Don't know which Bible you are reading from but you are contradicting the true word of God.What they are not is a product of humans and fallen angels mating!
The following is an excerpt from the book Ancient Hebrew Dictionary.
The plural form of elo'ah, meaning power, is elohiym and is often translated as Elohiym. While English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality. Something that is of great size or stature can be written in the plural form. Elohiym is the one of great strength and authority.
Genesis 6:5
and Yhwh saw that the dysfunctions of the human in the land was abundant, and all the thoughts of inventions of his heart was only dysfunctional every day,
Genesis 6:8
and No'ahh found beauty in the eyes of Yhwh,
Genesis 6:9
these are the birthings of No'ahh, No'ahh existed a steadfast one and mature man in his generations, No'ahh walked himself with the Elohiym,
Genesis 6:11
and the land was damaged to the face of the Elohiym and the land was filled with violence,
Genesis 6:12
and Elohiym saw the land and look, she was damaged given that all the flesh destroyed his road upon the land,
Genesis 6:13
and Elohiym said to No'ahh, a conclusion of all the flesh has come to my face, given that the land of violence was filled from their face, and look at me, I am destroying them with the land,
13down voteaccepted
The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64
Don't know which Bible you are reading from but you are contradicting the true word of God.
We actually have an enormous amount of reference. The sons of God are directly paralleled in Ugaritic texts especially in regards to Deuteronomy 32:8. The entire story of Genesis 6 is paralleled throughout the Ancient Near East and forms many of the central themes of the region. In the case of Greece the titans were born of Gaia (earth) and Uranus (sky). This mythology directly parallels with the content in the book of Enoch. We can see the same conditions in the fallen Igigi which is a composite word meaning "watchers" ( eye + surround) being renamed Anunnaki which is a composite word of anuna- sons of heaven and Ki - earth which reflected their acquired cythonic nature.The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature.
What do you make of these scriptures then, doesn't sound like a regular human being to me:Absolutely not--I am upholding it, as it was written--from the Mechanical Translation--it is a transliteration of the original Hebrew. It is this mating with fallen angels that is a total fabrication and a contradiction to the very character of God.
MT of the Torah - Home Page
What do you make of these scriptures then, doesn't sound like a regular human being to me:
2 Samuel 21:20
And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.
Scripture says the man descended from giants, in other words an offspring of the Nephilim, doesn't say he had birth defects.Top 10 Famous People With Extra Fingers or Toes
- None photo shopped---all 100% human and there are many, many more
- 700 x 525 · jpeg
- todup.blogspot.com
- 460 x 288 · jpeg
- sammyboy.com
- 400 x 296 · jpeg
- perpustakaan.blogspot.com
- 300 x 389 · jpeg
- themedschoolproj…
- 600 x 275 · jpeg
- myfivebest.com
- 306 x 200 · jpeg
- runkle-science.wikispaces.com
- 630 x 422 · jpeg
- saidthegramophone.com
Scripture says the man descended from giants, in other words an offspring of the Nephilim, doesn't say he had birth defects.
The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64
I believe in the written word of God, not in what someone is assuming to be the truth. Most of the things you have posted are assumptions to try to explain who the Nephilim were. The word of God clearly states who the Nephilim were in all Bible versions. However I do agree that this isn't an important part of the Bible and not very spiritually edifying anyways. The important part is to apply the word of God in our lives.That is what they had!
I believe in the written word of God, not in what someone is assuming to be the truth. Most of the things you have posted are assumptions to try to explain who the Nephilim were. The word of God clearly states who the Nephilim were in all Bible versions. However I do agree that this isn't an important part of the Bible and not very spiritually edifying anyways. The important part is to apply the word of God in our lives.
I agree that Greek and Hebrew are the accurate translations of the Bible but it seems as though the one trying to explain those verses in Hebrew is assuming a lot of things and trying to understand these verses him/herself.The word of God was written in Hebrew----and it is that language that needs to be understood clearly in order for there to be a correct interpretation. It is foolish to give modern meaning to ancient words that were understood in different ways at the time they were written, It then becomes the words of man's interpretation and not the words of God and leads us into wrong ideas. Assumptions are what you are making based on wrong meanings of a few words. It is always best to try to understand the original words themselves at the time they were written within the culture it was written.
I agree that Greek and Hebrew are the accurate translations of the Bible but it seems as though the one trying to explain those verses in Hebrew is assuming a lot of things and trying to understand these verses him/herself.
I personaly like this explanation:
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?
No matter how much information is presented as to the meaning of these words in Hebrew---those who believe in fallen angels mating with humans-- will not believe it. Why anyone wants to believe such a thing is beyond me. Not only does it not add up with the correct meanings of these words, it makes no common sense either and does not reflect the character of God.
It's not that people want to believe it, it's just what the text naturally says. Changing that orthodox understanding as you do is heresy. You cannot name a single person or source that thought the nephilim and sons of God were men during or before Jesus's time. Your view is a 5-6th century response to a growing criticism of giants. It is a relatively modern heresy.
It doesn't add up because you are not using the correct meanings of the words. If nephilim had meant fallen ones the Septuagint translators would have used the word for fallen ones, not gigantes.
Matthew 22:30 is always brought up in objection while ignoring Job 38:7. Matthew 22 compares future marriage to how things are in heaven. The sons of God left their heavenly estate when they decended.
The bible doesn't say the angels cannot take on the functionality of men. That is pure speculation. Angels can even eat food as they did with Abraham. The sodomites even desired to have sex with the angel in Lots house.
There is no way to scripturally defend the sethite theory, it is a modern heresy. If the sons of God were men what are they doing at the creation of the world in Job 38:7? To deal with that verse you will have destroy scripture for the sake of avoiding an unpalatable conclusion. That is not good thing to do
It doesn't add up because you are not using the correct meanings of the words.
Great. Then meet my challenge. Quote a single person from Jesus's time or before that believed the "Sons of God" were men. The reason you can't is because that idea did not exist until around the 5-6 century. That is why it is a modern heresy. Literally 0 scriptural authors believed in that theory. Not even Paul himself who told women to cover their heads for the sake of the Angels. Or the author of Jude who quotes the Book of Enoch as prophecy.LOL! That is not my response--it is the response of many others--I quoted Jewish scholars! And it is not a modern heresy! The modern heresy is what you are stating as that was not the considered interpretation!