Are we mixed with giants or angels ?

[1stcenturylady]

I thought there is reference to this in the Old Testament?

Genesis 6

 

[ViaCrucis]

I thought there is reference to this in the Old Testament?

There's a reference to the "sons of gods" and the "daughters of men" producing the "nephilim", who are described as "mighty men of old, the men of renown", the word nephilim is generally regarded to mean something like "fallen ones", based on the Hebrew root n-ph-l, meaning "to fall". Some have interpreted "sons of God" to be a reference to angels, that interpretation is taken up in works such as the book of Enoch which provides a complex mythological narrative of a group of fallen angels known as the watchers; other interpretations, found among both Jewish rabbinical and Christian patristic works is that the "sons of God" possibly refers to the godly lineage of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" refers to the lineage of Cain. The text isn't particularly clear.

But the rather common understanding concerning the nature of angels is that they are, as the author of Hebrews says, "ministering spirits", that is, angels are spiritual creatures and thus don't have corporeal form; it therefore makes the notion of angels impregnating human women rather suspect at best.

There really isn't any reason to believe that angels can interbreed with human beings, let alone that it ever happened--such ways of thinking belong firmly in the realm of high mythology akin to the ancient stories of the Greeks wherein gods, demigods, nymphs, and other divine or semi-divine beings engage in sexual acts with humans which results in offspring that are part human and part divine. It's not something that really belongs in Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrew4jesus]

There's a reference to the "sons of gods" and the "daughters of men" producing the "nephilim", who are described as "mighty men of old, the men of renown", the word nephilim is generally regarded to mean something like "fallen ones", based on the Hebrew root n-ph-l, meaning "to fall". Some have interpreted "sons of God" to be a reference to angels, that interpretation is taken up in works such as the book of Enoch which provides a complex mythological narrative of a group of fallen angels known as the watchers; other interpretations, found among both Jewish rabbinical and Christian patristic works is that the "sons of God" possibly refers to the godly lineage of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" refers to the lineage of Cain. The text isn't particularly clear.

But the rather common understanding concerning the nature of angels is that they are, as the author of Hebrews says, "ministering spirits", that is, angels are spiritual creatures and thus don't have corporeal form; it therefore makes the notion of angels impregnating human women rather suspect at best.

There really isn't any reason to believe that angels can interbreed with human beings, let alone that it ever happened--such ways of thinking belong firmly in the realm of high mythology akin to the ancient stories of the Greeks wherein gods, demigods, nymphs, and other divine or semi-divine beings engage in sexual acts with humans which results in offspring that are part human and part divine. It's not something that really belongs in Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. It explains a lot

 

[Andrew4jesus]

There is a very large body of UFO abductees that report the blending of our DNA with other beings. The reported result is not a giant but also not strictly human.

Search Dr Jacobs for more info. He is not a Christian but by belief is that ufo phenomenon is due to fallen angels.

Very interesting thanks

 

[Uber Genius]

Dr. Michael Heiser is the scholar in residence for logos bible software and is a semetic languages scholar.

My Thoughts on Nephilim: Answering a Criticism | Dr. Michael Heiser

He makes some interesting arguments against "fallen ones," interpretation, and favors the Septuagint "gigantes" translation.

 

[Sanoy]

There are plenty of examples of angels taking physical appearance. Jacob wrestled with one, Abraham fed one, and the citizens of Sodom wanted to mate with one. In fact we are told in the NT that we entertain angels unawares when we show hospitality to strangers.

 

[Radrook]

That would call into question the whole necessity of the Flood.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are plenty of examples of angels taking physical appearance. Jacob wrestled with one, Abraham fed one, and the citizens of Sodom wanted to mate with one. In fact we are told in the NT that angels we entertain angels unawares when we show hospitality to strangers.

But there's a pretty significant difference between angels taking on a human appearance, and angels actually having human anatomy. Angels also appeared in many other ways, for example the burning bush is described as being an angel, the prophet Ezekiel beholds "wheels within wheels". This points us to the fact that angels have no definite form, their appearance is necessitated by God's will and command, they are wholly non-corporeal. To suggest that angels and humans produced offspring requires that, in effect, have DNA which they can transmit through sexual reproduction.

The "angels mating with humans" theory contains far too many theological red flags for me to be at all comfortable with it; and explanations in order to back it up often end up reaching into highly fanciful, speculative theories looking a lot like modern science fiction and fantasy, not serious theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[paulscholes]

Could we be mixed with giants and angels? And when the scales fall will we see our true selves ?

Well, even though I wished to know like u asked too. But I don't really think so. As long as we have the Holy Spirit we can do all things but without him, we are nothing.

 

[Sanoy]

But there's a pretty significant difference between angels taking on a human appearance, and angels actually having human anatomy. Angels also appeared in many other ways, for example the burning bush is described as being an angel, the prophet Ezekiel beholds "wheels within wheels". This points us to the fact that angels have no definite form, their appearance is necessitated by God's will and command, they are wholly non-corporeal. To suggest that angels and humans produced offspring requires that, in effect, have DNA which they can transmit through sexual reproduction.

The "angels mating with humans" theory contains far too many theological red flags for me to be at all comfortable with it; and explanations in order to back it up often end up reaching into highly fanciful, speculative theories looking a lot like modern science fiction and fantasy, not serious theology.

-CryptoLutheran

If an angel can take on a human appearance and eat a meal why can't he take on the rest of human anatomy? Whats the difference? If they take on human form why couldn't they take on DNA? I don't see why they can have an esophagus and a stomach, but not equipment.

Angels mating with humans is the traditional view which is also found worldwide. The idea that the sons of God are the patriarchs is a relatively modern one. There is a lot of speculative stuff that surrounds it, but angels as the sons of God, and the giants come from a plain reading of the text. Genesis 6 says it plainly when it says "the Sons of God came into the daughters of men". Sons of God are clearly defined as angels in Job 38.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

 

[Widlast]

Could we be mixed with giants and angels? And when the scales fall will we see our true selves ?

No. Angels do not have the ability to procreate, being sexless spirits. Giant is a relative, and somewhat meaningless term. Goliath likely suffered from pituitary gigantism, compared to the 5 foot men of the time anything over 6 feet would have been considered "giant".

 

[Widlast]

Could we be mixed with giants and angels? And when the scales fall will we see our true selves ?

No. Angels do not have the ability to procreate, being sexless spirits. Giant is a relative, and somewhat meaningless term. Goliath likely suffered from pituitary gigantism, compared to the 5 foot men of the time anything over 6 feet would have been considered "giant".

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)

 

[corinth77777]

Why does one think people would be mixed ?

 

[corinth77777]

There's a reference to the "sons of gods" and the "daughters of men" producing the "nephilim", who are described as "mighty men of old, the men of renown", the word nephilim is generally regarded to mean something like "fallen ones", based on the Hebrew root n-ph-l, meaning "to fall". Some have interpreted "sons of God" to be a reference to angels, that interpretation is taken up in works such as the book of Enoch which provides a complex mythological narrative of a group of fallen angels known as the watchers; other interpretations, found among both Jewish rabbinical and Christian patristic works is that the "sons of God" possibly refers to the godly lineage of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" refers to the lineage of Cain. The text isn't particularly clear.

But the rather common understanding concerning the nature of angels is that they are, as the author of Hebrews says, "ministering spirits", that is, angels are spiritual creatures and thus don't have corporeal form; it therefore makes the notion of angels impregnating human women rather suspect at best.

There really isn't any reason to believe that angels can interbreed with human beings, let alone that it ever happened--such ways of thinking belong firmly in the realm of high mythology akin to the ancient stories of the Greeks wherein gods, demigods, nymphs, and other divine or semi-divine beings engage in sexual acts with humans which results in offspring that are part human and part divine. It's not something that really belongs in Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

Recently not to long ago...I was reading a passage...and it seemed to directly relate to the line of Seth...those who called upon the name of the Lord vs. those who did not.
It's best to find the Chapter and verses and read it in context...for are we not sons of God? Daughters of men...people after the flesh 's vs. those who follow the Spirit..also referred to in 1st or 2nd John.

Romans 8:14

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit

One interesting point is that it doesn't neccessarily say in Gen 5 or 6 when God stopped striving with men. But that because they were flesh He would not Always strive with men.

 

[rockytopva]

This whole thread has the makings of LDS fairy tales.

 

[corinth77777]

But there's a pretty significant difference between angels taking on a human appearance, and angels actually having human anatomy. Angels also appeared in many other ways, for example the burning bush is described as being an angel, the prophet Ezekiel beholds "wheels within wheels". This points us to the fact that angels have no definite form, their appearance is necessitated by God's will and command, they are wholly non-corporeal. To suggest that angels and humans produced offspring requires that, in effect, have DNA which they can transmit through sexual reproduction.

The "angels mating with humans" theory contains far too many theological red flags for me to be at all comfortable with it; and explanations in order to back it up often end up reaching into highly fanciful, speculative theories looking a lot like modern science fiction and fantasy, not serious theology.

-CryptoLutheran

Vernon Mcgee...says if the angels were sons of God they were good angels who would not have have done that.[Given the Title: Sons of God]...It never says the Giants are offspring. And what does it mean by Giants? Big headed people[thinking they are more than they are]...or Giants like Big huge people. Cain and Seth line intermingled and corrupted the line except for Noah. Through Noah the Spirit of God strived with men..yet they did not repent and were destroyed in the flood. 1 Peter 3
I agree with Vernon for specifically both lines show why one is called the daughters of man and the other sons of God. Simply Men begin to call upon the name of the Lord are sons...

Even if there were "Giants" before hand as stated, the offspring are not said to be...

We know some people are short and some people are tall. One would have to assume that God made all people the same height in the beginning.

Also what may seem as Giants can also be exaggerated through fear.

 

[Sanoy]

Vernon Mcgee...says if the angels were sons of God they were good angels who would not have have done that.[Given the Title: Sons of God]...It never says the Giants are offspring. And what does it mean by Giants? Big headed people[thinking they are more than they are]...or Giants like Big huge people. Cain and Seth line intermingled and corrupted the line except for Noah. Through Noah the Spirit of God strived with men..yet they did not repent and were destroyed in the flood. 1 Peter 3
I agree with Vernon for specifically both lines show why one is called the daughters of man and the other sons of God. Simply Men begin to call upon the name of the Lord are sons...

Even if there were "Giants" before hand as stated, the offspring are not said to be...

We know some people are short and some people are tall. One would have to assume that God made all people the same height in the beginning.

Also what may seem as Giants can also be exaggerated through fear.

All angels were good until they were not. Sons of God is a title in both Hebrew and Ugaritic beliefs. It refers to a specific group of 70 in Ugaritic and in Hebrew (Deuteronomy 32:8 read in ESV and recall the 70nations) Job 38 makes the title "sons of God" unambiguous.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

The word for giants is an Aramaic word and means Giants. We even have that same reference in Numbers 13 where they meet the Nephilim (giants) again and describe them as being giants. Vernon isn't really diving deep here, he is just kind of thinking out loud in supposition.

 

[Radrook]

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)

It is speaking of angels in heaven who are faithful to God and not rebel angels we refer to as demons.

 

[Goatee]

Giants.........How tall is a giant? In Biblical times a 6'2" man would have been classed as a giant!!