Genesis 6:1-4 and Jude 6&7 what do these passages mean? Why should we care?

[Postvieww]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book V Chapter 29 Section 2



And there is therefore in this beast, when he comes, a recapitulation made of all sorts of iniquity and of every deceit, in order that all apostate power, flowing into and being shut up in him, may be sent into the furnace of fire. Fittingly, therefore, shall his name possess the number six hundred and sixty-six, since he sums up in his own person all the commixture of wickedness which took place previous to the deluge, due to the apostasy of the angels. For Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge came upon the earth, sweeping away the rebellious world, for the sake of that most infamous generation which lived in the times of Noah. And [Antichrist] also sums up every error of devised idols since the flood, together with the slaying of the prophets and the cutting off of the just. For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man's coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men. Thus, then, the six hundred years of Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred because of the apostasy, and the number of the cubits of the image for which these just men were sent into the fiery furnace, do indicate the number of the name of that man in whom is concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years, and unrighteousness, and wickedness, and false prophecy, and deception; for which things' sake a cataclysm of fire shall also come [upon the earth].

Irenaeus tied the deluge to the “apostasy of the angels”. This is relevant to this thread because many chose to ignore Genesis 6:1-4 and focus solely on verse 5, “the “wickedness of man” as the reason alone for God destroying the earth.


Irenaeus at least believed the sin of the angels was a factor, tying the sin of the angels to the wickedness of man. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4, Genesis 6:1-7.


This topic of this thread is not a new theory it was believed and taught throughout church history.

 

[Major1]

Why would fallen angels procreate with human women? I believe the answer is found in the scripture below.

Gen. 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We know this verse was a prophecy, that the woman’s seed would produce Christ the redeemer of mankind, and that He would would bruise the head of satan (satan’s defeat at Calvary, with Christ’s resurrection) while his (Christ’s) heel was brusied through his crucifixion. We have all heard much about the seed of the woman on this regard, but what about the seed of the serpent? We don’t really talk much about that.

Gen. 6:6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,


2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


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.


4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


I believe these verses above show the beginning of satan’s attempt to corrupt God’s plan to send a redeemer through the seed of the woman, by intermingling the seed of satan (fallen angels) into the human race.


Gen. 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.


9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.


10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.


12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.


13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Noah was “perfect in his generations” I believe this does not refer to his righteousness before God but to his genetics that had not been corrupted by the seed of the serpent. God had already said he was a just man but added “and perfect in his generations”. This would explain why God had to totally destroy the earth men women and children. All flesh had been corrupted.


12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

I believe there was more to God destroying the earth that just the wickedness of mankind, I’m convinced had not God taken this extreme action, satan would have completely corrupted the seed of woman.

Fallen angels/demons DO not and can not have sexual relations with humans.

Matthew 22:30...........
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Some people respond that Jesus was referring only to the marriage contract and not to the marriage bed, but this makes Jesus’ statement nonsensical in its own context. Jesus was responding to the question about having a marital relation resulting in children, and He clearly denied that heavenly angels can have sexual relations.

Then, other defenders respond that Jesus is referring to angels in heaven, whereas Genesis 6 is referring to fallen angels. The problem with this explanation is that prior to having sexual relations with female humans, these fallen angels must have been unfallen, heavenly angels; but Jesus said heavenly angels could not have sexual relations, and, therefore, they could not have committed the very act that is supposed to have caused them to fall. Furthermore, this view not only assumes that unfallen angels can have sexual relations with female humans but also that it is necessarily sinful. No commentator has attempted to prove this assumption.

It seems to me that t he “sons of God” refers to the descendents of Seth, while the “daughters of men” refers to the descendents of Cain. In other words, the righteous line of Seth intermarried with the unrighteous line of Cain resulting in the corruption of society which is why God sent the flood.

Consider the several statements in Genesis about Seth’s descendants indicate that “sons of God” applies to them: they “began to call upon the name of the Lord” (4:26), “walked with God” (5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).

Then notice that in Gen. Genesis 5:1–3 restates that Adam was created in God’s image and that Seth was begotten in Adam’s image. The implication is that the line of Adam through Seth constitutes the sons of God.

 

[Major1]

A class of fallen angels called watchers committed these crimes. These were bound. There are however holy watchers as we see here.

Dan. 4:13 I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;

Dan.4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

Something to think about is that the terms “holy ones” and “watchers” in Daniel (vv. 13, 17, 23) refer to angels. The two words are used interchangeably in reference to the same beings. As Daniel interprets the king’s dream, he explains that Nebudchadnezzar “saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven…” (v. 23 KJV). However, in the Hebrew, there is no “and” separating the two terms. Daniel tells the king that he “saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from the heavens”

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Fallen angels/demons DO not and can not have sexual relations with humans.

How do you KNOW that?

 

[Major1]

How do you KNOW that?

Excellent question.

Why do you know that they can?

First and foremost, the notion that demons can "produce" real bodies and have real sex with real women would invalidate Jesus' argument for the authenticity of His resurrection. Jesus assured His disciples that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" in Luke 24:39.

If indeed a demon could produce flesh and bones, Jesus' argument would not only be flawed, it would be misleading and deceptive in nature. Is that what you believe Jesus would do?????.
In fact, if were possible it might be logically argued that the disciples did not see the post-resurrection appearances of Christ but rather a demon masquerading as the resurrected Christ.
Have you considered that at all?????

Then we know from many Bible Scriptures that demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and, as such, are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring. To say that demons can create bodies with DNA and fertile sperm is to say that demons have creative power — which is an exclusively divine prerogative. Do you see how what you believe would open up a door of impossibility????

THink for just a moment if you will, that if demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we would have no assurance they could not do so in modern times. Nor would we have any guarantee that the people we encounter every day are fully human. While a Biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon-possessed person can produce offspring that are part-demon, part-human. Again the Bible teaches us in Gen. 1 that all of God's living creations are designed to reproduce "according to their own kinds."

Finally, the mutant theory creates serious questions pertaining to the spiritual accountability of hypothetical demon-humans and their relation to humanity's redemption. Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and are offered no plan of redemption in Scripture. On the other hand, humans fell corporately in Adam, are judged corporately in Adam, and are redeemed corporately through Jesus Christ. We have no Biblical way of determining what category the demon-humans would fit into — whether they would be judged as angels or as men, or more significantly, whether they might even be among those for whom Christ died.

I believe the better interpretation is that "sons of God" simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and "daughters of men" to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Their cohabitation caused humanity to fall into such utter depravity that God said in Gen. 6:7-8...............
'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth — men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air — for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.".

I hope this helps you in your position and thanks for asking me.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

First and foremost, the notion that demons can "produce" real bodies and have real sex with real women would invalidate Jesus' argument for the authenticity of His resurrection. Jesus assured His disciples that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" in Luke 24:39.

First, we see many times in scripture where angels appear as men. They do the things that men do.I think you just cannot wrap your brain around the fact that angels (not demons) had sexual intercourse with women. They can and they did. They had children according to scripture. They produced the Nephilim.

 

[Major1]

First, we see many times in scripture where angels appear as men. They do the things that men do.I think you just cannot wrap your brain around the fact that angels (not demons) had sexual intercourse with women. They can and they did. They had children according to scripture. They produced the Nephilim.

I can not agree with you my dear. You are of course welcome to ignore all the Biblical references I posted as that is your choice.

IMO, the practices you are believing in about demons are the product of movies and books on the occult and they have had more of an impact on you than the Word of God.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I can not agree with you my dear. You are of course welcome to ignore all the Biblical references I posted as that is your choice.

IMO, the practices you are believing in about demons are the product of movies and books on the occult and they have had more of an impact on you than the Word of God.

You think I ignore scripture when you clearly twist scripture to mean what you can accept. But you have the right to do that. What I believe is written. Think, when Adam sinned, he was no longer the son of God. All of his offspring were sinners. When Jesus came(the last Adam) He was the Son of God, as Adam was before he sinned. It is Lord Jesus that restores sonship to mankind. Seth's children were not sons of God as you would like to believe. No man after the fall is referred to as son of God. Only after the resurrection of Lord Jesus do men have the right to be sons of God
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

You are adding your own interpretation to what Lord Jesus said regarding the angels and marriage in your quote

Fallen angels/demons DO not and can not have sexual relations with humans.

Matthew 22:30...........
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Some people respond that Jesus was referring only to the marriage contract and not to the marriage bed, but this makes Jesus’ statement nonsensical in its own context. Jesus was responding to the question about having a marital relation resulting in children, and He clearly denied that heavenly angels can have sexual relations.

Jesus did NOT say that the angels did not have the ability to marry orhave sexual relations.It does not say that we will not have the ability to marry or have sexual relations. It simply said we would neither marry nor be given in marriage. Now you interpret that to say inability or can't, but that is not what it says. You read into it what you want it to say. It seems to me that the Word of God is not truth to you.

 

[Postvieww]

Fallen angels/demons DO not and can not have sexual relations with humans.

Matthew 22:30...........
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Some people respond that Jesus was referring only to the marriage contract and not to the marriage bed, but this makes Jesus’ statement nonsensical in its own context. Jesus was responding to the question about having a marital relation resulting in children, and He clearly denied that heavenly angels can have sexual relations.

Then, other defenders respond that Jesus is referring to angels in heaven, whereas Genesis 6 is referring to fallen angels. The problem with this explanation is that prior to having sexual relations with female humans, these fallen angels must have been unfallen, heavenly angels; but Jesus said heavenly angels could not have sexual relations, and, therefore, they could not have committed the very act that is supposed to have caused them to fall. Furthermore, this view not only assumes that unfallen angels can have sexual relations with female humans but also that it is necessarily sinful. No commentator has attempted to prove this assumption.

It seems to me that t he “sons of God” refers to the descendents of Seth, while the “daughters of men” refers to the descendents of Cain. In other words, the righteous line of Seth intermarried with the unrighteous line of Cain resulting in the corruption of society which is why God sent the flood.

Consider the several statements in Genesis about Seth’s descendants indicate that “sons of God” applies to them: they “began to call upon the name of the Lord” (4:26), “walked with God” (5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).

Then notice that in Gen. Genesis 5:1–3 restates that Adam was created in God’s image and that Seth was begotten in Adam’s image. The implication is that the line of Adam through Seth constitutes the sons of God.

Hello Major1,


I respect the fact that you do not believe nor want to consider the possibility that the subject of this thread could possibly be true.


That said your statement “Fallen angels/demons DO not and cannot have sexual relations with humans.” is not supported by the text you use.


If you will go back and repost my response to this point it will bring it the front so others can see it.


The “son of Seth” theory has been debunked over and over again here and elsewhere.


The point of my latest post is that Irenaeus believed the “apostasy of the angels” had a role to play in the destruction of the earth by flood. That neither proves or disproves what I believe happened, but it is one more piece of evidence. Why not comment on that point?

 

[Riberra]

i believe the better interpretation is that "sons of God" simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and "daughters of men" to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Their cohabitation caused humanity to fall into such utter depravity that God said in Gen. 6:7-8..

Are you saying that some of Cain's descendants survived the flood ?.... the Bible report a second occurrence of NEPHILIM AFTER THE FLOOD .
Genesis 6:1-4

Genesis 6:4
4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.


we read of the Nephilim again in
Numbers 13:33:
And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim:

THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE BIBLE WHICH SHOW THAT THE NEPHILIM WERE ABNORMAL BEINGS .....

Commentary by a Bible Scholar.
by Dr. E.W. Bullinger,
This Is Appendix 25 From The Companion Bible.
Source
APPENDIX 25: THE NEPHILIM OR GIANTS OF GENESIS 6 ETC
The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Genesis 6, and Appendix 23) are called in Genesis 6, Ne-phil'-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Genesis 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Peter 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).
But we read of the Nephilim again in Numbers 13:33: "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Genesis 6:4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men (Hebrew gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (literally, men of the name, that is to say, who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).
So that "after that", that is to say, after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.
As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Genesis 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated: "The Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land." And in Genesis 14:5 they were already known as "Rephaim" and "Emim", and had established themselves at Ashteroth Karnaim and Shaveh Kiriathaim.
In chapter 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21; compare Exodus 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deuteronomy 7; 20:17. Joshua 12:8).
These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Joshua 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judges 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we know not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.
As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from one Anak which came of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33¹), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.
From Deuteronomy 2:10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (verses 12, 20¹) and Avim (verse 23¹), etc.
As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned: but, unfortunately, instead of this,
____________________________
¹ Copyist err in the printing has been corrected here in the verses. their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead," "deceased", or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isaiah 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased," and verse 19, where it is rendered "the dead").
It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26:5. Psalm 88:10. Proverbs 2:18; 9:18; 21:16. Isaiah 14:8; 26:19).
It is rendered "deceased" in Isaiah 26:14.
It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Genesis 14:5; 15:20. Joshua 12:15 (margin). 2Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13. 1Chronicles 11:15; 14:9; 20:4 (margin). Isaiah 17:5.
In all other places it is rendered "giants", Genesis 6:4, Numbers 23:33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16:14, where it is gibbor (Appendix 14. iv).
By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings.
It is certain that the second irruption took place before Genesis 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrha, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Genesis 14:5).
Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak's father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Genesis 35:27. Joshua 15:13; 21:11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Arbahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, 21, 22, 23; 9:2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Numbers 13:33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deuteronomy 3:11.
Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" to-day; and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem.
Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Numbers 13:22.
If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day?
Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Genesis 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.


NUMERICAL INDEX OF APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

 

[Major1]

Are you saying that some of Cain's descendants survived the flood ?.... the Bible report a second occurrence of NEPHILIM AFTER THE FLOOD .
Genesis 6:1-4

Genesis 6:4
4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.


we read of the Nephilim again in
Numbers 13:33:
And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim:

THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE BIBLE WHICH SHOW THAT THE NEPHILIM WERE ABNORMAL BEINGS .....

Commentary by a Bible Scholar.
by Dr. E.W. Bullinger,
This Is Appendix 25 From The Companion Bible.
Source
APPENDIX 25: THE NEPHILIM OR GIANTS OF GENESIS 6 ETC
The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Genesis 6, and Appendix 23) are called in Genesis 6, Ne-phil'-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Genesis 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Peter 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).
But we read of the Nephilim again in Numbers 13:33: "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Genesis 6:4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men (Hebrew gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (literally, men of the name, that is to say, who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).
So that "after that", that is to say, after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.
As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Genesis 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated: "The Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land." And in Genesis 14:5 they were already known as "Rephaim" and "Emim", and had established themselves at Ashteroth Karnaim and Shaveh Kiriathaim.
In chapter 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21; compare Exodus 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deuteronomy 7; 20:17. Joshua 12:8).
These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Joshua 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judges 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we know not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.
As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from one Anak which came of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33¹), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.
From Deuteronomy 2:10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (verses 12, 20¹) and Avim (verse 23¹), etc.
As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned: but, unfortunately, instead of this,
____________________________
¹ Copyist err in the printing has been corrected here in the verses. their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead," "deceased", or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isaiah 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased," and verse 19, where it is rendered "the dead").
It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26:5. Psalm 88:10. Proverbs 2:18; 9:18; 21:16. Isaiah 14:8; 26:19).
It is rendered "deceased" in Isaiah 26:14.
It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Genesis 14:5; 15:20. Joshua 12:15 (margin). 2Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13. 1Chronicles 11:15; 14:9; 20:4 (margin). Isaiah 17:5.
In all other places it is rendered "giants", Genesis 6:4, Numbers 23:33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16:14, where it is gibbor (Appendix 14. iv).
By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings.
It is certain that the second irruption took place before Genesis 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrha, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Genesis 14:5).
Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak's father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Genesis 35:27. Joshua 15:13; 21:11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Arbahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, 21, 22, 23; 9:2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Numbers 13:33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deuteronomy 3:11.
Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" to-day; and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem.
Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Numbers 13:22.
If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day?
Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Genesis 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.


NUMERICAL INDEX OF APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

NO, I did not say that.

You are incorrect in your theology my friend. If you had done the Bible study needed you would see that The flood came AFTER the inter-marrying of the human Godly line of Seth with the un-Godly line of Cain. There was only ONE flood and in was in Gen. 7 AFTER the intermarriage of the sons of god with the daughters of men which were both human.

The only humans were Noah, his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughter in laws.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The only humans were Noah, his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughter in law

Exactly.

 

[Major1]

Exactly.

Wonderful that we are in agreement!

 

[Major1]

Hello Major1,


I respect the fact that you do not believe nor want to consider the possibility that the subject of this thread could possibly be true.


That said your statement “Fallen angels/demons DO not and cannot have sexual relations with humans.” is not supported by the text you use.


If you will go back and repost my response to this point it will bring it the front so others can see it.


The “son of Seth” theory has been debunked over and over again here and elsewhere.


The point of my latest post is that Irenaeus believed the “apostasy of the angels” had a role to play in the destruction of the earth by flood. That neither proves or disproves what I believe happened, but it is one more piece of evidence. Why not comment on that point?

Hello my friend. How are you this fine day and thank you for the shout back.

I am afraid you are incorrect. Matthew 22:30 absolutely tells us that Angels are ASEXUAL and do not procreate. They are created by God and there are just as many today as there were when they were created.

Angels and humans are separate species. Separate species can not procreate. Angels are PURE SPIRIT and don't have the ability to procreate. Therefore, there are no humans running around with angel DNA in them.

Then the fact that in-fallen Angels are holy. They do not sin so they don't have sex outside of marriage. Marriage is for procreation. If there is procreation, then it would be within marriage. Angels do not marry and so do not have sex. They have no sexual organs. They do not have babies because God alone made angels. Angels do not have bodies to have sex with. They are pure spirit and were created by God. They were not created with the ability to procreate since God made all the angels Himself.

You said.............
"The “son of Seth” theory has been debunked over and over again here and elsewhere".

No disrespect to you my dear friend, but that is one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
"Debunked HERE". You mean this is a website that is so important and verifiable that it can be said that it is a home for truth and doctrine???????

Actually I have not heard anything that comes close or even suggests the the Line of Seth has been debunked.

Then you said...............
"The point of my latest post is that Irenaeus believed the “apostasy of the angels” had a role to play in the destruction of the earth by flood. That neither proves or disproves what I believe happened, but it is one more piece of evidence. Why not comment on that point?

I stand correct. This is the funniest thing I have heard today.

So now not only is this web site the bastion of Bible truth, now Irenaeus is?????

Genesis 6:13 ...............
"And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. "

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Wonderful that we are in agreement!

It is good that you agree that the only humans were Noah and his family .The rest were Nephilim and transhuman abominations created by the watchers.

 

[Postvieww]

Hello my friend. How are you this fine day and thank you for the shout back.

I am afraid you are incorrect. Matthew 22:30 absolutely tells us that Angels are ASEXUAL and do not procreate. They are created by God and there are just as many today as there were when they were created.

Angels and humans are separate species. Separate species can not procreate. Angels are PURE SPIRIT and don't have the ability to procreate. Therefore, there are no humans running around with angel DNA in them.

Then the fact that in-fallen Angels are holy. They do not sin so they don't have sex outside of marriage. Marriage is for procreation. If there is procreation, then it would be within marriage. Angels do not marry and so do not have sex. They have no sexual organs. They do not have babies because God alone made angels. Angels do not have bodies to have sex with. They are pure spirit and were created by God. They were not created with the ability to procreate since God made all the angels Himself.

You said.............
"The “son of Seth” theory has been debunked over and over again here and elsewhere".

No disrespect to you my dear friend, but that is one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
"Debunked HERE". You mean this is a website that is so important and verifiable that it can be said that it is a home for truth and doctrine???????

Actually I have not heard anything that comes close or even suggests the the Line of Seth has been debunked.

Then you said...............
"The point of my latest post is that Irenaeus believed the “apostasy of the angels” had a role to play in the destruction of the earth by flood. That neither proves or disproves what I believe happened, but it is one more piece of evidence. Why not comment on that point?

I stand correct. This is the funniest thing I have heard today.

So now not only is this web site the bastion of Bible truth, now Irenaeus is?????

Genesis 6:13 ...............
"And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. "

Major 1 said:

I am afraid you are incorrect. Matthew 22:30 absolutely tells us that Angels are ASEXUAL and do not procreate.

Opinion. The text says “the angels of God in heaven” do not marry. It does not address fallen angels and what they are capable of. It only says angels of God in heaven do no. You have stated your opinion on what you believe the scripture means not what it actually says.

Angels and humans are separate species. Separate species can not procreate. Angels are PURE SPIRIT and don't have the ability to procreate. Therefore, there are no humans running around with angel DNA in them.

More opinion and speculation. You really don’t know what fallen angels are capable of. You have no text other than the one above to base that on and that is your opinion. Jude 6a says: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation. Can you prove from scripture that does don’t involve leaving the heavenly spiritual realm and entering the carnal, natural realm. Angels of God can look just like men and can appear in physical form so we cannot tell the difference.



Then the fact that in-fallen Angels are holy. They do not sin so they don't have sex outside of marriage.

Not sure what you mean here fallen angels are not holy and yes they did sin. You really should address what that sin was that only some of them committed that got them bound in chains.

Marriage is for procreation. If there is procreation, then it would be within marriage.

Humans can procreate outside of marriage, but ayway Genesis 6:3 says the “sons of God” took wives.

Angels do not marry and so do not have sex.

Opinion, if we are talking angels of God I agree if we are talking fallen angels I disagree.

They have no sexual organs.

Opinion, I doubt you have ever seen an angel undressed.

They do not have babies because God alone made angels. Angels do not have bodies to have sex with. They are pure spirit and were created by God. They were not created with the ability to procreate since God made all the angels Himself.

Angels of God do not marry or procreate scripture is clear but to apply your speculation of the anatomy of angels to fallen angels who really could care less about Gods laws is pure speculation.

No disrespect to you my dear friend, but that is one of the funniest things I have ever heard.

"Debunked HERE". You mean this is a website that is so important and verifiable that it can be said that it is a home for truth and doctrine???????

Glad you got a laugh that is good medicine. This is a debate forum where I and others state what we believe and from scripture make an argument to support that view. You are free to disagree , but bold statements without any scriptural backing are not really debate or evidence what you claim is true. Several of those are pointed out above.

I stand correct. This is the funniest thing I have heard today.

So now not only is this web site the bastion of Bible truth, now Irenaeus is?????


Again glad I could amuse you. You miss the point altogether. I made no allusions to say Irenaeus is on par with scripture, because he is not. Truth is I would put more stock in what he believed on this topic being taught by a disciple of the apostle John than I would most that are taught in seminaries today. It is relevant to know what early church fathers believed about the scriptures.

 

[Waterwerx]

I am afraid you are incorrect. Matthew 22:30 absolutely tells us that Angels are ASEXUAL and do not procreate.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."
Where does it say that in relation to fallen angels? Jude 1 seems to be pretty clear that some broke this rule and ended up being punished for it.

Angels and humans are separate species. Separate species can not procreate. Angels are PURE SPIRIT and don't have the ability to procreate. Therefore, there are no humans running around with angel DNA in them

There's plenty of Scripture that indicates angels are capable of taking human form, particularly male. Genesis 18 & 19, Joshua 5, Mark 16 . With this being the case and in conjunction with the rest of the Scripture, I don't see why fallen angels wouldn't have been able to take on human male forms and mate with human women and produce what we regard to be the nephilim.

Then the fact that in-fallen Angels are holy. They do not sin so they don't have sex outside of marriage. Marriage is for procreation. If there is procreation, then it would be within marriage. Angels do not marry and so do not have sex. They have no sexual organs. They do not have babies because God alone made angels. Angels do not have bodies to have sex with. They are pure spirit and were created by God. They were not created with the ability to procreate since God made all the angels Himself.

Jude 1:6-7
"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Your theory is busted, to say the least.

 

[Riberra]

NO, I did not say that.

You are incorrect in your theology my friend. If you had done the Bible study needed you would see that The flood came AFTER the inter-marrying of the human Godly line of Seth with the un-Godly line of Cain

Numbers 13:33 talk about the NEPHILIM AFTER THE FLOOD...in the land of Canaan.Thus that prove another occurrence which produced the offspring named NEPHILIM [GIBBORS/GIANTS] ....

Your theory is that the daughter of men were of CAIN lineage intermarrying with Seth descendants.

Do you see that your interpretation does not hold on ,without having CAIN descendants surviving the flood [remember Numbers 13:33] ???

for your theory to work you need one of the 3 daughter in laws to be a KENITE descendants of Cain......but Kenites does NOT produce NEPHILIM ....
NOTE:The KENITES [of the tribe of CAIN] are also mentioned AFTER the FLOOD living also in the LAND OF CANAAN.

The only humans were Noah, his wife, 3 sons and 3 daughter in laws.

One of the 3 daughter in laws was a KENITE...that explain why there is mention of the KENITE IN THE LAND OF CANAAN AFTER THE FLOOD [Genesis 15:19-21].

 

[Major1]

Numbers 13:33 talk about the NEPHILIM AFTER THE FLOOD...in the land of Canaan.Thus that prove another occurrence which produced the offspring named NEPHILIM [GIBBORS/GIANTS] ....

Your theory is that the daughter of men were of CAIN lineage intermarrying with Seth descendants.

Do you see that your interpretation does not hold on ,without having CAIN descendants surviving the flood [remember Numbers 13:33] ???

for your theory to work you need one of the 3 daughter in laws to be a KENITE descendants of Cain......but Kenites does NOT produce NEPHILIM ....
NOTE:The KENITES [of the tribe of CAIN] are also mentioned AFTER the FLOOD living also in the LAND OF CANAAN.


One of the 3 daughter in laws was a KENITE...that explain why there is mention of the KENITE IN THE LAND OF CANAAN AFTER THE FLOOD [Genesis 15:19-21].

Actually I do not have any theories at all my brother. I just post what I have learned over 50 years of Bible study. No one is required o accept what I say as I am nothing more than an old country boy from Alabama.

It seems to me that you are basing YOUR theory on the word NEPHILIM. If you really dig into this you will find that there is a great deal of confusion over the word Nephilim.

The actual bottom line here is that no one today really knows what it means. It is related to the verb series “to fall” (naphal) in Hebrew, which is why some direct this to fallen angels or more appropriately, the offspring thereof. However, this also gives strong support to the view that men had fallen away from God. It was these two concepts that helped give rise to the different ideas that we share.

Many have associated the Nephilim with giants. Giant traits may not have been limited to Nephilim alone: Goliath, a giant, was not considered Nephilim. As mentioned, the term Nephilim is unclear in definition. It is related to the verb “to fall” and the King James Version translates it as giants from the influence of the Latin Vulgate’s (early Latin translation by Jerome) term gigantes as well as the context from Numbers 13. The context of Genesis 6 does not reveal they were giants. There may have been some influence on the Latin Vulgate by the Septuagint’s (Greek translation of the Old Testament about 200–300 years before Christ) use of Greek word gigentes.

It is my opinion on this as well as other Bible theologies that we as men find something we want to believe so then we force all the Scriptures to make them fit our view at the expense of those Scriptures.

Perhaps the most devastating argument against YOUR view of wanting to believe that demons had sex with humans came from Jesus Himself, though. Please understand this Bible fact........
We have no instance in Scripture where fallen angels ever materialized as previously stated.
This is significant because Christ offered proof of His resurrection when the disciples questioned Him:

Luke 24:37–43........
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them."

If fallen angels or demons, which are spirit, could materialize, then this calls into question the entire resurrection of Christ. Christ says spirits do not have flesh and bones, so it would seem these entities can’t make physical bodies for themselves so then they can not have physical sex with humans.

 

[Major1]

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."
Where does it say that in relation to fallen angels? Jude 1 seems to be pretty clear that some broke this rule and ended up being punished for it.


There's plenty of Scripture that indicates angels are capable of taking human form, particularly male. Genesis 18 & 19, Joshua 5, Mark 16 . With this being the case and in conjunction with the rest of the Scripture, I don't see why fallen angels wouldn't have been able to take on human male forms and mate with human women and produce what we regard to be the nephilim.


Jude 1:6-7
"And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Your theory is busted, to say the least.

I do not have a theory. All I do is post Scripture and do the best that I can to explain what it means to ME.

Luke 24:37–43......
But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them."

Now do you believ that what Jesus said is the truth or do you believe He is lying????

You use Jude so as to confirm your opinion. But the truth is that those verses in Jude do not specifically mention the Nephilim, nor do they clearly state that fallen angels had sexual relationships with women. However, they do place “the angels who sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode” (Jude 6), in the same context as Noah.

After considering the different points of view on this subject many years ago, I came to the conclusion that the best answer which fit ALL the Scriptures is that the godly lineage of Sethites, which were called "sons of God" were what was in view. These sons of God or their children married or began marrying ungodly women who were the "daughters of men", and their children followed after false gods and rejected the one true God.

In other words, they fell away from God—recall the word Nephilim is related to the verb series “to fall” in Hebrew. In this view, offspring from these unions had fallen from God and were termed Nephilim.