productive at all to hash over details of hard to comprehend natural interpretations. But the spiritual principles that lie beneath the surface just seems to me to be much more fulfilling to pursue.
# Jude 1:6
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
Perhaps this answers my question. That they are trying to avoid the judgement of the great day, via scientific methods, instead of spiritual inward repentance. I also recall cardinal instructing me the same thing. This scientific tampering would make it much easier to repent, but the difficulty lies within the idea that such a thing is even possible, the idea that scientific tampering with dna can cleanse them, or any being of sin stained blood .
Judes scripture might explain why they seem to be stuck underground from a natural perspective, but simply limiting the prison to natural physics, would not suffice to keep them there, so it must also be some kind of spiritual boundary held in place to prevent them from escaping...but somehow are able to access our world via portals, which I think are opened up using certain methods and perhaps but not limited to via certain weaknesses and/or unwise occult activity.
Isn't there supposed to be an angel bound in the Euphrates river?
Literally?
In going through the study of Revelation, I found that there's much more going on there, like in everything else of course, than what meets the eye. Euphrates "means" fruitfulness. a river of fruitfulness dries up in preparation for the kings of the east to cross the riverbed and take the land., We are kings and priests, east speaks of resurrection . . .the resurrection of the sun rising up from the east every morning is a proclamation of the dominance resurrection has in our very lives. The message of the kings of the east is one of resurrection . . .it's a picture of a shifting of life as we know it to be.
Whether or not an angel is literally bound in this literal river just doesn't seem to have as much revelance as the symbolism that comes with that picture has. The fruitfulness that's drying up is the accessable comfort men have come accustom to, they embrace the fruitfulness but disregard it's source . . .change is coming . .it's already begun.
In my opinion, here is what I believe is a more accurate and sensible conclusion concerning the Nephilim.
The Nephilim:The union between the sons of Seth, who maintained God's blessings of power, and the daughters of Cain, who gave into sin and indulged in their perverse nature; producing children, who through Seth were blessed by God with great power, giants both politically and economically but followed the way of Cain, turning their backs on God and giving into sin using God's blessings to indulge the carnal nature.
Genesis 6:4-6 (Young's Literal Translation)
The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.
And Jehovah seeth that abundant [is] the wickedness of man in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil all the day; and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself -- unto His heart.
Acts 17:29 "We are sons of God..."
Those "Angels" of Jude, go by another name, "Messengers". Messengers are those entrusted with a message and ordained to share it with all mankind. With the an accurate understanding of this word, we recognize that this does not solely describe celestial spiritual beings but rather it is talking about blessed men entrusted with the gospel who fell away and changed it to fit to suit their personal gain.
Jude 1:6 And the messengers who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain.
The Nephilim is a spiritual principle. What happened in Genesis has happened (is happening) with Israel, and has happened (is happening) with those who call themselves Christian. Whether it is a civilization in the past, present or future, it is a story that describes men and the spiritual principles we must learn and overcome or face the same and suffer needlessly as they did.
My advice, replace those gaps of knowledge with truth and not with our imaginations or we too become those fallen ones.
I beleive that friend, you have truely begun to scrape upon the truth of the matter. :thumbsup:
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 07, 2011, 11:01:29 PM
In my opinion, here is what I believe is a more accurate and sensible conclusion concerning the Nephilim.
The Nephilim:The union between the sons of Seth, who maintained God's blessings of power, and the daughters of Cain, who gave into sin and indulged in their perverse nature; producing children, who through Seth were blessed by God with great power, giants both politically and economically but followed the way of Cain, turning their backs on God and giving into sin using God's blessings to indulge the carnal nature.
Genesis 6:4-6 (Young's Literal Translation)
The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.
And Jehovah seeth that abundant [is] the wickedness of man in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil all the day; and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself -- unto His heart.
Acts 17:29 "We are sons of God..."
Those "Angels" of Jude, go by another name, "Messengers". Messengers are those entrusted with a message and ordained to share it with all mankind. With the an accurate understanding of this word, we recognize that this does not solely describe celestial spiritual beings but rather it is talking about blessed men entrusted with the gospel who fell away and changed it to fit to suit their personal gain.
Jude 1:6 And the messengers who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain.
The Nephilim is a spiritual principle. What happened in Genesis has happened (is happening) with Israel, and has happened (is happening) with those who call themselves Christian. Whether it is a civilization in the past, present or future, it is a story that describes men and the spiritual principles we must learn and overcome or face the same and suffer needlessly as they did.
My advice, replace those gaps of knowledge with truth and not with our imaginations or we too become those fallen ones.
I think that take on the Nephilim makes the most amount of sense to me.
For those who wish to entertain the notion that the nephilim are real, supernatural, and present and active today, there is Michael Heiser's fictional book, The Facade. You can download one chapter for free.
http://www.facadethebook.com/
Luke 17:26
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 07, 2011, 11:01:29 PM
In my opinion, here is what I believe is a more accurate and sensible conclusion concerning the Nephilim.
The Nephilim:The union between the sons of Seth, who maintained God's blessings of power, and the daughters of Cain, who gave into sin and indulged in their perverse nature;
Mmm, reread post #3
I think it doesn't contradict your view. Cain killed Abel.
Kill= cut down = slay = nephil
Nephilim are decendents of the first nephil (Cain)
:2c:
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 07, 2011, 11:01:29 PM
In my opinion, here is what I believe is a more accurate and sensible conclusion concerning the Nephilim.
The Nephilim:The union between the sons of Seth, who maintained God's blessings of power, and the daughters of Cain, who gave into sin and indulged in their perverse nature; producing children, who through Seth were blessed by God with great power, giants both politically and economically but followed the way of Cain, turning their backs on God and giving into sin using God's blessings to indulge the carnal nature.
Genesis 6:4-6 (Young's Literal Translation)
The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name.
And Jehovah seeth that abundant [is] the wickedness of man in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil all the day; and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself -- unto His heart.
Acts 17:29 "We are sons of God..."
Those "Angels" of Jude, go by another name, "Messengers". Messengers are those entrusted with a message and ordained to share it with all mankind. With the an accurate understanding of this word, we recognize that this does not solely describe celestial spiritual beings but rather it is talking about blessed men entrusted with the gospel who fell away and changed it to fit to suit their personal gain.
Jude 1:6 And the messengers who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain.
The Nephilim is a spiritual principle. What happened in Genesis has happened (is happening) with Israel, and has happened (is happening) with those who call themselves Christian. Whether it is a civilization in the past, present or future, it is a story that describes men and the spiritual principles we must learn and overcome or face the same and suffer needlessly as they did.
My advice, replace those gaps of knowledge with truth and not with our imaginations or we too become those fallen ones.
If it's pertaining to sons of Seth and daughters of Cain . . .why then does it not mention that? There's no mention of names. Could not the daughters of Seth also become defiled by the sons of Cain? why the specific connection with daughters of men and Sons of God? What this idea is saying is that it was the decendants of the blessed and the decendants of the cursed became intimate with one another . . .even though there is no direct instruction for Seth's decendants to stay away from Cain's decendants . . .there just seems to be a lot of additional assumptions in this mix that are not actually stated in the context.
I do wholly beleive there's a spiritual picture in how we, who have both the son's of God characteristics (spirit) and daughters of men (carnal flesh/mind) within us and when we make the attempt to blend the two by taking spiritual truth and applying it to natural reasoning . . .we pervert the intimacy of truth. And "that" is what I pursue, is the spiritual picture drawn . .but as far as the literal, "focusing" on angels sleeping with people really has little relevance. And then to redefine the entire thing by saying what's really going on is it's actually about Seth and Cain . . .I think for me, that appears to be just as much blending between spiritual and natural as anything else that's been stated.
Were does the Seth/Cain ideology originate? Are there other writings that depict this scene to be decendants? And if it is merely decendants, why then the distinction between ONLY the SONS of Seth and ONLY the DAUGHTERS of CAIN?? Why not both sons AND daughters of Seth and the same with Cain??? Why didn't the daughters of Seth find themselves in the arms of the sons of Cain? It just seems the more we try to reason out our explanation, the less understandable it becomes.
This idea of mutant giant offspring arising becase some of Gods angels decided to rebel and commit this act comes from the book of enoch. So there is a more direct revelation coming from that book. But whether that book is inspired is the challenge we must face, because the truth of the matter is that the bible is not 66 books, who decided the bible is only 66 books? Man or God?. With the revelation that there can be more than 66 books, with aditional revelation coming from other prophets such as enoch, which Jude makes mention of in her book, it means that there is Holy inspired scriptures out there which can explain in more detail various seemingly missing pieces of the bible. Now I do believe that the current 66 bok format has enough info in it to explain certaion mysteries, but yet, is limited in its information. E.g one might be able to find out more knowledge about the rebellion of the angels, through the 66 boks, but yet that knowledge is limited. There should be in my opinion more information out there concerning the origin of the devil for example, and I suspect that this information is held and tied with certain occult groups. Perhaps it is better that this information is withheld, even Paul said we know in part, but yet I suspect that a large portion of information concerning our history for example is held and tied up with certain people or groups, in fact to be more detailed I think that mystery babylon holds this information in her hand, so that by her sorceries she can deceive the nations, for the word of God is the most powerful weapon in the world, dare I say if I had enough faith, the universe and if mystery babylon can manipilate this book then she can manipilate the nations.
ThinkTank
Read this http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp
the short of it is the Bible actually is 49 books layed out in 7 sections
I feel that mystery babylon changed the order of the books (conveniently to 66) to hide the straightforward message.
Hello Nathan,
Thank you for your concern, and question.
It very much does speak on sons of Seth who are called sons of God and the daughters of Cain who are called daughters of men. The key is to read Scripture disregarding the artificial chapter and verse and we will then see a contextual understanding of Genesis 6. That is, we must read Genesis 4 which speaks of Cain to Noah and shows us why the children of Seth are now called sons of God, and Genesis 5 from Adam to Noah where we will notice the children of Seth and Cain converge in the Seventh Generation. This is when we reach Genesis 6.
However before that, let us qualify who are called 'Sons of God'
John 1:12-13 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name, who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten.
Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Now let us read who are the why the Children of Seth are called sons of God.
Genesis 4:25-26 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.
Now reading Genesis 4 and 5 before we read Genesis 6, we realize that the children of Seth marry into the children of Cain in the Seventh Generation. It is at this time, we now read Genesis 6.
Genesis 6:1-5 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Thank-you,
Dr. Anthony Carnasis
www.studentoftheword.com
P.S. Thinktank, the Book of Enoch is a self-described parable, therefore it is not to be taken literally but metaphorically.
Although one could argue, and Michael Heiser does, that sons of God is the title given to those on the divine council, yet we know that Adam himself was called a son of God [Luke 3]. Was Adam originally created to be a member of the council? Is that why Satan [the Nephesh] came against him in the garden?
A decision has to be made, therefore, whether the Bible is dealing with supernatural beings who are called 'sons of God,' and whether those beings are the fallen of Gen 6, and whether mankind is to replace those beings on the divine council. If one makes the decision that yes, this is correct, a lot of things start to make sense that otherwise do not.
The temptation, nevertheless, is to strip the Bible of everything supernatural, although nothing could be more supernatural than the resurrected Christ himself.
To Doc's post
I appreciate your attempt to clarify, but again, if what you're saying is accurate, then I find it peculiar that in the entirety of Scripture, at no other passage does it indicate that sons of God are referring to Seth or daughters of men are referring to Cain. Only in this ONE incident which causes hesitation to build any sort of belief on it, especially when that belief is indicating or implying other things outside of what has been written.
I've heard the Seth/Cain explanation before and the clarity of it sort of phases in and out for me. It doesn't seem to follow any pattern to be understood clearly from a natural perspective. I guess my question then would be, what is the motivation behind denying the fact that angels have the ability to appear in human form, but not the ablity to procreate in that human form? Are they really in human form? Or can they only give the "appearance" of a human, but not really carry all of the characteristics of a human . . .like reproducing.
Now, from your end of things, I think it's safe to say that Noah would then have been a decendant of Seth and because God esentially wiped out the lineage of Cain, the bloodline from Noah on would always be from Seth? And if this is to be true, it would then beg the question . . where did the bloodline of Anak originate? Where did Goliath come from? There were still giants that grew in numbers to the point that much of Canaan was heavily populated with them at the time when Moses sent the scouts over to survey the land. If this is dealing with blood lines, pure and impure, how could giants return again if God had already wiped out Cain's legacy?
Molly, I believe there is no temptation to throw out anything supernatural in Scripture, when demonstrating that the Nephilim are the children of the line of Seth and of Cain. It is only demonstrating that there was no supernatural union between a spiritual creature and a dust creation.
Nathan, I believe there is less evidence to present a supernatural union between a spiritual creature and a dust creation, than there is evidence presenting that the children of Seth who called upon the Name of the Lord would be called Sons of God who later went the way of Cain.
Exactly, Nathan, because they were still messing with mankind after the flood, as the Gen 6 passage points out. It will be as in the days of Noe, says Jesus--is this a reference to the Nephilim again coming against humanity at the end of the age?
They left their first estate, as they were given to be spiritual beings from the beginning, and left their habitation, the heavens. [Jude 1]
Doc, I think you would really enjoy Heiser's lectures online because if I recall correctly, you had some interest in aliens, and he is saying that what we call aliens are really these beings.
Quote from: Nathan on April 08, 2011, 10:02:45 PMIf this is dealing with blood lines, pure and impure, how could giants return again if God had already wiped out Cain's legacy?
He didn't wipe out Cain's legacy, both Seth and Cain's line are now one in Noah.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2011, 10:10:25 PM
Exactly, Nathan, because they were still messing with mankind after the flood, as the Gen 6 passage points out. It will be as in the days of Noe, says Jesus--is this a reference to the Nephilim again coming against humanity at the end of the age?
Those who called upon the Lord, called sons of God, did fall away. Israel was cut off due to their unbelief (which Jesus was talking about), and today so to are Christians who use the Name of the Lord for self-gain demonstrating another end of the age. Each considered sons of God based on a proclamation and both falling away just as easily.
This is a continuous cycle, and we have gone through many ages which signified the end of an age. We are close to another end of an age and beginning of a new one.
God still remains God of the ages throughout them all, for ever and ever.
well, they didn't really fall away because the generations of Adam led directly to the birth of Jesus.
God was able to keep a group protected and set apart through the ages-his remnant.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2011, 10:10:25 PM
Doc, I think you would really enjoy Heiser's lectures online because if I recall correctly, you had some interest in aliens, and he is saying that what we call aliens are really these beings.
Interested and wouldn't be surprised if they exist; however, they would still be of this physical universe and made up from dust just as we are. They also would not be considered sons of God, unless they too called upon His Name and followed His Spirit.
Thank-you,
Dr. Anthony Carnasis
www.studentoftheword.com
Im listening Doc. :grin:
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2011, 10:18:53 PM
well, they didn't really fall away because the generations of Adam led directly to the birth of Jesus.
God was able to keep a group protected and set apart through the ages-his remnant.
Hello Molly,
Jesus explains this:
John 3:8" The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
It is of my opinion, the danger is to think that God's spirit belongs to the will of men, a will of flesh or a bloodline.
John 1:12-13But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Thank-you
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 08, 2011, 10:20:34 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2011, 10:10:25 PM
Doc, I think you would really enjoy Heiser's lectures online because if I recall correctly, you had some interest in aliens, and he is saying that what we call aliens are really these beings.
Interested and wouldn't be surprised if they exist; however, they would still be of this physical universe and made up from dust just as we are. They also would not be considered sons of God, unless they too called upon His Name and followed His Spirit.
Thank-you,
Dr. Anthony Carnasis
www.studentoftheword.com
They were originally created as sons of God. We see them shouting for joy in Job 38 when God creates the world. They were there. I believe they are the elohiym of the OT. But, God tells them because of their wickedness, they will die like men.
1God has taken his place in
the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2"How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
....
6 I said, "You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7nevertheless,
like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince."
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!
--Psa 82 [English Standard Version]
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 08, 2011, 10:27:26 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2011, 10:18:53 PM
well, they didn't really fall away because the generations of Adam led directly to the birth of Jesus.
God was able to keep a group protected and set apart through the ages-his remnant.
Hello Molly,
Jesus explains this:
John 3:8
" The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
It is of my opinion, the danger is to think that God's spirit belongs to the will of men, a will of flesh or a bloodline.
John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Thank-you
I think it's important though to stay reminded that very few could be born of spirit until Christ sent the HS upon the church at the first Pentecost.
I believe King David and other OT saints were born of spirit. I also believe that God set apart his bloodline to Christ in a supernatural way, as we see it passing through the second son and the second wife, etc. There are also Gentiles pulled in to the bloodline. God is making a point.
Without going into a long discussion on the definition of God used in that passage, he was speaking of men.
John 10:33-36
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
"If He called them God, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
As I said, this is only my belief and my opinion and the only reason I added it, was as a contrast to what was being presented prior in this discussion.
Thank-you,
Dr. Anthony Carnasis
www.studentoftheword.com
Yes, but I think in that passage Jesus is mocking them. They most surely considered themselves gods, as many do to this day.
And, they knew he was mocking them because they tried to arrest him in the next passage but he escaped out of their hand.[John 10:39]
What threat is it to men to tell them they will die like men in Psalm 82? That Psalm is not talking about men, imo.
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 08, 2011, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: Nathan on April 08, 2011, 10:02:45 PMIf this is dealing with blood lines, pure and impure, how could giants return again if God had already wiped out Cain's legacy?
He didn't wipe out Cain's legacy, both Seth and Cain's line are now one in Noah.
And "how" could both Seth and Cain be in Noah? Obviously he was not born of both of them . . . none of this is making any sense to me at all.
Quote from: Nathan on April 08, 2011, 10:56:46 PM
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 08, 2011, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: Nathan on April 08, 2011, 10:02:45 PMIf this is dealing with blood lines, pure and impure, how could giants return again if God had already wiped out Cain's legacy?
He didn't wipe out Cain's legacy, both Seth and Cain's line are now one in Noah.
And "how" could both Seth and Cain be in Noah? Obviously he was not born of both of them . . . none of this is making any sense to me at all.
Mother and father can merge two bloodlines that trace back to Set and Cain.
Nathan,
The same reason why King of France married the daughter of the King of Brittany unified the blood line not destroys them.
We also need to understand the role of the Matriarch and Patriarch blood lines in Hebrew Genealogy and their significance.
I am not going to go into it any further, as I do not believe any more would be productive.
Thank-you for the discussion.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2011, 10:10:25 PM
Exactly, Nathan, because they were still messing with mankind after the flood, as the Gen 6 passage points out. It will be as in the days of Noe, says Jesus--is this a reference to the Nephilim again coming against humanity at the end of the age?
They left their first estate, as they were given to be spiritual beings from the beginning, and left their habitation, the heavens. [Jude 1]
To use 'estate' as proof for anything you first have to prove what that estate was...
QuoteDoc, I think you would really enjoy Heiser's lectures online because if I recall correctly, you had some interest in aliens, and he is saying that what we call aliens are really these beings.
Aliens are spiritual beings?
QuoteTo use 'estate' as proof for anything you first have to prove what that estate was...
6And 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.
--Jude 1
that References this scripture
2Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [Tarturus, the pit] and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
I assume that would have happened at the time of the flood--but that's just an assumption, or an educated guess, especially since the next verse talks about Noah.
QuoteAliens are spiritual beings?
No, what we call aliens, as in 'alien abductions,' or 'alien visitations' are really these [demonic] spiritual beings.
Quote from: Nathan on April 08, 2011, 10:56:46 PM
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 08, 2011, 10:13:28 PM
Quote from: Nathan on April 08, 2011, 10:02:45 PMIf this is dealing with blood lines, pure and impure, how could giants return again if God had already wiped out Cain's legacy?
He didn't wipe out Cain's legacy, both Seth and Cain's line are now one in Noah.
And "how" could both Seth and Cain be in Noah? Obviously he was not born of both of them . . . none of this is making any sense to me at all.
I am like you I am undecided on this matter. I have written posts that are for the idea of angels mating with human and also written posts which dwelved more in the scientific reasoning pertaining to the info that the Doctor has spoken about here.
But I'd like to add what the Dr is saying is that Noah or his wife is the descendant of Cain and Adam. That somewhere in Noah's familly tree it stretches back to Cains familly (the daughters of men), thus someone in his familly tree would have mutant giant genes. Noah (or His wife?) would carry these genes, thus passing them on to future generations, which through selective patterns and correct conditions, would end up in people such as Goliath.
There are many possibilities that I don't want to get into here, i.e the exact starting point of these mutant genes e.g The daughters that mated with Adams line or would it be the giants themselves passing on their genes, even more contrevaersial is the idea that scientists or pimps in that era, would extract the dna genes of the giants or breed them etc to produce warriors, but generally that is the overview of the situation.
QuoteI assume that would have happened at the time of the flood--but that's just an assumption, or an educated guess, especially since the next verse talks about Noah.
They appear after the flood too. That gives us several options:
a] Flood was the great day (I think not) and the Nephlim were released again.
b] They escaped. (God failed)
c] Not all were locked up yet.
d] New Nephlim arrived/fell.
Nephlim don't breath because every breathing thing perished during the flood. Or just local.
2Peter 2:4
I find the word "if" very confusing. Doesn't the verse say God did NOT lock them up because He spared them?
(yeah I know the next verse... but still....)
Just to clarify are :
1 The nephilim the giant offspring of human/Godly human
2. The angels who committed acts of disobedience, that God decided to lock them up and/or destroy them via flood.
(This part is a challenge as to whether Jude and Peter are refering to the actual disobedient angels, or the Giant beastly humanoids.)
3. Giant offspring of Human and angelic disobedience
Hello Thinktank,
Let us say point 2, and 3 is your belief.
Do you believe those angels were ever part of the Kingdom of God?
Quote from: ww2Peter 2:4
I find the word "if" very confusing. Doesn't the verse say God did NOT lock them up because He spared them?
(yeah I know the next verse... but still....)
It says God didn't spare the fallen angels[sons of God]. He locked them up.
And, they will remain locked up until the day of judgment.
Quoted] New Nephlim arrived/fell.
I think--the nephilim are the offspring of angel and man. The nephilim did perish in the flood [but their spirits become demons?] The angels were locked up.
More angels fell after the flood creating more nephilim who were all those giants Joshua fought, for instance. This activity will increase at the end of the age-[it will be like in the days of Noah].
One thing about Cain--Cain is out there building cities and presumably developing technology, whereas the Seth line remains the nomadic shepherd/kings. Enoch tells us that all knowledge given to man comes from these fallen ones, which would explain why God forbids Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge. You can see how even today, no matter the technology--they can always figure out how to kill people with it--and that tends to be their favorite use for technology. If they can use it for good or evil, they pick evil every time.
I honestly don't see what physical "blood lines" should have to do with any of it.
It sounds to me like a glance at racism to state that the only reason the "Nephilim" are "Nephilim" is because Sethites mated with Cainites. That would be akin to saying; "The only reason those wicked sinners came about was because those beautiful Koreans mated with those filthy Indonesians. After all, that's what you get when you let a primitive islander become party to the wealth of South Korea's blessed status."
(no offense to Koreans or Indonesians, this was purely example of which I took two random Asian people groups and put them into the sentence - no racism beyond the metaphoric pointing out of racism in the presented theory which I am addressing displeasure with was implied)
Something doesn't seem right with the "Sethites took the Cainites" theory...For one thing, why not just be plain and call them the Children of Seth and the Children of Cain?
Sons of God and the Children of Men, that's not a usual expression for people who are both literally Children of the Fallen Adam and Eve.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 02:48:20 AM
One thing about Cain--Cain is out there building cities and presumably developing technology, whereas the Seth line remains the nomadic shepherd/kings. Enoch tells us that all knowledge given to man comes from these fallen ones, which would explain why God forbids Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge. You can see how even today, no matter the technology--they can always figure out how to kill people with it--and that tends to be their favorite use for technology. If they can use it for good or evil, they pick evil every time.
In that case the first estate also simply can mean simple life without high tech. Earlier I wanted to post something similar but it's a problematic view. For example the Temples were high tech structures. A nomadic God would have prefered living in the tent.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 09, 2011, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 02:48:20 AM
One thing about Cain--Cain is out there building cities and presumably developing technology, whereas the Seth line remains the nomadic shepherd/kings. Enoch tells us that all knowledge given to man comes from these fallen ones, which would explain why God forbids Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge. You can see how even today, no matter the technology--they can always figure out how to kill people with it--and that tends to be their favorite use for technology. If they can use it for good or evil, they pick evil every time.
In that case the first estate also simply can mean simple life without high tech. Earlier I wanted to post something similar but it's a problematic view. For example the Temples were high tech structures. A nomadic God would have prefered living in the tent.
He didn't really want a temple, did he? Wasn't that [first David then] Solomon's idea, not his?
The shepherd kings knew they were sojourners, waiting for a city built by God.
But, the earth is his footstool and his place is with men, wherever they are.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. --Rev 21
Another theory. Neplim are not human or angel. They are another creation.
Nephlim being angels was teh common understanding at Jesus' time.
If the Sons of God were angels then what was meant by Jesus' statement in Matthew 22:30; Mark
12:25; and Luke 20:34–36 which seemed to say that angels do not marry? We shall discuss these
verses also. There is a modern theory that the Sons of God were aliens from space who landed,
married women, and genetically manipulated their offspring to be slaves, the giants. There was a
rebellion among the aliens, war broke out, and Noah was saved. This idea has no biblical merit.
.........
Note that the "Sons of God" are very different than angels, and are quite capable of having sexual relations with humans that will produce multi-generational offspring, because the two species are precisely the same in anatomical and somatical constitution. Angels, however, are different in their lack of ability to produce offspring, though angels look very much like humans (both males and females). By the way, "wings" on angels are metaphorical.
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess037.htm
QuoteNote that the "Sons of God" are very different than angels, and are quite capable of having sexual relations with humans that will produce multi-generational offspring, because the two species are precisely the same in anatomical and somatical constitution. Angels, however, are different in their lack of ability to produce offspring, though angels look very much like humans (both males and females). By the way, "wings" on angels are metaphorical.
I tend to agree with this. The translators throw around that word, 'angels, ' applying it to all sorts of supernatural beings as well as men. But, remember, the archangel Michael could not fight an equal battle with Satan over Moses' body, so he called on the Lord to rebuke him. That makes me think that Satan is a higher being than Michael.
The sons of God are more appropriately called 'gods,' hence elohiym. It is these that we are meant to replace. Doesn't that make more sense as to why Satan wanted Adam failed, separated from God, and dead?
PS gods and humans mating was a regular occurence among the Greek myths [religion];Roman, too.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 09:47:37 AM
QuoteNote that the "Sons of God" are very different than angels, and are quite capable of having sexual relations with humans that will produce multi-generational offspring, because the two species are precisely the same in anatomical and somatical constitution. Angels, however, are different in their lack of ability to produce offspring, though angels look very much like humans (both males and females). By the way, "wings" on angels are metaphorical.
I tend to agree with this.
So Nephlim are not fallen angels.
YLTJob 16 And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst.
Mankind never had access to heaven. So that would rule out the sons of God being humans.
I wonder why satan is mentioned being in their midst. He just happend to be there? Or more likely it states Satan was/is a son of God. The leader of them. But if satan is a Nephlim why isn't he chained?
QuoteThe translators throw around that word, 'angels, ' applying it to all sorts of supernatural beings as well as men.
To solve this puzzle we need to clear our mind of those things. It's very easy to llet church doctrine muddle 'research'.
QuotePS gods and humans mating was a regular occurence among the Greek myths [religion];Roman, too.
If that proves anything it's that the Bible teaches the opposite.... :happy3:
Quote from: wwSo Nephlim are not fallen angels.
I've always thought the nephilim would refer to the offspring of the sons of God and human wives. They are 'mighty men' --
gibbor. It is the sons of God doing this who are referred to as 'fallen angels' in a colloquial sense. Satan would be one of the sons of God.
Goliath would be a nephilim.
4There 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.
"giants"H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephilnef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: -
giant.H5307
נפל
nâphalnaw-fal'
A primitive root;
to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. That was when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. The Nephilim were the heroes of long ago. They were famous men. Nephilim were also on the earth later on.
--Gen 6
Satan does get chained at the end of the age.
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
This is kind of interesting. If we trace back the 'divine right of kings' doctrine employed by the royal families of Europe and Eastern cultures as well, it traces back to what we would call nephilim. These people think they're gods. That's probably why they are so obsessed about bloodline.
The Scots textbooks of the divine right of kings were written in 1597-98 by James VI of Scotland before his accession to the English throne. His Basilikon Doron, a manual on the duties of a king, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick, who died young. According to the text, a good king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from the god a burden of government, whereof he must be countable". The idea of the divine right to rule has appeared in many cultures Eastern and Western spanning all the way back to the first god king Gilgamesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
In the Qumran scroll known as Book of Giants (ca. 100 BC) the names of Gilgamesh and Humbaba appear as two of the antediluvian giants (in consonantal form), rendered as glgmš and ḩwbbyš. This same text was later used in the Middle East by the Manichaean sects, and the Arabic form Jiljamish survives as the name of a demon according to the Egyptian cleric Al-Suyuti (ca. 1500).[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh
QuoteSatan would be one of the sons of God.
And he was a murderer from the beginning. Meaning before the flood. Why is he still free when Jude 1:6 claims they are chained?
4There were giants in the earth in those days
--> When exactly was that?
and also after that
--> there were also giants after that period
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,
--> hybrids are born
the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
--> The hybrids are men of renown. (not the nephlim)
--> So at that time there were: humans, nephlim and hybrids
The whole sons of God thing is a little strange. Jesus is the Son of God but is always called the son of man(kind).
EBRJohn 316 For God, so loved, the world, that, his
Only Begotten Son, he gave,––that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age–abiding.
Of course there is a difference between begotten and created but still it's strange Jesus isn't the son of God but the son of mankind
Quote from: Jewish TimesThe Nephilim as well as
the "children of Elokim" refers to
men, not "fallen angels" or any
misinterpretation like that. See the
authentic Bible commentators such
as Rashi. The Jews are those to
whom G-d entrusted His Torah, and
they must be the exclusive authority
sought out to determine the meaning
of the passages in the Bible
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 04:45:57 PM
Satan does get chained at the end of the age.
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
I know. But why did God chain others but not satan?
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 09, 2011, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 04:45:57 PM
Satan does get chained at the end of the age.
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
I know. But why did God chain others but not satan?
Because he didn't chain all the sons of God before the flood, just those who left their first estate and started messing with the children of Adam, creating offspring. But Genesis 6 says the nephilim existed after--which I take to meaning after the flood.
We are only working with one sentence here lol.
There's a lot more on this in other books not contained in our Bible.
But, later, after the tower of Babel, God places the sons of God over the nations as rulers. And, God keeps Israel for himself.
Quote from: wwOf course there is a difference between begotten and created but still it's strange Jesus isn't the son of God but the son of mankind
He refers to himself as the son of Adam, referencing the generation of Adam in Gen 5. He is making it clear that he is the kinsman redeemer of the offspring of Adam, that is, mankind.
Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as
the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Quote--> So at that time there were: humans, nephlim and hybrids
well, now you are confusing me because the nephalim were the hybrid of gods and men. They also had children going forward. So somebody might be a third generation nephal for instance--but still a hybrid.
The mighty men of old refers to their reputation I think.
Quote4There were giants in the earth in those days
--> When exactly was that?
and also after that
--> there were also giants after that period
This chapter [Gen 6] is talking about the flood. So I assume, and I think reasonably so, that before that and after that refers to the flood.
We see lots of references to the giants [nephalim] after the flood as well.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: wwOf course there is a difference between begotten and created but still it's strange Jesus isn't the son of God but the son of mankind
He refers to himself as the son of Adam, referencing the generation of Adam in Gen 5. He is making it clear that he is the kinsman redeemer of the offspring of Adam, that is, mankind.
You are missing my point Molly. He is teh Son of God BUT He calls Himself Son of Man. So if a Son of man is the son of God how much value can we put in sons of God being sons of God?
Quote from: ww--> So at that time there were: humans, nephlim and hybrids
Quotewell, now you are confusing me because the nephalim were the hybrid of gods and men.
That's not how I read the verse. There were Nephlim BEFORE the mated with humans.
QuoteThey also had children going forward.
And only those children are called men of renown.
QuoteSo somebody might be a third generation nephal for instance--but still a hybrid
I don't agree with that.
Not possible but assume we crossbreed a rabbit with a dog. Would you call the offspring, no matter the number of generations, a parrot or a dog? I would call the offspring radogs...
So they are no 3rd generation rabbits. They are 3rd generation radogs. (assuming they keep they only mate with other radogs)
Quote from: wwI don't agree with that.
Not possible but assume a we crossbreed...
Joshua 13:12
All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.Here they are called the remnant of the
giants which word is nephalim. So, they are the remnants of the nephalim which is the same as nephilim in my book. I see it as less like cat and dog mating and more like Irish and Italian lol. Because don't forget, Adam was a son of God and intended to be one of these 'gods' [elohiym] before the fall. He's called
al Adam in the garden.
If you understand this, you understand better the wars that God led the Israelites to fight.
QuoteYou are missing my point Molly.
I guess I am. I don't understand what you are saying. The sons of God did not become human, they mated with humans. Jesus became human, the Word made flesh.
And to make this clear, he points to Adam, calling himself, son of Adam.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 06:54:34 PM
Quote from: wwI don't agree with that.
Not possible but assume a we crossbreed...
Joshua 13:12
All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.
Here they are called the remnant of the giants which word is nephalim.
Nope. Only in 1-3 verses the giants are nephlim. In this verse:
רפה / רפא
râphâ' / râphâh
BDB Definition:
1) giants, Rephaim
1a) old tribe of giants
Part of Speech: noun proper, of tribe, gentilic
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from H7495 in the sense of invigorating
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2198d
Last of the cross breeds.
QuoteI see it as less like cat and dog mating and more like Irish and Italian lol.
What breed is the puppy? Irish? Italian? Or American? :laughing7:
QuoteBecause don't forget, Adam was a son of God and intended to be one of these 'gods' [elohiym] before the fall.
So plan A failed....
QuoteQuoteYou are missing my point Molly.
I guess I am. I don't understand what you are saying. The sons of God did not become human, they mated with humans.
That automatically means the offspring is a hybrid.
Hi there all,
Haven't posted for ages but when i saw this post i knew i had to contribute to this discussion.
I don't know if any of you are have read or know about Zecharia Sitchin or Alan Alford, etc but they have looked into the ancient Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian texts and although they have been derided as myths, these texts speak about flesh and blood 'gods' who came down to earth and created mankind and brought with them civilisation. Before anyone as a christian poo poos these ideas, remember that the writings that have come down to us in the old testament often have been taken from these exact sumerian texts, especially noahs ark. In the sumerian text, it was called the epic of gilgamesh. And there is also a creation text.
To me that's why lots of biblical texts don't make sense if we are talking about a universal God who causes nuclear holocausts in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I don't know what to believe in anymore as regards to the bible and its descriptions of 'god'.
Godbless
Nancy
Quote from: wwNope. Only in 1-3 verses the giants are nephlim. In this verse:
רפה / רפא
râphâ' / râphâh
BDB Definition:
1) giants, Rephaim
1a) old tribe of giants
Part of Speech: noun proper, of tribe, gentilic
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from H7495 in the sense of invigorating
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2198d
Last of the cross breeds.
That's true, they are called Raphaim there. There are different peoples also, called Anakim, Emim. But they are all giants, therefore considered descendents of Nephilim.
Deuteronomy 2:10-11
"The Emim lived there formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim, they are regarded as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim."At first glance it would seem these beings, along with the Anakim and Emim, were different appellations for the same group of people. They were all "regarded" as Rephaim.
Though these groups were indeed very closely related, they were
different factions of descendants from the Nephilim. This verse, then, seems to muddy the already muddied waters.
One must look at the Hebrew word translated "regarded". The Hebrew word is "Chashab". According to Spiro Zodhiates, this word is used 121 times in the Old Testament.
Chashab literally means to count, to count for, to impute, to esteem, to reckon. The fundamental idea of Chashab is that of "using the mind in the activity of thinking".
With this interpretation, then, these three groups were not meant to be figured as the same group of people. Rather, the Israelites thought of these people along the same lines as they did the Anakim and the Emim.
They were a mighty people of great size. The Emim are said to have been a tribe of the Rephaim. By the time of the conquest, these people had nearly vanished from Canaan. The Rephaim's demise can be gleamed from Deuteronomy 3:11.
"For only Og king of Bashon was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit."
Og, king of Bashon, was said to have been the last of the Rephaim. Og is an extremely interesting person in the Old Testament.
Og and Sihon, king of Gilead, were feared warriors and monarchs prior to the Israelite's entrance into Canaan. Scripture describes Og as a giant. His bed was over 14 feet long, and over 6 feet wide! Not only that, it was made of iron. Iron was no doubt needed to support such a large body, which most certainly weighed hundreds of pounds.
Nephilim giants such as Og, according to some scholars, may have been numerous at this time in the history of Palestine. http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/rephaim.html
Personally, I don't think the "Nephilim" are all that important. They aren't exactly the central theme to the Bible's narrative.
As for the days of Noah, I think we should be more concerned with our human neighbor's behaviour than some shadow-species we don't even know about. The Bible is a book of God's dealings with man - not a beastiary on the various kinds of beings in the universe.
Quote from: Nancy on April 09, 2011, 08:36:57 PM
Hi there all,
Haven't posted for ages but when i saw this post i knew i had to contribute to this discussion.
I don't know if any of you are have read or know about Zecharia Sitchin or Alan Alford, etc but they have looked into the ancient Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian texts and although they have been derided as myths, these texts speak about flesh and blood 'gods' who came down to earth and created mankind and brought with them civilisation. Before anyone as a christian poo poos these ideas, remember that the writings that have come down to us in the old testament often have been taken from these exact sumerian texts, especially noahs ark. In the sumerian text, it was called the epic of gilgamesh. And there is also a creation text.
To me that's why lots of biblical texts don't make sense if we are talking about a universal God who causes nuclear holocausts in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I don't know what to believe in anymore as regards to the bible and its descriptions of 'god'.
Godbless
Nancy
Hi Nancy, take a look at what Michael Heiser has to say about Sitchin. You can find it on youtube, maybe I'll look for you later. He basically calls him a hack. Sitchin has no credentials as an ancient near east scholar and makes a lot of stuff up.
However, it is most certainly true that the other neighbors of the Israelites at that time, and before, had many of the same understandings of God as did the Israelites, but interpreted what they understood differently. It's a long story, but these peoples were not copying from each other so much as gaining increasing revelation of the LORD God of Israel and who he is, which is given in its most complete form at the time to the Israelites.
We today have an even clearer revelation of him through the Lord Jesus Christ.
That's a very reasonable way to look at it all.
They called Pharoah a 'god.' Was he a god? Maybe the story of the nephilim casts some light on that. But, we see Moses make short work of the Pharoah in Exodus. And, that was the point. God or not, the Pharoah was no match for the LORD God of Israel.
Quote from: Lefein on April 09, 2011, 08:42:44 PM
Personally, I don't think the "Nephilim" are all that important. They aren't exactly the central theme to the Bible's narrative.
As for the days of Noah, I think we should be more concerned with our human neighbor's behaviour than some shadow-species we don't even know about. The Bible is a book of God's dealings with man - not a beastiary on the various kinds of beings in the universe.
I don't think that's really a fair way to look at it because for instance--
Eph 6 tells us to vibrate against these [evil] spiritual beings. We are told to put on the armor of God because we are the spiritual army of the Lord [of hosts].
We are fighting a spiritual war today as much as Joshua was fighting a physical war in his day--against the same beings and their descendants/minions. The difference is that we are equipped to fight in a way that those in the OT were not.
This is certainly one very fair interpretation of what we are reading about in our Bible.
We are not even aware of what they are, let alone if they are all "evil". It only says that they were men of renown, men of fame - not evil.
It was not that they themselves were evil, or the source of evil - except that they too along with everyone except Noah had become evil for what ever reason or another.
Quote from: Lefein on April 09, 2011, 09:13:16 PM
We are not even aware of what they are, let alone if they are all "evil". It only says that they were men of renown, men of fame - not evil.
It was not that they themselves were evil, or the source of evil - except that they too along with everyone except Noah had become evil for what ever reason or another.
well, I think it's implied that they are evil, and that they led men astray before the flood, but we certainly could disagree about that. I personally think it's pretty clear their descendants and followers are considered evil by God in the OT, but we could disagree about that.
But I don't think we could disagree about what Paul says--
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. --Eph 6
I would not call those principalities and powers Nephilim. Nephilim are mortal creatures, what ever they may be.
Quote from: Lefein on April 09, 2011, 09:24:30 PM
I would not call those principalities and powers Nephilim. Nephilim are mortal creatures, what ever they may be.
Are they mortal? They are part 'god' after all.
I don't like to bring in other books, but just a peak at other books maybe...
You might be surprised at what the satanists of this age worship...
The Apocrypha claim the disembodied Nephilim are the origin of demons, and accuse them of many crimes. Jubilees places the blame for the Flood squarely upon the fornication of the Watchers and the iniquity and bloodshed of the Nephilim. "And now the giants who were born from souls and flesh will be called evil spirits upon the earth," charges I Enoch XV-XVI, "From the day of...the slaughter and destruction of the giant Nephilim, the mighty ones of the earth, the great famous ones, the spirits that have gone out from their souls as from the flesh will destroy without judgment." Even the mortal women who are their mothers are cursed to become sirens and demonesses. In Jubilees X:1-6, Noah's sons beg him to protect their children from "unclean demons" who are "leading astray, blinding and killing" them; Noah, petitioning God to "let not wicked spirits rule over [my grandchildren] and destroy them", adds, "Thou knowest what thy Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, did in my day..." making it clear that the demonic spirits and the Nephilim are considered one and the same.http://www.bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 08:38:42 PMThat's true, they are called Raphaim there. There are different peoples also, called Anakim, Emim. But they are all giants, therefore considered descendents of Nephilim.
Sure their ancestors were Nephlim. But
also human. Say the Neplim were 5m tall and their hybrid children 3m then both would be regarded as giants. But they are different.
QuoteDeuteronomy 2:10-11
"The Emim lived there formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim, they are regarded as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim."
At first glance it would seem these beings, along with the Anakim and Emim, were different appellations for the same group of people. They were all "regarded" as Rephaim.
Though these groups were indeed very closely related, they were different factions of descendants from the Nephilim. This verse, then, seems to muddy the already muddied waters.
Not at all. A wide family tree starts from Adam and Eve. At a certain point the people become unrelated. Different factions. Same for the Nephlim marriages. Unrelated Nephplim mate with unrelated humans. Then the result simply is unrelated off-spring.
QuoteOne must look at the Hebrew word translated "regarded". The Hebrew word is "Chashab". According to Spiro Zodhiates, this word is used 121 times in the Old Testament.
122.
Gen 15:6
Gen 31:15
Gen 38:15
Gen 50:20
Exod 26:1
Exod 26:31
Exod 28:6
Exod 28:15
Exod 31:4
Exod 35:32
Exod 35:35
Exod 36:8
Exod 36:35
Exod 38:23
Exod 39:3
Exod 39:8
Lev 7:18
Lev 17:4
Lev 25:27
Lev 25:31
Lev 25:50
Lev 25:52
Lev 27:18
Lev 27:23
Num 18:27
Num 18:30
Num 23:9
Deut 2:11
Deut 2:20
Josh 13:3
1Sam 1:13
1Sam 18:25
2Sam 4:2
2Sam 14:13
2Sam 14:14
2Sam 19:19
1Kgs 10:21
2Kgs 12:15
2Kgs 22:7
2Chr 2:14
2Chr 9:20
2Chr 26:15
Neh 6:2
Neh 6:6
Neh 13:13
Esth 8:3
Esth 9:24
Esth 9:25
Job 6:26
Job 13:24
Job 18:3
Job 19:11
Job 19:15
Job 33:10
Job 35:2
Job 41:27
Job 41:29
Job 41:32
Ps 10:2
Ps 21:11
Ps 32:2
Ps 35:4
Ps 35:20
Ps 36:4
Ps 40:17
Ps 41:7
Ps 44:22
Ps 52:2
Ps 73:16
Ps 77:5
Ps 88:4
Ps 106:31
Ps 119:59
Ps 140:2
Ps 140:4
Ps 144:3
Prov 16:9
Prov 16:30
Prov 17:28
Prov 24:8
Prov 27:14
Isa 2:22
Isa 5:28
Isa 10:7
Isa 13:17
Isa 29:16
Isa 29:17
Isa 32:15
Isa 33:8
Isa 40:15
Isa 40:17
Isa 53:3
Isa 53:4
Jer 11:19
Jer 18:8
Jer 18:11
Jer 18:18
Jer 23:27
Jer 26:3
Jer 29:11
Jer 36:3
Jer 48:2
Jer 49:20
Jer 49:30
Jer 50:45
Lam 2:8
Lam 4:2
Ezek 11:2
Ezek 38:10
Dan 11:24
Dan 11:25
Hos 7:15
Hos 8:12
Amos 6:5
Jonah 1:4
Mic 2:1
Mic 2:3
Nah 1:9
Nah 1:11
Zech 7:10
Zech 8:17
Mal 3:16
Quote"For only Og king of Bashon was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit."
Let me be clear Molly; that's a giant. I'm not denying that. But the way I see it those giants are not pure Nephlim. Both a camel and a elephant are big animals but not the same.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 09:19:42 PM
Quote from: Lefein on April 09, 2011, 09:13:16 PM
We are not even aware of what they are, let alone if they are all "evil". It only says that they were men of renown, men of fame - not evil.
It was not that they themselves were evil, or the source of evil - except that they too along with everyone except Noah had become evil for what ever reason or another.
well, I think it's implied that they are evil, and that they led men astray before the flood, but we certainly could disagree about that. I personally think it's pretty clear their descendants and followers are considered evil by God in the OT, but we could disagree about that.
Not the Nephlim but the hybrids were nicknamed "terrors". Likely that was not due to the charity work they did...
wasnt Goliath [of the EARTH ]a ""GIANT" :happy3: :icon_flower:
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 10:03:00 PMThe Apocrypha claim the disembodied Nephilim are the origin of demons
But the book of Adam and Eve tells a diffrent story. Lillith mated with hundreds of demons. That was evne before Adam and Eve were kicked out the Garden. With enough books everybody is right :winkgrin:
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
--Daniel 8
Quote from: Taffy on April 09, 2011, 10:53:15 PM
wasnt Goliath [of the EARTH ]a ""GIANT" :happy3: :icon_flower:
Ask Beloved Servant :grin:
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 11:22:14 PM
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
--Daniel 8
Do NOT put your"TRUST" In Princes[ Which are MEN= [ADAM] :icon_flower:
Psa 76:12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: [he is] terrible to the kings of the earth.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. :icon_flower:
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 09, 2011, 02:40:21 AM
Hello Thinktank,
Let us say point 2, and 3 is your belief.
Do you believe those angels were ever part of the Kingdom of God?
If point 2 and 3 were my belief I'd say that, if Peter or Jude is refering to the angels that disobeyed long ago, are the same angels that theoretically mated with humanity, then according to the language used, they imply that they disobeyed. So before they obeyed then they would, I assume be a part of Gods kingdom, appropiating that is the amount of imformation available. But according to enoch's book if I recall correctly, then these angels already rebelled once, and would rebel once more by commiting this act. This could explain why the devil get's away scot free, while these other angels are imprisoned in Tartarus/abuss, possibly also refered also in the book of revelation, i.e ephrates river.
Another theory is that these angels are different to the devil and his angels, since the Devil sinned from the begining. Does this refernce to Genesis 1.1 and also when John said, in the begining was the word.
I would prefer to keep this a seperate topic, because it is important. But knowing this info could shed some light on these angels that disobeyed.
One scripture that molly brings up is that these angels are called sons of God and the devil came also among them.
Notice in that scripture that God makes a seperate category to the devil and these angels. Jesus calls the devil the Father of lies. However these angels are called sons of god(?God)
The devil is loose but these angels are imprisoned. So how are these angels imprisoned?
One scripture says that before Christ we were held in bondage to the devil, but now we have power over all the scorpions, worms, cankerworm and all the power of the enemy.
So if it took Christ to come, in order for us to chain up these dark forces, how is it that before christ these angels are imprisoned!
I have a theory that these angels imprisoned might be God's angels, while the Devil is an evil force who existed in the begining. Perhaps the devil was created when Pre incarnate Jesus was created, creating an arch nemesis for Christ until the times comes for Christ to defeat the devil and all his enemies. With this in mind, it is now feasible for Christ to totally destroy the devil in the lake of fire, because the devil was never part of Gods creation to begin with (i.e God cannot lie, but the devil is the Father of lies). This theory is new and have not looked at all angles yet, but so far it makes a great deal of sense, and could in fact be a key issue with Universal salvation, because knowing that the devil was never part of Gods creation, means it is logical and morally acceptable for God to destory him in the lake of fire and overcomes the potential current contraversial UR issue of whether the devil will be restored and Jesus and he end up being pals.
For a kind of viewpoint on what I am trying to convey, maybe take a look at the movie the matrix 2. The part when Mr Anderson is created, from Neo. The arch nemesis of Neo. Likewise when the word was created, what could have taken place was that darkness took place in Genesis 1.2, where Jesus the logos was "copied", (his powers, not morality) (Mystery) and His arch nemesis the Devil was created. So now He christ must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet :bigGrin:
I am quite excited by this theory :happy3:
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 09, 2011, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: wwOf course there is a difference between begotten and created but still it's strange Jesus isn't the son of God but the son of mankind
He refers to himself as the son of Adam, referencing the generation of Adam in Gen 5. He is making it clear that he is the kinsman redeemer of the offspring of Adam, that is, mankind.
You are missing my point Molly. He is teh Son of God BUT He calls Himself Son of Man. So if a Son of man is the son of God how much value can we put in sons of God being sons of God?
Quote from: ww--> So at that time there were: humans, nephlim and hybrids
Quotewell, now you are confusing me because the nephalim were the hybrid of gods and men.
That's not how I read the verse. There were Nephlim BEFORE the mated with humans.
QuoteThey also had children going forward.
And only those children are called men of renown.
QuoteSo somebody might be a third generation nephal for instance--but still a hybrid
I don't agree with that.
Not possible but assume we crossbreed a rabbit with a dog. Would you call the offspring, no matter the number of generations, a parrot or a dog? I would call the offspring radogs...
So they are no 3rd generation rabbits. They are 3rd generation radogs. (assuming they keep they only mate with other radogs)
They did change their names several times. The original mutated beings are called Nephilim, successive generations are termed Anunniki, also the bible says that different groups called them different names.
If one is wondering why is it that the angels only mated in early Babylonian times and never comitted this act again?
I have a potential answer and that is, that they were affraid of Gods judgment of going to the abyss. So no one would dare try that stunt again. With this in mind it becomes easier to define different groups. Otherewise the angels could pop down here any time and produce a new breed of mutated beings. But I think they only did it once, and maybe dinosaurs and other giants such as sabertooths are a result of their experiments or whatever they were doing, and could explain why nearly all of these giant are extinct, because they were mutants and could not survive life, or God destroyed them to prevent them polluting the animal kingdom.
Quote from: thinktank on April 10, 2011, 12:17:07 AM
Notice in that scripture that God makes a seperate category to the devil and these angels. Jesus calls the devil the Father of lies. However these angels are called sons of god(?God)
You mean teh god of this earth? (satan)
The devil is loose but these angels are imprisoned. So how are these angels imprisoned?
QuoteI have a theory that these angels imprisoned might be God's angels, while the Devil is an evil force who existed in the begining. Perhaps the devil was created when Pre incarnate Jesus was created, creating an arch nemesis for Christ until the times comes for Christ to defeat the devil and all his enemies. With this in mind, it is now feasible for Christ to totally destroy the devil in the lake of fire, because the devil was never part of Gods creation to begin with (i.e God cannot lie, but the devil is the Father of lies). This theory is new and have not looked at all angles yet, but so far it makes a great deal of sense, and could in fact be a key issue with Universal salvation, because knowing that the devil was never part of Gods creation, means it is logical and morally acceptable for God to destory him in the lake of fire and overcomes the potential current contraversial UR issue of whether the devil will be restored and Jesus and he end up being pals.
That would mean God didn't create everything. There is another creator.
Quote from: thinktank on April 10, 2011, 12:33:26 AM
They did change their names several times. The original mutated beings are called Nephilim, successive generations are termed Anunniki, also the bible says that different groups called them different names.
Not the Nephlim are given different names. It was their hybrid (human/Nephlim) children râphâ' / râphâh that got different names.
Jesus said it not me.
John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Perhaps we accept the fact that God did not create a lie.
"If I said all people in the world are great". Then in another chapter say "One person is a bad influence"
=
6 billion people great, except one.
God created all things, except a lie.
Notice in that scripture that God makes a seperate category to the devil and these angels. Jesus calls the devil the Father of lies. However these angels are called sons of god(?God)
Tank
You mean teh god of this earth? (satan)
wings
I put in god(?God) because I forgot which letter the bible used. Depending on which letter makes a big difference. If it is little "g" then the god of this earth is the devil, which means they are sons of the devil. But if it is big "G" it means they are sons, to paraphrase, it means they belong to God, his creations.
The devil is loose but these angels are imprisoned. So how are these angels imprisoned?
Well the theory is in 2 ways
1. If the devil is a rebellious angel, then it means that he played the rules well and did not break certain rules held in place by the courts in heaven. But the angels who disobeyed and mated and commited the crime, had to pay the penalty for the crime they comitted. Another factor to consider is that, even though the devil is considered leader, did he play a part in the rebellion at all?. If not it means these angels comitted the crime outside of Gods will and outisde of the devils plans, but did their own thing.
2. If the devil was not part of God's creation and just exists as part of destiny and is here as an archenemy to Christ. Then it means that the sons of God who commited this crime were put in jail, becuase God chastizes his sons, the scripture says that is is good that one is chastized because then you are Gods sons, but if not, then who's son are you.
The devil is not put in jail because he is not Gods son and is an archenemy that must be overcome by Christ, who must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet. We can sense the power of the devil, because the archangel michael, did not arrest him in his own strength or bring against him false accusation but said "lord rebuke thee"
They turned to serving other gods, worshiping them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.
--Deut 29:26
This is a pretty pregnant sentence. It refers to the Israelites worshipping and serving 'other gods.' But, more than this, it points to the fact that YHWH has not allotted these gods to them.
The meaning of this can only be that there are other peoples [the pagans] who have been allotted to these other gods [elohiym, ben elohiym, sons of God].
So the question is--is this just a construct to distinguish between the Israelites and others, or do these gods really exist and are given rule over other peoples by YHWH?
Remember the days of old,
consider the years long past;
ask your father and he will inform you;
your elders and they will tell you.
When Elyon apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods (benê 'elōhîm);
the Lord's own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.
--Deut 32:7-9
The Lord kept Jacob for himself. He appointed the sons of God to rule the other nations. For the Israelites to worship other gods was not only a betrayal, it spit in the face of the divine [ly decreed] order.
QuoteYou mean teh god of this earth? (satan)
wings
QuoteI put in god(?God) because I forgot which letter the bible used.
It's actually the god of this age, referring to Satan. Some translations say the god of this world, but the word in the Greek is 'aion,' meaning age.
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
--2 Cor 4:4
Deut 3:11 "For only Og king of Bashon was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit."
Several books later 1 Sam 17:23 tells us about giant Goliath.
After all those posts we made little to no progress...
1] We still don't know what the Nephlim are.
2] We don't know why only male Neplim mated with human women. Why not female Nephlim with male humans?
3] Depending on the translation 1 -3 verses are about Nephlim all others use another Hebrew name.
4] Almost nothing is said about the Nephlim. They mated with femal humans and that's it.
5] They are spoken of in past tense "of old". As if they (hybrids) were extinct before Genesis was written. That's a problem for the timeline.
6] Numbers 13:33 calls the Nephilim sons of Anak (neck).
Quote from: Molly on April 10, 2011, 04:14:01 AM
They turned to serving other gods, worshiping them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.
--Deut 29:26
This is a pretty pregnant sentence. It refers to the Israelites worshipping and serving 'other gods.' But, more than this, it points to the fact that YHWH has not allotted these gods to them.
The meaning of this can only be that there are other peoples [the pagans] who have been allotted to these other gods [elohiym, ben elohiym, sons of God].
So the question is--is this just a construct to distinguish between the Israelites and others, or do these gods really exist and are given rule over other peoples by YHWH?
Remember the days of old,
consider the years long past;
ask your father and he will inform you;
your elders and they will tell you.
When Elyon apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods (benê 'elōhîm);
the Lord's own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.
--Deut 32:7-9
The Lord kept Jacob for himself. He appointed the sons of God to rule the other nations. For the Israelites to worship other gods was not only a betrayal, it spit in the face of the divine [ly decreed] order.
YLTExod 203 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
Starts sounding like Greek mythology.
Lots of gods in a constant state of rebellion ruled by the supreme god Zeus. They also mated with humans and produced half-gods like Hercules.
Quote from: wwStarts sounding like Greek mythology.
Lots of gods in a constant state of rebellion ruled by the supreme god Zeus. They also mated with humans and produced half-gods like Hercules.
Who says Greek 'mythology' was totally wrong? This was their religion, their understanding of the cosmos. The Greeks were well known in the ancient world for being rational and scientific. It's not like they were in mud huts beating on drums [not that there is anything wrong with that lol]. Why couldn't all of humanity be given a peek at what is going on in the spiritual world? He gives all men a measure of faith. Zeus as a baby was saved by Gaia. Who do you think we are tricked into worshipping on Earth day? People still worship these beings.
Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
23"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
24"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
--Acts 17
Quote from: thinktank on April 10, 2011, 12:17:07 AM
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 09, 2011, 02:40:21 AM
Hello Thinktank,
Let us say point 2, and 3 is your belief.
Do you believe those angels were ever part of the Kingdom of God?
I have a theory that these angels imprisoned might be God's angels, while the Devil is an evil force who existed in the begining. Perhaps the devil was created when Pre incarnate Jesus was created, creating an arch nemesis for Christ until the times comes for Christ to defeat the devil and all his enemies. With this in mind, it is now feasible for Christ to totally destroy the devil in the lake of fire, because the devil was never part of Gods creation to begin with (i.e God cannot lie, but the devil is the Father of lies). This theory is new and have not looked at all angles yet, but so far it makes a great deal of sense, and could in fact be a key issue with Universal salvation, because knowing that the devil was never part of Gods creation, means it is logical and morally acceptable for God to destory him in the lake of fire and overcomes the potential current contraversial UR issue of whether the devil will be restored and Jesus and he end up being pals.
For a kind of viewpoint on what I am trying to convey, maybe take a look at the movie the matrix 2. The part when Mr Anderson is created, from Neo. The arch nemesis of Neo. Likewise when the word was created, what could have taken place was that darkness took place in Genesis 1.2, where Jesus the logos was "copied", (his powers, not morality) (Mystery) and His arch nemesis the Devil was created. So now He christ must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet :bigGrin:
I am quite excited by this theory :happy3:
The question is, were those angels ever part of the Kingdom of God? Your theory believes that they were.
What if I were to tell you, Jesus said they were never part of the Kingdom, and in fact, if what your theory said is true, then Jesus says that God Kingdom will always fail?
Thank-you,
Dr. Anthony Carnasis
So you agree with part of my theory that the devil forces were never part of Gods kingdom?
But don't agree with the part that the angels who sinned and left their habitations spoken of in Jude and Peter, were originally Gods sons?
Then the question is why does God calls them his sons?
He doesn't call the devil his sons.
Also I don't understand why you said "if what your theory said is true, then Jesus says that God Kingdom will always fail?"
If these angels were originally part of Gods kingdom, but now are chained up ! Ok so what difference does it make, if they were originally part of Gods kingdom or not, in respect to the idea that somehow if...
Do you mean that because now they have fallen and are chaind up, God will destroy them just as the devil and that means according to you that God will fail, to restore all things?
But my question is, if you mean that, then where does it say these angels will be destroyed?. I think they will be restored because God says that he will restore all things. However according to my theory, it means that restoring the devil, will mean destroying him, because he was not part of Gods kingdom to restore. Also if the devil is as I theoroized an evil force who existed at the begining, between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, then restoring him would mean, restoring evil, which might give rise to another chaotic disturbance in the universe.
. But these angels who fell were part of Gods kingdom and have paid the penalty for their sins, by being chained up in tartarus, restoring these angels would mean they would return to their former estate and would receive mercy , just as humanity have received mercy.
ps
I'm not claiming to invent the idea concerning the devil existing from the begining, I think some here have already posted about that, but I think they saw the devil as an evil force of adversity, rather than a real being of evil, so my theory is slightly different and I think the part about the angels who left their former habitation to be restored, is also new.
I agree that those sons of God who fell from their first estate and rebelled against God were once part of the divine council. There are others, too, who are still part of the council who are wicked, and these God is warning in Psa 82 that they will die like men. Paul tells us to vibrate against them in Eph 6.
Whether they are restored or not I don't know, but if they are, we human sons of God will still rule over them with Christ during the millenium.
Hey ThinkTank
Col 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
How do you reconcile this verse with your theory? It seems that Jesus created everything including Satan (whatever he is)
drats that's the end of my theory :laughing7:, at least on surface, but these things require deep thought and prayer.
The four options so far I have found concerning the devil are
1. He was created good, but then fell into disobedience (Thou anointed cherub was in the garden of eden, perfect till iniquity found in you) Tradditionally the lucifer scripture in Isiah is more often used, but personally I don't see this particular scripture as being solid evidence and kind of believe it is talking about someone else.
2. He was created evil from the begining (The serpent was more subtle (=Evil?)that the lord God created
3. He somehow was mysteriously created in the begining as an archenemy of Christ, outside of God creation, so that the bible doesn't even attempt to explain how it happened, only says, that the devil exists. (The devil came to thief, kill and destroy, but I came to bring life - Genesis 1.1, 1.2
4. He was created good, but God decided to turn him into a devil, an enemy for Christ and his followers to overcome and resist temptation ( All things were created for him and through him - Who can resist his will? - who art thou clay that answereth to the potter)
I find that each of these ideas has scriptural challenges, mainly because that Jesus said that the devil is the father of lies.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
So you agree with part of my theory that the devil forces were never part of Gods kingdom?
It is of my studied opinion, that anything like the devil and his angels did not originate as part of God's Kingdom but was created outside and set themselves up as ones trying to get in.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
But don't agree with the part that the angels who sinned and left their habitations spoken of in Jude and Peter, were originally Gods sons?
Peter and Jude do not call them sons of God, Peter and Jude call them angels. The proper term being, "messengers" not the celestial spirit beings.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
Also I don't understand why you said "if what your theory said is true, then Jesus says that God Kingdom will always fail?"
If these angels were originally part of Gods kingdom, but now are chained up ! Ok so what difference does it make, if they were originally part of Gods kingdom or not, in respect to the idea that somehow if...
A kingdom divided against itself will fail.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
Do you mean that because now they have fallen and are chaind up, God will destroy them just as the devil and that means according to you that God will fail, to restore all things?
It is a metaphor, a parable in which hearing people don't hear, and seeing they won't see. There area no literal angels bound up in eternal chains. You have a group of people veiled from walking in the truth, a people cut off from the blessings of God because of their unbelief until another people who were not His people are gathered in.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
But my question is, if you mean that, then where does it say these angels will be destroyed?. I think they will be restored because God says that he will restore all things. However according to my theory, it means that restoring the devil, will mean destroying him, because he was not part of Gods kingdom to restore. Also if the devil is as I theoroized an evil force who existed at the begining, between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, then restoring him would mean, restoring evil, which might give rise to another chaotic disturbance in the universe.
There are many spirits that have tried to elevate itself as God, both human and non-human and they do not need to be 'destroyed', all they need to be is reconciled to their proper place.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
But these angels who fell were part of Gods kingdom and have paid the penalty for their sins, by being chained up in tartarus, restoring these angels would mean they would return to their former estate and would receive mercy , just as humanity have received mercy.
They were not yet into the Kingdom, but you got the jist of it.
Quote from: thinktank on April 12, 2011, 01:00:35 AM
The four options so far I have found concerning the devil are
1. He was created good, but then fell into disobedience (Thou anointed cherub was in the garden of eden, perfect till iniquity found in you) Tradditionally the lucifer scripture in Isiah is more often used, but personally I don't see this particular scripture as being solid evidence and kind of believe it is talking about someone else.
2. He was created evil from the begining (The serpent was more subtle (=Evil?)that the lord God created
3. He somehow was mysteriously created in the begining as an archenemy of Christ, outside of God creation, so that the bible doesn't even attempt to explain how it happened, only says, that the devil exists. (The devil came to thief, kill and destroy, but I came to bring life - Genesis 1.1, 1.2
4. He was created good, but God decided to turn him into a devil, an enemy for Christ and his followers to overcome and resist temptation ( All things were created for him and through him - Who can resist his will? - who art thou clay that answereth to the potter)
I really enjoy your conversation style, don't be too eager to give up on something simply because others have a difference of opinion. It is great that you are extrapolating in the way that you are.
Here is my response.
The devil and Satan are two different things but in some cases refer to the same thing.
The devil refers to a particular identity, while Satan refers to a position of authority, particularly an accuser, one who opposes another which spirit and flesh and stone have held.
The Sons of God and Angels are two different things but in some cases refer to the same thing.
The Sons of God are a particular identity, while Angel is a position of authority, particularly "Messenger" which spirit and flesh and stone have held.
The danger is of circular argument and oversimplified philosophy; just because they have similar themes doesn't make them the same and I would urge you to re-examine the Lucifer myth in more detail.
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 12, 2011, 02:51:54 AM
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
So you agree with part of my theory that the devil forces were never part of Gods kingdom?
It is of my studied opinion, that anything like the devil and his angels did not originate as part of God's Kingdom but was created outside and set themselves up as ones trying to get in.
--
TT
Could you elaborate a bit more?
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
But don't agree with the part that the angels who sinned and left their habitations spoken of in Jude and Peter, were originally Gods sons?
Peter and Jude do not call them sons of God, Peter and Jude call them angels. The proper term being, "messengers" not the celestial spirit beings.
----
TT
Ok , my assumption is that these angels are the very same that the bible talks about in Genesis, when the sons of God took the daughters of men.
Notice that they talk about those who disobeyed before the flood.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
Also I don't understand why you said "if what your theory said is true, then Jesus says that God Kingdom will always fail?"
If these angels were originally part of Gods kingdom, but now are chained up ! Ok so what difference does it make, if they were originally part of Gods kingdom or not, in respect to the idea that somehow if...
A kingdom divided against itself will fail.
----
TT replies
But that doesn't mean they are divided. God has a kingdom and anything within that kingdom is considered on the same side. But those outside the kingdom are considred to be in devils kingdom. We as humanity are outside of Gods kingdom and are considred to be inside the devils kingdom. But there are those here who Christ has revealed, how to live in the kingdom of God, instead of living in the ways of the kingdom of the devil and these pass from this kingdom of darkness kingdom, to His kingdom of love. Both kingdoms are operating in the earth and ever since John the baptist , he who announced the coming of the great saviour and light of the world, the kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Millions of Christians have died in this world, because they operate within Gods kingdom.
The angels who left Gods kingdom are now just like us, part of the devil kingdom, until Christ restores, each in their own order.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
Do you mean that because now they have fallen and are chaind up, God will destroy them just as the devil and that means according to you that God will fail, to restore all things?
It is a metaphor, a parable in which hearing people don't hear, and seeing they won't see. There area no literal angels bound up in eternal chains. You have a group of people veiled from walking in the truth, a people cut off from the blessings of God because of their unbelief until another people who were not His people are gathered in.
-------
Possibly, but do these angels interact with the world?. I think that they are spiritually chained and cannot interact, unless possibly by occult activity or something, I don't know what their world consists of.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
But my question is, if you mean that, then where does it say these angels will be destroyed?. I think they will be restored because God says that he will restore all things. However according to my theory, it means that restoring the devil, will mean destroying him, because he was not part of Gods kingdom to restore. Also if the devil is as I theoroized an evil force who existed at the begining, between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, then restoring him would mean, restoring evil, which might give rise to another chaotic disturbance in the universe.
There are many spirits that have tried to elevate itself as God, both human and non-human and they do not need to be 'destroyed', all they need to be is reconciled to their proper place.
-----
Does that include the devil?
But if he was originally "lucifer" or some cherub, then God would have created him inside the kingdom.
So I guess you are saying that God created the devil to be evil...or possibly you are saying that God created all beings in neutral territory and they can either press into Gods kingdom or go their own way, towards darkness.. that's actually a good theory, for Adam and Eve had a choice to enter the kingdom of life, through the tree of life, or to go their own way via the tree of knowledge, so they had a choice. The problem with this though is that the garden of Eden in some ways is the kingdom of God, but yet is depends on how one looks at it. Yes the garden was a luxurious place, but Las Vegas is also a luxurious place, but not necessarily operating inside of Gods kingdom of peace, grace, righteousness.
So maybe the garden of Eden is only kingdom based in terms of material wealth, but not so much spiritual wealth, although God did walk in the midst of the garden, but maybe this is similar to how we have a church(not merely building). The kingdom is "there" "available" but not something we take for granted, but something we press into.
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
But these angels who fell were part of Gods kingdom and have paid the penalty for their sins, by being chained up in tartarus, restoring these angels would mean they would return to their former estate and would receive mercy , just as humanity have received mercy.
They were not yet into the Kingdom, but you got the jist of it.
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 12, 2011, 02:51:54 AM
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
So you agree with part of my theory that the devil forces were never part of Gods kingdom?
It is of my studied opinion, that anything like the devil and his angels did not originate as part of God's Kingdom but was created outside and set themselves up as ones trying to get in.
Just curious, how do you think something originates out side of God? Did not Paul say at least
6 times... All things are of God. ?
I've always thought Satan was trying to establish his own kingdom where he was God, which puts him naturally on a collision course with God and his kingdom.
For 6000 years of human history, Satan's kingdom on earth has been bigger and on the face of it, more successful. I'm sure the last 2000 years have been difficult for him, but, again, it looks like he is coming out on top.
Sometimes, I wonder how the genetic makeup of anyone good has managed to survive 6000 years of human brutality. I guess the fact that they have proves evolution is a lie, and survival of the fittest errs when it does not put God into the equation.
It is of my studied opinion . . .
This kind of jumps out at me . . ."my" "studied" "opinion". While it's obvious that many benefit from each other's fruit of their own labors . . which is to say.many benefit from the opinions and conclusions of others . . .I still wince at times when it appears that many of the conclusions that get shared out come from flesh and blood reasoning rather than spiritual revealing. We struggle much with spiritual realities and our natural minds do the best they can with the limited tools given to us in these bodies of flesh. At the same time, the idea that we can have an accurate description of who satan is, who the devil is, who Lucifer is assuming that this knowledge can even be obtained through natural means makes me a bit uneasy.
Because the nature of satan doesn't have "any" characterstics of the nature of God, our reasoning would then be that it would "have" to have been created outside of God??? I think that a good portion of the problem with this thinking is that the conclusion that satan is an individual entity/being to which we can connect any ungodly thought or action to as the source is missing the mark as well. The idea that satan planted a bad thought in my mind . . .that satan made me do a bad thing . . .that satan is the one that caused me to be tempted, weak, or just plain sinful is only an enabler that allows me to remain in my muck and mire as I continue living life with a victim mentality.
I find it MOST interesting that the majority of believers on this site have come to realize some truths about the existence of hell and the freedom that comes with that . . .but yet most continue to embrace the other half of that falsity in that we've let hell go, but we continue to embrace the existance of satan from traditional perspectives. Even though hell and satan go hand in hand . . .I don't get it. How can we let go of one and not the other? Hell has been satan's directive for our lives from the beginning . . .or so the traditional church would tell you . .but once you've come into the understanding that hell isn't that eternal pit of torment that satan's throne resides at, but that it's merely the nature of this realm we live in as a combination of our choices we make, the choices others make that affects us , and the nature of this natural realm of the flesh in and of itself . . .but yet we still maintain satan is everything traditional teaching has made him up to be? How is this possible?
Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2011, 05:55:18 PM
It is of my studied opinion . . .
This kind of jumps out at me . . ."my" "studied" "opinion". While it's obvious that many benefit from each other's fruit of their own labors . . which is to say.many benefit from the opinions and conclusions of others . . .I still wince at times when it appears that many of the conclusions that get shared out come from flesh and blood reasoning rather than spiritual revealing. We struggle much with spiritual realities and our natural minds do the best they can with the limited tools given to us in these bodies of flesh. At the same time, the idea that we can have an accurate description of who satan is, who the devil is, who Lucifer is assuming that this knowledge can even be obtained through natural means makes me a bit uneasy.
This fear of actually studying the Scriptures and actually sharing what we have studied is getting really old. In my studied opinion, means I actually studied to formulate an opinion and just didn't just have an opinion made up on the spot from this discussion or something I read someone said. If any of us want to just believe anything without actually study and prayer, and share our opinion of it, then go ahead. It is my opinion, that we should have more studied opinions than just opinions, especially when it comes to the Word of God and the spiritual life we lead. If anyone disagrees, let them disagree.
Thank-you.
Quote from: Pierac on April 12, 2011, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 12, 2011, 02:51:54 AM
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
So you agree with part of my theory that the devil forces were never part of Gods kingdom?
It is of my studied opinion, that anything like the devil and his angels did not originate as part of God's Kingdom but was created outside and set themselves up as ones trying to get in.
Just curious, how do you think something originates out side of God? Did not Paul say at least 6 times... All things are of God. ?
Hello Pierac,
I suggest you should read it again, I said did not originate
of part of God's Kingdom, but was created (by God) and set themselves up as ones trying to get in. I never said something originates outside of God, I said they originate outside God's Kingdom.
Jesus said the same thing, everything that is not already in the Kingdom of God, is always on the outside and must come in.
Matthew 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until the present time, the kingdom of heaven has endured violent assault, and violent men [try to] seize it by force [as a precious prize--a share in the heavenly kingdom is sought with most ardent zeal and intense exertion].
Luke 16:16Until John came, there were the Law and the Prophets; since then the good news (the Gospel) of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone strives violently to go in [would force his own way rather than God's way into it].
Who, according to Jesus, has been violently assaulting the Kingdom of Heaven? Violent men. There is no secret in Scripture, no spiritual mystery which has not already been revealed in Jesus. The devil and his angels who assault the Kingdom of Heaven according to Peter, Jude and John are speaking of those very same violent men Jesus described.
Thank-you,
Dr Anthony Carnasis.
There is a difference between what Satan is, and what the devil is. There is a difference between Sons of God and angels. Therefore, there is quite a difference in what the Nephilim is, once we recognize that we cannot over-simplify every passage in Scripture as pertaining to the same thing, all the time.
Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2011, 05:55:18 PM
It is of my studied opinion . . .
This kind of jumps out at me . . ."my" "studied" "opinion". While it's obvious that many benefit from each other's fruit of their own labors . . which is to say.many benefit from the opinions and conclusions of others . . .I still wince at times when it appears that many of the conclusions that get shared out come from flesh and blood reasoning rather than spiritual revealing. We struggle much with spiritual realities and our natural minds do the best they can with the limited tools given to us in these bodies of flesh. At the same time, the idea that we can have an accurate description of who satan is, who the devil is, who Lucifer is assuming that this knowledge can even be obtained through natural means makes me a bit uneasy.
Because the nature of satan doesn't have "any" characterstics of the nature of God, our reasoning would then be that it would "have" to have been created outside of God??? I think that a good portion of the problem with this thinking is that the conclusion that satan is an individual entity/being to which we can connect any ungodly thought or action to as the source is missing the mark as well. The idea that satan planted a bad thought in my mind . . .that satan made me do a bad thing . . .that satan is the one that caused me to be tempted, weak, or just plain sinful is only an enabler that allows me to remain in my muck and mire as I continue living life with a victim mentality.
I find it MOST interesting that the majority of believers on this site have come to realize some truths about the existence of hell and the freedom that comes with that . . .but yet most continue to embrace the other half of that falsity in that we've let hell go, but we continue to embrace the existance of satan from traditional perspectives. Even though hell and satan go hand in hand . . .I don't get it. How can we let go of one and not the other? Hell has been satan's directive for our lives from the beginning . . .or so the traditional church would tell you . .but once you've come into the understanding that hell isn't that eternal pit of torment that satan's throne resides at, but that it's merely the nature of this realm we live in as a combination of our choices we make, the choices others make that affects us , and the nature of this natural realm of the flesh in and of itself . . .but yet we still maintain satan is everything traditional teaching has made him up to be? How is this possible?
Excellent!
:cloud9: I think both viewpoints are true, just as both are true everywhere else in scripture (ie. both natural AND spiritual applications). As for what I said, it did not come out of imaginations, I asked HIM; if it was true, then why would the demons/fallen ones want to create "hybrids", and the answer I gave, is what He gave me, believe it or not. The deaf shall hear, was not a fanciful saying; He plants the hearing ear in man, and those that hear His voice will come out of their graves (fleshly imaginations) and live, ie. receive the life/breath of the Spirit, which always comes with understanding. Blessings....
The ROCK hits right between the eyes — and then sinks deep!
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 12, 2011, 06:30:26 PM
Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2011, 05:55:18 PM
It is of my studied opinion . . .
This kind of jumps out at me . . ."my" "studied" "opinion". While it's obvious that many benefit from each other's fruit of their own labors . . which is to say.many benefit from the opinions and conclusions of others . . .I still wince at times when it appears that many of the conclusions that get shared out come from flesh and blood reasoning rather than spiritual revealing. We struggle much with spiritual realities and our natural minds do the best they can with the limited tools given to us in these bodies of flesh. At the same time, the idea that we can have an accurate description of who satan is, who the devil is, who Lucifer is assuming that this knowledge can even be obtained through natural means makes me a bit uneasy.
This fear of actually studying the Scriptures and actually sharing what we have studied is getting really old. In my studied opinion, means I actually studied to formulate an opinion and just didn't just have an opinion made up on the spot from this discussion or something I read someone said. If any of us want to just believe anything without actually study and prayer, and share our opinion of it, then go ahead. It is my opinion, that we should have more studied opinions than just opinions, especially when it comes to the Word of God and the spiritual life we lead. If anyone disagrees, let them disagree.
Thank-you.
Your emotions on this are confusing you from what I was trying to state. For one, I never said I had any fear of studying the Scriptures. I really . . .conscioiusly . . fear nothing. I revert to the Peter experience . . .flesh and blood can not teach us things God intimately reveals within us. there's no mention of being a deep thinker or studying a lot. I believe the Spirit can often lead me into studying something, but not so that I can gain knowledge and accumulate facts, but so that I open my heart up by laying my head down to allow the Spirit to reveal what lies beneath the surface of what's being said, which is also what lies beyond what my head can accumulate. The result is that there is freedom of Truth and not just another opinion to take under consideration.
This subject of satan and such is a good example of that. Everything is dimensional. For me, the most simplest are the three most general dimensions . . .natural, moral and spiritual. That can be overlaid with "general" (population) "corporate" (church) individual. I'ts like a funnel. The text starts out as a wide swath, it applies to all men. But it's application can be seen on several levels by each man, the ones closest to our nature is the one that affects us the most. which is to say that which is revealed to us inwardly is what brings the transformation to us inwardly (spiritually) which then manifests through us outwardly (naturally). Hashing out the natural implications is still over looking the inward principles for which it was aimed to connect with in the first place.
I don't see satan as an outward entity so much as I see satan as carnality inwardly. My mind is always at emnity against God. So for me, satan would then be the definition of what my mind is. Satan means adversary, and my natural mind is adverse with spiritual principles. Scripture speaks about the renewing of my mind, but is this renewal a natural one or a spiritual one? I would say it's a spiritual one, which then also means my natural mind, even though a renewal is taking place within my spirit man, my natural mind is still extremely limited in it's ability to comprehend spiritual principles , it can't grasp the vastness of the Father's infinite truth. It can only observe, not until understanding is birthed from that spiritual truth can my mind begin to comprehend what it's seeing. . . .thus we're told not to lean on our own understanding. Even though I may do much studying with great discipline, if everything is based on my intellectual understanding, how much of what I've concluded is really personal revelation through relationship and how much of that is just results from a well-disciplined mind?
For me the answer is in the freedom that comes from what I'm seeing. Truth sets us free. Knowledge doesn't have that kind of characteristic. It may "sound" like it's right, but which dimension are we plugged into? I'm not ata ll against studying Scripture. I'm just cautious about my mind being the source of what itis I'm seeing.
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 12, 2011, 06:45:18 PM
There is a difference between what Satan is, and what the devil is. There is a difference between Sons of God and angels. Therefore, there is quite a difference in what the Nephilim is, once we recognize that we cannot over-simplify every passage in Scripture as pertaining to the same thing, all the time.
Craig, when Gary gave you temporary permission to come back on the boards, it was to "clear something [specific] up". You stated you had no intent to keep posting. Discussion forums isn't everyone's "cup of tea" (Gary says he'd be banned from his own forum if he posted much lol).
I trust the specific issue(s) were addressed, and it appears it's time to "let's move on". God bless you, take care. James.
I don't see what the problem is, why shouldn't you let him post. There are others here who also try to reinterpret what the devil means, and are more radical in my studied opinion!.
Has nothing to do with the devil topic. In my post I stated Gary had given temporary permission for Craig to come on to address a specific issue - which Craig indicated was all he was interested in doing.
PM is the best place to discuss moderation issues, other than what's necessary for people to understand basically what's going on.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/rules_and_faq/what_you_may_not_do_2693.0.html
Since you've questioned moderation publically, I'll publically only say this is not a new issue and there are multiple factors involved. Craig's a brother and has been wished well. Any further details that are necessary can be discussed in private please. thanks.
Quote from: Pierac on April 12, 2011, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: DrAnthonyCarnasis on April 12, 2011, 02:51:54 AM
Quote from: thinktank on April 11, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
So you agree with part of my theory that the devil forces were never part of Gods kingdom?
It is of my studied opinion, that anything like the devil and his angels did not originate as part of God's Kingdom but was created outside and set themselves up as ones trying to get in.
Just curious, how do you think something originates out side of God? Did not Paul say at least 6 times... All things are of God. ?
Jesus said the devil is a liar and the father of it. So there is support for the idea.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2011, 04:36:31 PMI've always thought the nephilim would refer to the offspring of the sons of God and human wives. They are 'mighty men' --gibbor. It is the sons of God doing this who are referred to as 'fallen angels' in a colloquial sense. Satan would be one of the sons of God.
Fallen from where....?
a] From heaven to earth?
b] From earth to Tartarus?
c] Something else.
I think I have some support for b]
Think about it; and enjoy teh peace and quiet when I'm :lazy:
YLT2Pet 2
4 For if God messengers/angels who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved,
5 and the old world did not spare, but the eighth person, Noah, of righteousness a preacher, did keep, a flood on the world of the impious having brought,
YLT1Pet 3
18 because also Christ once for sin did suffer--righteous for unrighteous--that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,
19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach,
20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah--an ark being preparing--in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
The Greek text doesn't have "having gone" "went and" or similar (depending on the translation.) Jesus didn't go anywhere.
YLTGen 6
2 and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen.
3 And Jehovah saith, `My Spirit doth not strive in man--to the age; in their erring they are flesh:' and his days have been an hundred and twenty years.
4 The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them--they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.
The flood is mentioned in all verses and is the link that shows the angels, spirits in prison, Nephilm and sons of God are the same.
:cloud9: He destroyed the flesh that the Nephilim were in, which I believe was the reason for the flood. Things suffocated are unclean under the law. Drowning is in essence, suffocation. Judas hung himself, more suffocation.
The reason they are unclean has to do with the blood being in them when they die, which is why the animals had to be ceremonially killed and the blood drained out of them. Blood being drained out, is essentially the principle of deliverance being witnessed, because the carnal beastly natures are in/draw their life from, the blood.
I did not know of this the day after my conversion experience (having never read the Book yet),
but I awoke unable to stand the smell of the meat I was cooking for my family (and I was a big meat eater). I had no idea it was spiritual, based on the blood that was in it. It was not a natural smell I was smelling, it was spiritual. (Yes, spirits have a smell; ask any funeral home director what death smells like).
I also didn't know why I started boiling all meat in salt water thereafter, until I found out a couple of years ago. The salt removes the blood. I was making our meat "kosher" and didn't even realize it. My :2c:
Quotethe Nephilim were in
Sounds like they didn't have bodies of their own. I think they had bodies of their own.
Quote from: WhiteWings on May 31, 2011, 06:35:15 PM
Quotethe Nephilim were in
Sounds like they didn't have bodies of their own. I think they had bodies of their own.
Some say the nephilm can't be killed because they are demi-gods? Outside of their original body [once that body dies] they would be demons.
I think they are regular spirits and like all spirits they can have bodies. Their bodies can be destroyed (Goliath) but their spirit not (except by God I assume)
Same is true for your spirit imo.
Quote from: WhiteWings on May 31, 2011, 07:32:06 PM
I think they are regular spirits and like all spirits they can have bodies. Their bodies can be destroyed (Goliath) but their spirit not (except by God I assume)
Same is true for your spirit imo.
But my spirit won't stay earth-bound or Tarturus bound--right?
Matthew 8:16
When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with
devils: and he cast out
the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
Ques: are these spirits the nephilim?
Quote from: Molly on May 31, 2011, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on May 31, 2011, 07:32:06 PM
I think they are regular spirits and like all spirits they can have bodies. Their bodies can be destroyed (Goliath) but their spirit not (except by God I assume)
Same is true for your spirit imo.
But my spirit won't stay earth-bound or Tarturus bound--right?
Depends.... if you are a very naughty girl :icon_queen:
QuoteMatthew 8:16
When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
Ques: are these spirits the nephilim?
I think so. That's what my post was about. Plz (re)read and comment on the verses/logic