Nephilim

[mmksparbud]

Why are you debating in the Baptist forum? You are not Baptist and therefore should follow the rules of only fellowship posts.

Say what!!--I did it again!! OOOOOOOOOPPPPPSSSSSS!
I'll shut p and take my opinions elsewhere! Soo sorry!!

 

[Avid]

... The giants that were on the earth were simply tall people that kept the tall genetic going--human genes. Just like the Masai are very tall --pygmies short---both totally human, different genetic codes...

How tall were the Masai? Did they live near Pygmies? How tall were the people of Ancient Israel when they entered the Promised Land (Canaan?) How tall were the people there that God told them to kill, that they testified were so tall they considered them as grasshoppers, and they felt like grasshoppers by comparison?

... What does affect the toes,. or anything else, is the condition Of the genetic code that got passed down from Adam and Eve...

If the genetics of Goliath of Gath was because of degraded genetic code back 3,100 years ago, why not now? Why do we not see MANY people with six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot these days?

I had asked how tall was Goliath of Gath. The answer was somewhere between 10' and 13' tall, depending on how the dimensions are interpreted. The average human today would not be able to lift all of what he wore and carried into battle, much less be able to wield it effectively in battle! (II Sam.17:4-7)

If the genetic code was so degraded then, why not so much WORSE today? This is a key point, and refutes the claims of evolutionists as well. If being very tall and strong was a degradation of genetics, why not 50 tall today?

... Let's not confuse the spiritual with the physical.

Trying not to! Trying to get the thread to focus on the correct things.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Specifically, David, Solomon, the king, and all of Israel were called God's son, and they all seem pretty human to me. What you have to do is pick out the specific phrase "bene elohim" in order to make a case that the reference in Gen 6 is to divine beings rather than humans, because being God's son didn't necessarily imply divinity.

Yes, but we do know from the evidence that a significant portion, even of those who wrote the Bible, believed that the term, as used specifically in Genesis 6, referred to angels. We have the documented evidence for that. Yes, you could compare to the Sadducees, who did not believe in angels at all, but theirs was a rejection of an important premise of the Bible, and therefore it doesn't do much to elucidate the matter. It's like asking for pharmaceutical advice from someone who doesn't believe in modern medicine. On the other hand, the documented evidence for Christians or Jews who believed that the Genesis 6 Sons of God were human amounts to...your post, plus those in more recent times who would happen to agree with you. Pardon my skepticism, but I'm trying to follow the history of the interpretation of that verse back to its origin. I want to learn from the oldest known widely accepted understanding of that particular usage of the term. At Christ's time, they were closer to the writing of Genesis than they were to us. Yes, I get that the term had been used both ways in different parts of the Bible, but I want to know the proper interpretation of this usage. The people who lived closest to the time and place of its writing are most likely to know. Is there any documented evidence that anyone in the time of Christ or earlier thought that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 referred to humans? What's the earliest evidence of anyone using that interpretation of that verse?

 

[Avid]

... in the OT where humans were referred to as God's son(s). Specifically, David, Solomon, the king, and all of Israel were called God's son, and they all seem pretty human to me...

I spend a good amount of time searching for the scripture reference that backs what I say. It would be nice for you to include a reference for your Biblical claims, this one specifically. I really would prefer to spend the time I save backing up my own points.

It seems I had addressed this particular claim in an earlier post.

 

[Avid]

... Is there any documented evidence that anyone in the time of Christ or earlier thought that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 referred to humans? What's the earliest evidence of anyone using that interpretation of that verse?

This would be helpful to see! I still do not see the huge difference between the offspring of the sons of Seth, and the daughters of Cain being able to account for what has been claimed we read in G.e.n.e.s.i.s..6. There are claims these people were humans whose genetic code was degraded after the fall. Others claim this is a spiritual distinction, but I have not seen scripture that proves how they were different than humans today.

I would like to see a clear answer, or an admission that the answer is not found in scripture.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I spend a good amount of time searching for the scripture reference that backs what I say. It would be nice for you to include a reference for your Biblical claims, this one specifically. I really would prefer to spend the time I save backing up my own points.

It seems I had addressed this particular claim in an earlier post.

No problem.

David:

Psalm 89:3 The Lord said,
“I have made a covenant with my chosen one;
I have made a promise on oath to David, my servant:
...
89:20 I have discovered David, my servant
....
89:26 He will call out to me,
‘You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.’
89:27 I will appoint him to be my firstborn son,
the most exalted of the earth’s kings.

Solomon:

2 Sam 7:13 He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. 23 7:14 I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. 7:15 But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you.

2 Chr 28:6 He said to me, ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my temple and my courts, for I have chosen him to become my son and I will become his father.

Israel:

Ex 4:22 You must say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is my son, my firstborn

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him like a son,
and I summoned my son out of Egypt.

Jer 31:9 They will come back shedding tears of contrition.
I will bring them back praying prayers of repentance.
I will lead them besides streams of water,
along smooth paths where they will never stumble I will do this because I am Israel’s father;
Ephraim is my firstborn son.’”

Deut 32:6 Is this how you repay the Lord,
you foolish, unwise people?
Is he not your father, your creator?

The king:

Psalm 2:7 The king says, “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me:
‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father!

 

[Avid]

No problem.

David:

Solomon:

Israel:

The king:

This was answered before...

... means that God had this written as a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ, He being KING, He representing Israel and all believers before God the Father, the king being there in His stead, AND Israel being on Earth in the place of Jesus Christ.

Israel wandering in the wilderness was referred to by Stephen (in his final sermon) as "the church in the wilderness." Jesus taught us (also, through His Apostles) that the Church is His Body. This lends to the meaning of Israel or the king being representative of Christ, and NOT a firstborn son of God in the classical sense (there can only be ONE Firstborn.)

Do you see that you can accept the truth of a scripture, and not apply it a certain, specific way because of the true impact?

... Some have made it their life's work to investigate these things, and have found some startling evidence. Others yet have dismissed or diminished that evidence, and some even generated False Evidence in the effort to mount a Disinformation campaign.

 

[Avid]

(1Sa 17:4) And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
a cubit is the length of the forearm, 17-21 inches, a span, the spread of the fingers, about a half a cubit.
Let's just say he was definitely over 9 feet.

Using the low side, assuming very short people with short arms were making the measurements, we come up with something over 9' tall. Using an average person these days, that would be over 11' (3.35m) tall. A tall person making this measurement would put that height at 13' (3.96m.)

A cubit is defined as you stated, but typically, the standard for the time would be referenced from the measurements of the king! King Saul, king of Israel at the time, was very tall in comparison to others, and that may put Goliath's true height nearer 13'.

Also, the fact that Goliath of Gath had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot did not seem to be considered a deformity. This man was a champion of the Philistine armies. The genetic degradation mentioned earlier would not typically equate to an advantage in physical combat. The best examples of extreme size being displayed as an athletic advantage include Wilt Chamberlain & Shaquille O'Neal (7'-1" or 2.16m,) Andre the Giant (7'-5" or 2.26m,) Yao Ming, (7'-6" or 2.29m.)

The tallest people in recent history include John Rogan (8'-9½ or 2.68m,) who was unable to stand, and Robert Wadlow (8'-11" or 2.27m.) who was not an athlete. These people are not nearly as tall as the one person in ancient Biblical record (Goliath) who was extremely tall, strong and, also, a fierce warrior. When any men in recent times were near that height, they are not very athletic, nor did they have extra fingers and toes. Just using Goliath as a comparison, these men are not nearly what was written about in the scriptures concerning Goliath of Gath, and the disorder causing their extreme height was not an advantage!

 

[Yekcidmij]

This was answered before...

....and I don't think it was satisfactory. The verses I posted are pretty clear and require nothing other than just being read at face value.

2 Sam 7:13 He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. 23 7:14 I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.

What part of the red/underlined is symbolic about Jesus? When did Jesus sin so as to be corrected with the rod of men?

 

[4x4toy]

How would the age of men compare to post flood ages .. Noah was over 900 yrs old and saw many of his grandfathers and grandsons .. I've seen it suggested that Noah was 7-9 ft tall and one reason for wisdom teeth was to help accommodate for increased jaw size in former times ..

 

[Avid]

.

... I've seen it suggested that Noah was 7-9 ft tall and one reason for wisdom teeth was to help accommodate for increased jaw size in former times ..

Where was that suggested? What was the basis of the info? I would not say that is impossible, or even way out of reason, I just had not heard it before.

 

[Avid]

How would the age of men compare to post flood ages ...

In G e n e s i s 6, God said He would limit man's lifetime to 120 years. Methuselah was 969, and many others lived from 700 to 900, so it is clear that there is a big difference.

G e n e s i s 6
3 ¶ And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. ​

Most people only take this to mean that it was 120 years from then till the Great Flood. However, It is clear that not many people ever live to be more than 120 these days!

 

[4x4toy]

In G e n e s i s 6, God said He would limit man's lifetime to 120 years. Methuselah was 969, and many others lived from 700 to 900, so it is clear that there is a big difference.

G e n e s i s 6
3 ¶ And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. ​

Most people only take this to mean that it was 120 years from then till the Great Flood. However, It is clear that not many people ever live to be more than 120 these days!

Psalms 90:10 says our days are 3 score and ten , 4 score if we have strength but after that our days are filled with trouble .. So God cut the years again but there are exceptions ..

Where was that suggested? What was the basis of the info? I would not say that is impossible, or even way out of reason, I just had not heard it before.

Walter Veith and Kent Hovind spoke a little in one of their Creation series videos , also there are cases where baby and permanent teeth come in together , Heck I got two sets but I can tote'm in my pocket , hehehe ...
Veith has some great insight on his creation series but they are long and slow starting , when he gets rolling it is awesome IMO

 

[4x4toy]

Ron Wyatt supposedly found a bone of a giant at what he says is where he found what he thought was Noah's Ark and gravesite.. He was an amateur archeologist who made some amazing finds .. If he was lying , he was a good one .. He also claims finding the Ark of the Covenant , The Red sea crossing , Sodom and Gomorah .. He shows some pretty good proof and testimony IMO .. He has also been attacked by the naysayers .. I have no reason to doubt him , he's got some pretty good stuff ..

 

[twin1954]

....and I don't think it was satisfactory. The verses I posted are pretty clear and require nothing other than just being read at face value.


What part of the red/underlined is symbolic about Jesus? When did Jesus sin so as to be corrected with the rod of men?

It is clear that the Davidic Covenant was about Jesus. The Lord was speaking of Soloman in the physical sense but it can only be understood as prophetic concerning Jesus. Jesus never sinned but the sin of His elect He made His own. 2Cor. 5:21

Psalm 89:20-37 is a clear reference to Christ concerning the covenant.

(Psa 89:20) I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:


(Psa 89:21) With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.


(Psa 89:22) The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.


(Psa 89:23) And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.


(Psa 89:24) But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.


(Psa 89:25) I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.


(Psa 89:26) He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.


(Psa 89:27) Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.


(Psa 89:28) My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.


(Psa 89:29) His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.


(Psa 89:30) If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;


(Psa 89:31) If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;


(Psa 89:32) Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.


(Psa 89:33) Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.


(Psa 89:34) My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.


(Psa 89:35) Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.


(Psa 89:36) His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.


(Psa 89:37) It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

Notice in verses 30-32 that the sin if His children are visited with the rod and stripes. He took that rod and stripes in their place as the Covenant Surety. A surety in the Bible isn't a cosigner but one who takes the debt as his own and the debtor goes free. Paul stood as surety for Onesimus. Philemon 18

 

[Avid]

,,, Where was that suggested? What was the basis of the info? I would not say that is impossible, or even way out of reason, I just had not heard it before...

It was in the very post you quoted and to which you replied...

In G e n e s i s 6, God said He would limit man's lifetime to 120 years. Methuselah was 969, and many others lived from 700 to 900, so it is clear that there is a big difference.

G e n e s i s 6
3 ¶ And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. ​

Most people only take this to mean that it was 120 years from then till the Great Flood. However, It is clear that not many people ever live to be more than 120 these days!

This is the reason I quote scripture with my comments, and try to tie these things together.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It is clear that the Davidic Covenant was about Jesus. The Lord was speaking of Soloman in the physical sense but it can only be understood as prophetic concerning Jesus. Jesus never sinned but the sin of His elect He made His own. 2Cor. 5:21

Not only did 2 Sam 7:14 mention that God would correct David's descendent with a rod and wounds when he sins, and not only can we determine from 2 Sam that it's about Solomon, but the parallel passage in Chronicles explicitly says it was Solomon:

1 Chr 28:5 From all the many sons the Lord has given me, he chose Solomon my son to rule on his behalf over Israel. 28:6 He said to me, ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my temple and my courts, for I have chosen him to become my son and I will become his father.

There's no sense from the passage that it's about anyone other than Solomon. There is a prophecy made (2 Sam 7//1 Chr 17) and there is a specific fulfillment found (1 Kn 1-2, 5, 8 //1 Chr 28). We have a listing of the specific sins that David's son (Solomon) wound up committing and the consequences that followed (1 Kn 11), just as predicted.

It's not that I don't believe Jesus is the messiah, btw (before anyone throws out that accusation), or that Jesus wouldn't do some things like Solomon did (ie, build a temple, be wise, etc..). It's just that Solomon is explicitly called God's son, just as David was. The simple conclusion is that in the OT, being God's son was a royal function, was a royal title, and had to do with rank and position. In the OT, it didn't say anything about the ontological status of David, Solomon, the king, or Israel. Israel was God's firstborn son as Israel was the chosen people, the inheritor of creation, the one chosen by God to rule creation and be his representation on earth. The king had the same title as Israel due to the fact that he was the "embodiment" of Israel - he was the representative of Israel. He was supposed to represent his people to God and represent God to his people, though none of them ever exactly lived up to those functions.

Now I do think that in John, he uses the title "Son of God" in a unique way that goes well beyond what was said of David, Solomon, the king, or Israel. But that's in John, not Samuel.

Psalm 89:20-37 is a clear reference to Christ concerning the covenant.

It's a Psalm about the Davidic covenant, sure, but I don't think it's a prophecy in the sense that it's a prediction made and later the prediction comes true when Jesus comes around.

(Psa 89:27) Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Like I said above, being the firstborn describes position and rank - "higher than the kings of the earth."

89:30 If his sons reject my law
and disobey my regulations,

Sons? Did Jesus have sons? No, but David did. And they disobeyed the law.

Notice in verses 30-32 that the sin if His children are visited with the rod and stripes.

Just as happened with the various bad kings of Israel and Judah.

 

[twin1954]

Not only did 2 Sam 7:14 mention that God would correct David's descendent with a rod and wounds when he sins, and not only can we determine from 2 Sam that it's about Solomon, but the parallel passage in Chronicles explicitly says it was Solomon:

1 Chr 28:5 From all the many sons the Lord has given me, he chose Solomon my son to rule on his behalf over Israel. 28:6 He said to me, ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my temple and my courts, for I have chosen him to become my son and I will become his father.

There's no sense from the passage that it's about anyone other than Solomon. There is a prophecy made (2 Sam 7//1 Chr 17) and there is a specific fulfillment found (1 Kn 1-2, 5, 8 //1 Chr 28). We have a listing of the specific sins that David's son (Solomon) wound up committing and the consequences that followed (1 Kn 11), just as predicted.

It's not that I don't believe Jesus is the messiah, btw (before anyone throws out that accusation), or that Jesus wouldn't do some things like Solomon did (ie, build a temple, be wise, etc..). It's just that Solomon is explicitly called God's son, just as David was. The simple conclusion is that in the OT, being God's son was a royal function, was a royal title, and had to do with rank and position. In the OT, it didn't say anything about the ontological status of David, Solomon, the king, or Israel. Israel was God's firstborn son as Israel was the chosen people, the inheritor of creation, the one chosen by God to rule creation and be his representation on earth. The king had the same title as Israel due to the fact that he was the "embodiment" of Israel - he was the representative of Israel. He was supposed to represent his people to God and represent God to his people, though none of them ever exactly lived up to those functions.

Now I do think that in John, he uses the title "Son of God" in a unique way that goes well beyond what was said of David, Solomon, the king, or Israel. But that's in John, not Samuel.



It's a Psalm about the Davidic covenant, sure, but I don't think it's a prophecy in the sense that it's a prediction made and later the prediction comes true when Jesus comes around.



Like I said above, being the firstborn describes position and rank - "higher than the kings of the earth."



Sons? Did Jesus have sons? No, but David did. And they disobeyed the law.



Just as happened with the various bad kings of Israel and Judah.

Dispensationalist?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Dispensationalist?

No.

 

[Avid]

Psalms 90:10 says our days are 3 score and ten , 4 score if we have strength but after that our days are filled with trouble .. So God cut the years again but there are exceptions ..

Where was that suggested? What was the basis of the info? I would not say that is impossible, or even way out of reason, I just had not heard it before.

Walter Veith and Kent Hovind spoke a little in one of their Creation series videos , also there are cases where baby and permanent teeth come in together , Heck I got two sets but I can tote'm in my pocket , hehehe ...
Veith has some great insight on his creation series but they are long and slow starting , when he gets rolling it is awesome IMO

Sorry... I see that the question I was struggling to answer was my question in your text, as if you were asking that of me. It is taking some effort to get through this.