.

[Tree of Life]

That's what the word means, buddy.

Have a nice day.

The word does not clearly mean "giants". This is an assumption that is read into the word.

The word נְפִילִים is related to the verb נפל which means "to fall, collapse, be ruined, give birth". נפל is not related to the concept of "giant" in any way. The word נְפִילִים occurs only 2 times in the OT. One is the passage in question and another is in Numbers 13:33. Here's that occurrence with some context:

So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. 33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.

Some assume that Nephilim means giants because the people of Israel reported that men "of great height" lived in Canaan. But there are some other noteworthy details here that would challenge this:

1. The Nephilim may not have been of great height because the report that the spies gave was a false report. They said that "the land devours its inhabitants" which was not true. The land was a good land, flowing with milk and honey. It's also possible that a report of irregularly tall men was equally false. The Nephilim may not have been giants at all.
   
   
2. The Hebrew phrase for "great height" is אַנְשֵׁ֥י מִדּֽוֹת - literally "men of measure". It need not refer to giants, but to large, strong men-of-war. This would concord well with its use in Genesis 6 - men of renown and valiant men of war.

So it's not enough to say "that's what the word means". It's possible that this is what the word means, but there is not nearly enough scholarly consensus to be able to maintain this with mere assertion. You've got to have a decent argument to back it up.

 

[fat wee robin]

What troubles me is the common answer to this, "God is a spirit, but He chose to reveal Himself to us as a man." I don't think that's a good/accurate way to describe God's masculinity. In other words, He's not acting. He is male in essence.

The fatherhood of God is essential to who He is.

God is masculine ,but has some 'feminine traits ', as in being able to comfort and create
beauty . To initiate is 'male' and to be receptive is 'feminine' .I think there has to be questioning about what Paul means by no gender ,as it is fundamental to how we were created .

 

[fat wee robin]

Did you seriously come in here and ask that OP? Did you not ever pick up a bible in your life?

I'm not being mean or rude. This was just a pointless thread.

Do you not like then philophical discussion ? Some do ,and yes it is in the bible ,but some things like what Paul says ,bring up questions ,which need discussing .

 

[Shadowprophet]

Do you not like then philophical discussion ? Some do ,and yes it is in the bible ,but some things like what Paul says ,bring up questions ,which need discussing .

how is that philosophical? the bible clearly says God is a He and he is the Father.. I mean its just completely ignoring the bible and what it says.. this is pointless nonsense, not philosophy..

 

[Shadowprophet]

that would be like someone starting a thread, asking Was Adam transgender? I mean come on, you can't have an intelligent philosophical discussion on an issue that is not founded on intelligence...

 

[Deadworm]

In my Gender of God thread, I document many biblical allusions to the femininity of God. There is no dispute about this in academic circles. That's one reason why my college course on Women and Religion attracted 70 students a semester. To my knowledge, all my students were convinced when the full historical biblical picture was presented. The myopic ignorance of this site's patriarchal Ghetto doesn't change the facts. Posters here need to recognize their idolatrous exclusive focus on the masculine imagery, breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry, and wrap their minds around all this feminine imagery. My thread will shortly consider the spiritual function of this feminine biblical imagery, which, though hardly literal, is just as revelatory as the Bible's patriarchal imagery.

 

[Hieronymus]

The word does not clearly mean "giants". This is an assumption that is read into the word.

You're right, the exact literal meaning is not that clear.
But if you say you don't want to know how fallen angels and human women produced giants, even when the Bible says so, then i give up this discussion.

 

[Shadowprophet]

In my Gender of God thread, I document many biblical allusions to the femininity of God. There is no dispute about this in academic circles. That's one reason why my college course on Women and Religion attracted 70 students a semester. To my knowledge, all my students were convinced when the full historical biblical picture was presented. The myopic ignorance of this site's patriarchal Ghetto doesn't change the facts. Posters here need to recognize their idolatrous exclusive focus on the masculine imagery, breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry, and wrap their minds around all this feminine imagery. My thread will shortly consider the spiritual function of this feminine biblical imagery, which, though hardly literal, is just as revelatory as the Bible's patriarchal imagery.

Well its to a point a person may not disagree without causing a stir.. I feel that this issue twists what the bible clearly says. and is disrespectful to the Lord God. I have little tolerance for people who twist Gods word. I am bowing out of this thread.

 

[Tree of Life]

But if you say you don't want to know how fallen angels and human women produced giants, even when the Bible says do, then i give up this discussion.

But this is the very question we're debating. If the Bible clearly said that fallen angels and human women procreated then I would accept it. But the Bible does not clearly say this. Your position is acceptable but it is not the only position and it is not the majority position. I don't think that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels. Therefore I don't think the Bible says that angels and women procreated.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I suspect the question has been posed in the interest of opening discussion, not for genuine lack of knowing.

You are correct. That's is precisely why I began the thread.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You're right, the exact literal meaning is not that clear.
But if you say you don't want to know how fallen angels and human women produced giants, even when the Bible says so, then i give up this discussion.

Spiritual beings cannot procreate with human beings. The Bible says no such thing.

 

[Hieronymus]

But this is the very question we're debating. If the Bible clearly said that fallen angels and human women procreated then I would accept it.

I don; t believe you would, because Genesis 6:4 is rather clear.

But the Bible does not clearly say this.

You see?
Let's just agree to disagree then.

 

[Hieronymus]

Spiritual beings cannot procreate with human beings. The Bible says no such thing.

O so you have reading problems too...
And who made you the expert on angels then?

 

[Hieronymus]

Well its to a point a person may not disagree without causing a stir.. I feel that this issue twists what the bible clearly says. and is disrespectful to the Lord God. I have little tolerance for people who twist Gods word. I am bowing out of this thread.

So am i.
Pleas don't quote me again folks.
Have a nice day, God bless.

 

[Tree of Life]

O so you have reading problems too...
And who made you the expert on angels then?

Hieronymus, what makes you think that the expression "sons of God" refers to fallen angels? Are you aware of the other possible referents?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Hieronymus, what makes you think that the expression "sons of God" refers to fallen angels? Are you aware of the other possible referents?

The stuff about giants is what makes some come to the conclusion he has. It is a tricky passage, and it's easy to read thinks into it that are not there.

 

[Tree of Life]

@thatbrian I think I would say that in relation to us God is masculine because he is our head. But I would have to admit that both the feminine and the masculine are derived from God as both men and women are created in his image.

 

[ScottA]

In recent weeks there has been some talk about God's gender. I pose one question:

Is God male, female of genderless?

By His own word...He is male.

However, gender, as described in the Bible suggest that male and female are not One without the other - and we know that God is One. But as we continue on in His explanation, lo and behold, we find that we, like Eve, were taken out of the Man - out of God in Christ. So, then, being referred to as His (female) bride, when we all are not females - we have no choice but to consider the whole matter as a parable. And that it is a parable He has also answered: Saying that He is Lord and Head, and that there is no life for us, except in Him - Him.

 

[hedrick]

Gender in a literal sense is biological. So God of course doesn’t have it.

However he created male and female both in his image. I would say that he has some affinity with both genders. In addition, I agree with Deadworm that there’s enough female references to God, particularly Wisdom, to support this.

There’s also a predominance of male terminology and imagery. Is that simply due to the culture in which the Bible was written, or is there something more masculine about him? I think it’s both. While he has characteristics of both, the creator and lawgiver fits better into the ancient concept of a male than female. But we shouldn’t deny that there are references to God as mothering us as well. E.g Mat 23:37. So based on that passage, yes, God is our mother, though I don’t support replacing “father” with “mother” in expressions of the Trinity.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Gender in a literal sense is biological. So God of course doesn’t have it.

However he created male and female both in his image. I would say that he has some affinity with both genders. In addition, I agree with Deadworm that there’s enough female references to God, particularly Wisdom, to support this.

There’s also a predominance of male terminology and imagery. Is that simply due to the culture in which the Bible was written, or is there something more masculine about him? I think it’s both. While he has characteristics of both, the creator and lawgiver fits better into the ancient concept of a male than female. But we shouldn’t deny that there are references to God as mothering us as well. E.g Mat 23:37. So based on that passage, yes, God is our mother, though I don’t support replacing “father” with “mother” in expressions of the Trinity.

Okay,, firstly, i'm having an off day, I have those, It's not this thread. Here is the thing. God identifies himself as Male, He even says in the bible he favors Man over woman. He has a gender, And biologically is Male, He made us in (his) image. I know your staff, But I am not afraid to disagree. I would not personally take anything From the Lord, If God said he is male, He is all powerful. biologically He is male, and identifies as such..

Please don't take, my inability to deal with my off day as concerning this thread,, This thread is not the reason my day has gone wrongly. I am not upset or angry. I am just I don't know,, it's an off day for me.