Genesis 6:1-4, Sons of God, Giants in the earth, (Nephilim) are not angles who had relations with daughters of men!

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry to have to say it...

I need to put you on Ignore.

................

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you.

 

[sawdust]

The OT verses I provided refer to God having a soul before the Incarnation, and they were not all speaking prophetically of the Messiah.

Yes, it's the Lord Jesus Christ speaking. Not all reference the Messiah because not all speak to/about his humanity. The Messiah had to be a man in order to be a substitute for men.

The soul of God is in the word, the word is the Lord Jesus Christ. No-one goes to the Father except through Him (Jn.14:6) because Christ is God and to come to Christ is to come to God. We would have no hope of knowing God (Deity), who is Spirit, without Christ even apart from the sin factor, for He is the point of contact between soul (humanity) and Deity (spirit).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, it's the Lord Jesus Christ speaking. Not all reference the Messiah because not all speak to/about his humanity. The Messiah had to be a man in order to be a substitute for men.

The soul of God is in the word, the word is the Lord Jesus Christ. No-one goes to the Father except through Him (Jn.14:6) because Christ is God and to come to Christ is to come to God. We would have no hope of knowing God (Deity), who is Spirit, without Christ even apart from the sin factor, for He is the point of contact between soul (humanity) and Deity (spirit).

Please see post #106.

Also, even if you wanted to make all the OT references on God’s soul in reference to Jesus, we have to understand that Jesus in the Old Testament did not become flesh yet. So to say He was referring to His human soul in the future is not exactly true. The concept of time (like in time travel movies and novels) is not biblical. While God can at times talk prophetically to fulfill a prophecy in the future, God talks to us in real time within the present, as well. If God existed in all points in time, then how could God rest from all His work on the seventh day if He was still working in creating the six day creation in another point in time? If God exists in all points in time, then how could He sacrifice Himself once for all time according to Hebrews? This would mean God is a slave to time if He had to keep reliving the past events over and over and over again. God is not a slave to anything.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, it's the Lord Jesus Christ speaking. Not all reference the Messiah because not all speak to/about his humanity. The Messiah had to be a man in order to be a substitute for men.

The soul of God is in the word, the word is the Lord Jesus Christ. No-one goes to the Father except through Him (Jn.14:6) because Christ is God and to come to Christ is to come to God. We would have no hope of knowing God (Deity), who is Spirit, without Christ even apart from the sin factor, for He is the point of contact between soul (humanity) and Deity (spirit).

Christ having two distinctly different natures in union transforms Deity for us into understandable "human speak."

And, in turn, having two natures in union, He transfers our human speak into a direct connection with the Father, by means of being also Deity.

All the Word of God has been written for us in "Human Speak" conveying human concepts into explaining what God wants us to know concerning Himself and believers.

Without Jesus being our interpreter of God? God would be like a radio show being broadcasted without anyone having a radio.
We could never know its there.

Right now there are thousands of radio broadcasts being made as we sit there hearing nothing. Totally oblivious.
The Jesus "radio" conveys God's broadcast to us to know God.

and... now for a commercial break....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not only does God have a soul, the Scriptures say that all life has a soul, too.

Job 12:10 (KJV)
”In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.”

In addition, the animals will enter God’s Kingdom (Romans 8:19-22) (Pay close attention to verse 21).

Romans 8:19-22 (KJV) says,

19 "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth​

for the manifestation of the sons of God.​

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,​

but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,​

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from ​

the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.​

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."​

It's only logical that if animals have a soul, they have a spirit.

In fact, this is what Scripture says:

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:21).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Back from the commercial break:

God the Father does have a soul.

Proof?

Isaiah 42:1 (KJV) says,

”Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect,​

in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him:​

he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”​

This is clearly God the Father speaking about His Son, Jesus Christ, and yet, the Father says He Himself has a soul.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Surely, why else would God be called, the living God?

“for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Samuel 17:26).

God is a spirit being who brings life to others, and He has a soul (mind, will, and emotions).

 

[biblelesson]

I have a question. Referring to the genealogy of Jesus, the last verse, Luke 3:38 KJV, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

The questions are:
Does the genealogy of Jesus go all the way back to the creation in Genesis? Yes or No

Does the genealogy of Jesus, in the last verse, identify Adam as the son of God? Yes or No

And if you agree that Adam is the Son of God according to Luke 3:38 KJV, then do you agree that those men born after Adam In Genesis would also be called sons of God? Yes or No

Please just consider the question as it relates to Adam because Luke 3:38 KJV continues to be overlooked.

I do have more to share, but need this scripture to be given serious consideration first.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have a question. Referring to the genealogy of Jesus, the last verse, Luke 3:38 KJV, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

The questions are:
Does the genealogy of Jesus go all the way back to the creation in Genesis? Yes or No

Does the genealogy of Jesus, in the last verse, identify Adam as the son of God? Yes or No

And if you agree that Adam is the Son of God according to Luke 3:38 KJV, then do you agree that those men born after Adam In Genesis would also be called sons of God? Yes or No

Please just consider the question as it relates to Adam because Luke 3:38 KJV continues to be overlooked.

I do have more to share, but need this scripture to be given serious consideration first.

Most Christians are not in disagreement that Adam is referred to as a “son of God.” But Adam is a “son of God” because he was created directly by God. Cain and Abel are not “sons of God” because they were the result of their parents and they were not directly created by God like how God created Adam (Which was out of the Earth). Angels are “sons of God” because they were directly created by God. To say that “sons of God” is in reference to humans in relation to Adam (involving Genesis 6) would mean that you would have to believe there are multiple Adams that God created from out of the mud (Because Genesis 6 refers to more than one “son of God”). However, there is no indication in Scripture that there were multiple Adams created out of the mud by God.

Also, how do you account for the offspring of these sons of God being giant? How do you explain how giants also having offspring that had six fingers and six toes? Something in the DNA does not seem right to me here. This is why the ”sons of God” angels view fits best. Sons of God are mentioned three times in Job as in reference to angels.

 

[biblelesson]

Most Christians are not in disagreement that Adam is referred to as a “son of God.” But Adam is a “son of God” because he was created directly by God. Cain and Abel are not “sons of God” because they were the result of their parents and they were not directly created by God like how God created Adam (Which was out of the Earth). Angels are “sons of God” because they were directly created by God. To say that “sons of God” is in reference to humans in relation to Adam (involving Genesis 6) would mean that you would have to believe there are multiple Adams that God created from out of the mud (Because Genesis 6 refers to more than one “son of God”). However, there is no indication in Scripture that there were multiple Adams created out of the mud by God.

Also, how do you account for the offspring of these sons of God being giant? How do you explain how giants also having offspring that had six fingers and six toes? Something in the DNA does not seem right to me here. This is why the ”sons of God” angels view fits best. Sons of God are mentioned three times in Job as in reference to angels.

God created Man, the species of Man, Genesis 1:26-27 KJV.

In order for the race of Man to multiply, God created the first Man, Adam, then gave him a mate to multiply the earth.

Adam and all men born after Adam are God’s creation. Adam was the Agent through which the earth would be populated. Therefore if Adam was called the son of God, those born after him are the sons of God: Cain, Abel, Seth, etc.

Yes, angels are also called the sons of God, because like Man, they are created beings. But we don’t know how angels were created and should be cautious in giving our opinion about their creation.

But, God designed man so that man would populate the earth through procreation. Before the fall, the sons of God was to eat from the tree of life to live forever, but due to the fall man became spiritually dead. Due to this, Jesus had to come and redeemed us back to the position of sons of God, Romans 8:14 KJV, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God created Man, the species of Man, Genesis 1:26-27 KJV.

In order for the race of Man to multiply, God created the first Man, Adam, then gave him a mate to multiply the earth.

Adam and all men born after Adam are God’s creation. Adam was the Agent through which the earth would be populated. Therefore if Adam was called the son of God, those born after him are the sons of God: Cain, Abel, Seth, etc.

No. Thats a non sequitur. Nowhere does Scripture say that the offspring of Adam are sons of God (Plural), and it is obvious why this is the case. Logic dictates that if Adam is called a son of God and angels are called sons of God, then that means that this is because they were directly created by God instead of having a natural birth by parents.

Yes, angels are also called the sons of God, because like Man, they are created beings. But we don’t know how angels were created and should be cautious in giving our opinion about their creation.

Well, we do know. Psalms 104 talks about how God created the angels.

1 ”Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”

But, God designed man so that man would populate the earth through procreation. Before the fall, the sons of God was to eat from the tree of life to live forever, but due to the fall man became spiritually dead. Due to this, Jesus had to come and redeemed us back to the position of sons of God, Romans 8:24 KJV, through the Holy Spirit.

Sons of God in Romans 8 is in reference to born again believers in the New Testament. They are called “sons of God” because they are given a new heart and life by the Lord our God. Again, this story of yours does not add up because if the sons of God in Genesis 6 were regular humans, then why did the offspring turn out to be like giants and why were they destroyed by the flood if their parents were godly? Also, Genesis 6 says the sons of God who had relations with the daughters of men existed during the times of Noah (before the flood), and after the flood. We see giants appear in other parts of Scripture after the flood. We see one of the offspring of these giants have six fingers and six toes (according to Scripture - that I posted to you before). So your version of the story does not add up.

Also, why even call them “sons of God” in the first place? Why not just say that men had multiplied with women upon the face of the Earth. Why does the text emphasize the difference between “sons of God” (which can be in reference to angels) and then daughters of men (as if to say they are somehow different). It’s redundant information If the sons of God are human and the daughters of men are human.

 

[biblelesson]

Sons of God in Romans 8 is in reference to born again believers in the New Testament. They are called “sons of God” because they are given a new heart and life by the Lord our God.

Ok, so I don’t know what to say. You don’t understand that our redemption is due to Adam’s fall, and to redeem us to the position we lost, first Jesus had to shed his blood to cleanse our sins, so that we would be able to receive a new heart and new life to be reconciled back to God.

Again, this story of yours does not add up because if the sons of God in Genesis 6 were regular humans, then why did the offspring turn out to be like giants and why were they destroyed by the flood if their parents were godly?

Giants in Genesis does not have to mean actual giants. However, if they were, that does not mean the were as a result of angels having relations with women. It could have been a birth defect considering sin had interred into the world due to Adam’s sin. There are people born today with this problem. The tallest man in the world is over 8 feet. Some call that gigantism.

We see one of the offspring of these giants have six fingers and six toes (according to Scripture - that I posted to you before).

There are people today born with seven toes and seven fingers. Again a birth defect.

Why does the text emphasize the difference between “sons of God” (which can be in reference to angels) and then daughters of men (as if to say they are somehow different).

You are not looking at what’s really going on. The difference is Man was God’s creation, thus the sons of God. Woman was made from man, thus the daughters of men.

This inability for people to understand this is what’s causing the confusion with thinking the sons of God in Genesis are angels and not just simply men who had populated the earth, who saw daughters of men and married them.

 

[biblelesson]

Sons of God in Romans 8 is in reference to born again believers in the New Testament. They are called “sons of God” because they are given a new heart and life by the Lord our God.

Something came to my understanding that maybe I can provide addition clarity.

First to be given a new heart and new life is due to the believer having received the Spirit of God. Ezekiel 46:26-27 KJV, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

And the Bible says in Romans 8:14 KJV, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” But due to Adam’s fall, we lost our communion with God by His Spirit, which required we be redeemed back to sons of God, Romans 8:14 KJV. However, at the writing of Genesis 6, man was still being called sons of God as God had not immediately remove His Spirit from man, Genesis 6:3 KJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok, so I don’t know what to say. You don’t understand that our redemption is due to Adam’s fall, and to redeem us to the position we lost, first Jesus had to shed his blood to cleanse our sins, so that we would be able to receive a new heart and new life to be reconciled back to God.

Now you are assuming false things about me that are highly insulting. Most Christians know that as a result of Adam’s fall, Jesus shed His blood to take away the sins of the world (Which is the paying of the sin debt) so that man can be forgiven and receive a new heart from God by faith so as to be saved. Granted, there are Christians who believe that there are conditions in faith on man’s part to accepting Jesus Christ and His grace (with His shed blood personally forgiving us of our sins), and there are Christians who believe there are no conditions we have to employ on their part involving faith; Meaning, one does not have to act in free will so as to be saved and salvation is all God (Calvinists & Universalists). While Jesus Christ does make the first move in our salvation (John 12:32) (Revelation 3:20), I believe we have to employ an act of free will in faith to access the saving grace of God. This faith is conditional and we must continue in the faith over the course of our whole life. Faith is how we can gain access to God’s saving grace (Romans 5:2).

Again, the “sons of God” in Romans 8 is not connected with the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. Two different ”sons of God.” Romans 8 is referring to believers in the New Covenant, and Genesis 6 is referring to angels. We know this because the offspring were said to be giants, and these giants were wiped out (and Jude 1:6, and 2 Peter 2:4 talks about the sin of these angels and how they are currently being reserved in chains within darkness until the day of Judgment).

Giants in Genesis does not have to mean actual giants.

See what you are doing? You are so hardened against this truth taught in the Bible, that you are actually saying that the word “giants” does not mean ”giants.” At this point I would say there is no point to really reason with you on this topic if you are seeking to change words in the Bible to mean something other than what it says.

Psalms 11:3
”If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

We see giants appear also after the flood (Which is what Genesis 6:4 basically says by the use of other words). We see giants in the Bible such as Goliath, and King Og. When the Israelites spied out the land of Canaan, they noticed that there were giants in the land and they were as grasshoppers in size by comparison to these giants.

However, if they were, that does not mean the were as a result of angels having relations with women. It could have been a birth defect considering sin had interred into the world due to Adam’s sin.

Thats a hard pill to swallow because men were still living extremely long periods of time (120 years - Gen. 6:3).
After this point: The life span started to get less and less as time went on (According to the Bible).
Also, there was no incest laws implemented by the Laws of Moses yet.
So the genetic structure was still strong at this point.
Yes, I know that recent man made history records giants who have a genetic problem, but we do not know the full story of men’s claims here.
Sure, unbelieving Scientists can look at the genetics, but men make conclusions based on what they prefer to believe and see in the observable world around them based on the secular worldly Science they want to be true, and they do not have a biblical worldview. Scientists do the same with rocks. They look at the rocks on our planet and assume they are billons of years old, when they are not. We know this is the case because Christians have duped secular world Scientists in the past into dating a recently formed rock and yet they dated it to be really old.

There are people born today with this problem. The tallest man in the world is over 8 feet. Some call that gigantism.

There are people today born with seven toes and seven fingers. Again a birth defect.

This is the Bible agnostic viewpoint. See the lengths you will go? The Bible says it was the “sons of God.” There was no “New Testament” at the time of the writing of the first five Books of Moses. So the OT saint who read the Scriptures at that time would have understood that “sons of God” was in reference to angels based on their reading of the book of Job (Job 1:6) (Job 2:1) (Job 38:7).

You are not looking at what’s really going on.

I can say the same for you, but we both cannot be right.
I am just reading and believing my Bible.
You are seeking to change the word “giants” and look to secular worldly scientists to explain giants instead of seeking out the Bible’s perspective on the matter of giants instead. Giants were wiped out in the Bible, and they were not considered good. There were no good giants in the Bible.

The difference is Man was God’s creation, thus the sons of God. Woman was made from man, thus the daughters of men.

That is not entirely the truth because both men and women after Adam and Eve were born to human parents and they did not have the same form of creation as Adam and Eve. Again, unless you believe there were multiple Adam and Eve’s being created by God and you had a Bible verse that taught such a thing clearly, I would probably consider your theory here. But as it stands now, it is a stretching of the truth to make your odd belief work.

This inability for people to understand this is what’s causing the confusion with thinking the sons of God in Genesis are angels and not just simply men who had populated the earth, who saw daughters of men and married them.

There is no confusion on the part of the Bible believer who compares Scripture with Scripture like a good Berean. The Scripture believer in the Old Testament would look at Job back in the OT times and conclude that these were angels based on the book of Job. They would see the offspring as unusual in that they were large, and they had six fingers and six toes as a result of these offspring. Then in the New Testament we get even more clarity with Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 saying that these angels had sinned and as a result they are currently in chains in darkness until the day of Judgment. You somehow have found a way to change even the plain reading of these two NT verses because you don’t like the idea of the existence of the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Something came to my understanding that maybe I can provide addition clarity.

First to be given a new heart and new life is due to the believer having received the Spirit of God. Ezekiel 46:26-27 KJV, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

This is actually Ezekiel 36:26-27, and not Ezekiel 46:26-27. I am very familiar with Ezekiel 36:26-27, but I believe you are drawing the wrong conclusions here that is extremely far out in left field in regards to trying to tie it in with Genesis 6.

And the Bible says in Romans 8:14 KJV, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” But due to Adam’s fall, we lost our communion with God by His Spirit, which required we be redeemed back to sons of God, Romans 8:14 KJV. However, at the writing of Genesis 6, man was still being called sons of God as God had not immediately remove His Spirit from man, Genesis 6:3 KJV.

No. Again, you are not reading the Bible from the perspective of those who wrote it back then. The reader in the OT times would have no knowledge of this kind of reading and they would conclude it was angels based on Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7. Put yourself in their shoes and do not read the Bible from your perspective. God is not the author of confusion among the saints. There is no clear OT verse that says that “sons of God” is tied to a group of godly believers. This is clearly an addition to Scripture that you are trying to force into the text because you don’t like the idea of the Nephilim as taught in the Bible. I get it. The idea is freaky and scary to many. Some Christians today do not even believe in fire breathing dragons, and yet the book of Job talks about one. So it comes down to faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Do we put aside our presuppositions and just believe the Bible plainly or do we try to use secular worldly thinking to try and reinterpret the Bible? I just read the Bible like a child and believe it (even if that truth may be uncomfortable or unsettling to me). I have no outside belief to try and change Genesis 6 involving the sons of God. I know they are angels based on Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7. Try as you may, you will not find “sons of God” in the OT as in reference to godly men (plural). There is no verse that makes that connection. You have to stretch the truth of the Bible to make that so.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@biblelesson

Also, if the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were “godly men,” you would think that at least 1 or 2 of them would have not been corrupted by their evil wives and they would have joined Noah onboard the Ark. But there is no mention of this happening. So again, this pokes a big hole in your odd ball theory on the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. Your theory does not align with the whole of Scripture here, and there is a lot of stretching of verses and truths in Scripture to make it work. Again, Jude 1:6, and 2 Peter 2:4 are clear in that there are angels who did a particular sin and because of this sin they are currently being reserved in chains in darkness right now until the day of Judgment. This only makes sense with the Nephilim viewpoint. You are not reading Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 correctly. You are trying to make it about Satan and his minions that are in operation today, and that does not align with what those verses plainly say (Unless you are a Preterist who believes we are living in the 1,000 year reign of Christ with Satan confined to the bottomless pit).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

People say the Nephilims are the giants whose fathers are angle that married women during those days.

This issue has always caused me to wonder how can an angle who is spirit, marry a woman who is flesh and have a baby.

I ask this question especially because Jesus explained in Luke 20:34-36 that those resurrected from the dead neither marry, nor are giving in marriage; that they are equal to the the angles and cannot die anymore.

So Jesus is saying the angels cannot marry nor be givin in marriage, and that they are spirit because they cannot die. So how can a spirit posses a fleshly male seed to produce a baby? Well according to Jesus that can’t happen.

Because there is a flesh and blood creation and there is a spiritual creation - angels, you can’t mix the two. Only a man made of flesh can have relations with a woman made of flesh.

So to understand what Genesis is saying we have to look at God’s creation of man and where the woman fit in.

God created man, not woman. Woman was made from a man that God had already created; from the rib of Adam - Adam was God’s creation, not Eve.

Genesis 6:1 says,….when men (God’s creation) began to multiply…and daughters were born unto them, 2 The sons of God saw the daughter of men…and took them wives…

The sons of God in Genesis 6:1-2 is God’s creation - man

The daughters of men are those women born who are patterned after Eve in creation.

The women could not be called the sons of God. They could only be called the daughters of men because as I pointed out earlier women were not created, they were made from an already existing creation - man. And it is man who holds the title sons of God. Women holds the title, daughters of men.

And although 2 Corinthians 6:18 says,
“And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty,” man’s position is still considered over the woman in title. This is why in 1 Corinthians 11:3 the man is the head of the woman, but Christ is the head of man.

It is mysthology.

 

[GenemZ]

It is mysthology.

We have certain ancient myths in history because eight people survived the flood.
After they walked off the Ark they began repopulating the earth.

They reported what they saw to their offspring what they witnessed to before the flood.

Some of those accounts became embellished as they were passed down. Demons changed
the meaning of certain details to work with their pagan religions in their attempt to control primitive men with.

grace and peace ..................

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It is mysthology.

The Bible accurately records history because it is the divinely inspired Word of God.
There are no errors in the Bible.
The Bible talks about the “sons of God” mating with the daughters of men in Genesis 6, and in the book of Job, we learn that the “sons of God” are angels (Job 1:6) (Job 2:1) (Job 38:7). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). One either believes the Bible or they don’t believe it. Some just believe in certain parts of the Bible. I believe the entirety of the Bible. The Bible is true and not mythology.

 

[sawdust]

Also, even if you wanted to make all the OT references on God’s soul in reference to Jesus, we have to understand that Jesus in the Old Testament did not become flesh yet.

You don't need a body to be human. Our humanity is in our soul. Those who have died in Christ haven't stopped being human because they have no body.

The Lord Jesus Christ has always been God and man (Deity and human) in the one person. It's because the Lord Jesus is eternally God and man that we can understand who and what God is.

The person who walked the earth in the Incarnation is the same person who walked with Adam in the Garden and spoke to the prophets etc.