Are we mixed with giants or angels ?

JacksBratt · May 30, 2017

Steve Petersen said:
They are MENTIONED in the Bible, but there is no way to know if the ones we know by those names are the actual books referred to. Just because the names are the same does not mean they are the same book. Pseudepigrapha 'are falsely-attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.'

Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia

They are mentioned and even though not canonized, are still excellent sources for reference. The Book of Enoch is even quoted in the Bible.

corinth77777 · May 31, 2017

.....
Well There is more valid evidence that stands besides "sons of God" to be the line of Seth...than assumptions of them being fallen angels.

Words seem to change meaning with culture, times, and translation.

Like the term Giants...

But scripture is clear that If man is led by the spirit they are sons of God.

Seth line shows that men begin to call upon the name of the Lord.

And to verify what "called" means is the scripture that says, how can they call upon the one they have not heard....

So they called upon Him because they related to him...And most likely by doing what He commanded or desired.

We are not suppose to be yoked with nonbelievers. Because God wants us to produce Godly seeds.

And look at the seed produced....people who obviously believed they had no need for God, for their heart's to be continually evil.

Repentance was available but the chose it not.

corinth77777 · May 31, 2017

corinth77777 said:
.....
Well There is more valid evidence that stands besides "sons of God" to be the line of Seth...than assumptions of them being fallen angels.

Words seem to change meaning with culture, times, and translation.

Like the term Giants...

But scripture is clear that If man is led by the spirit they are sons of God.

Seth line shows that men begin to call upon the name of the Lord.

And to verify what "called" means is the scripture that says, how can they call upon the one they have not heard....

So they called upon Him because they related to him...And most likely by doing what He commanded or desired.

We are not suppose to be yoked with nonbelievers. Because God wants us to produce Godly seeds.

And look at the seed produced....people who obviously believed they had no need for God, for their heart's to be continually evil.

Repentance was available but the chose it not.

Ex 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Due 7 :3

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
...............break.....
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

jaybird88 · May 31, 2017

corinth77777 said:
.....
But scripture is clear that If man is led by the spirit they are sons of God.

its also clear in that same passage that believers who are sons of the Most High do not die. are the sons of seth still here today? if a born again believer goes from being mankind to mankind, whats the point?

Seth line shows that men begin to call upon the name of the Lord.

men began to profane the name of the Lord. cane and able made sacrifices to the Lord, that didnt begin with the sons of seth. if sons of seth were the righteous ones why were they killed in the flood?

And look at the seed produced....people who obviously believed they had no need for God, for their heart's to be continually evil.

the seed they produced had physically changed. nephilim are another class of being, not a bad human.

corinth77777 · May 31, 2017

jaybird88 said:
its also clear in that same passage that believers who are sons of the Most High do not die. are the sons of seth still here today? if a born again believer goes from being mankind to mankind, whats the poin

men began to profane the name of the Lord. cane and able made sacrifices to the Lord, that didnt begin with the sons of seth. if sons of seth were the righteous ones why were they killed in the flood?

the seed they produced had physically changed. nephilim are another class of being, not a bad human.

Where in. Romans 8 are you saying it is clear that in the same passage it says they will never die a physical death? Please share

Does not scripture say if you defile this temple I will destroy it? Why do people die today? Does not scripture say it's appointed onto man once to die and after this the judgement. Was not Israel man and God called Him His Son?
Scriptures say we will be changed in a twinkle of an eye...but when? When Jesus comes back...so who says man stay men...what passages state's this...what book are you reading?

Scripture state's those who are led by the spirit are sons of God.

The line of Seth described in the genealogy in Genesis state's and men begin to call upon the name of the Lord.

We know they couldn't have called unless they knew something about Him...according to scripture, how can they call upon the one they have not believed.

Again there is more evidence sons of God being the the line of Seth rather than it to mean Angels. Especially in Context.

Notes:
Ex 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Due 7 :3

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
...............break.....
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

1cor 3;17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Romans 8;14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 10:14

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Gen 4:26

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

jaybird88 · May 31, 2017

corinth77777 said:
Where in. Romans 8 are you saying it is clear that in the same passage it says they will never die a physical death? Please share

my mistake i was thinking of the words of Jesus in Luke:
Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

The line of Seth described in the genealogy in Genesis state's and men begin to call upon the name of the Lord.

phrase in question is " began to call upon"

[men] began הוּחַ֔ל hu·chal,
2490c. chalal
Strong's Concordance
chalal: to pollute, defile, profane

Leviticus 19 12
You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

2455. chol
from chalal

same word

corinth77777 · May 31, 2017

..

All the versions say the same..
One would have to ask what they knew that made them translate the same.

At the same time It was after Seth...who EVE said ...God had gave her in place of Able that men began to call upon the name of the Lord.

There was none in the line of Cain that were said to walk with God or to be taken.

So there are 2 ideals that remain the Sons of God were Leaders, as Kings and such..or the the line of Seth.

Rather One meaning of "began" has to do with defaming....there are still clues that sons of God are the opposing line of cain that 2 curses did fall on. No wrath is mentioned until after we see the sons of God defiled themselves.

It never mentions any offspring that are giant nor angels....but the offspring are men....what type Mighty...Mighty how? Most likely in status and power.
And that is more likely the meaning of giants...

jaybird88 · May 31, 2017

corinth77777 said:
..

All the versions say the same..
One would have to ask what they knew that made them translate the same.

you could add as many versions as you like and its not going to change the meaning of the word.

There was none in the line of Cain that were said to walk with God or to be taken.

there is nothing in the text that says all sons of cain did not walk with the Most High.
Seth has many sons that rebelled and were killed in the flood.

So there are 2 ideals that remain the Sons of God were Leaders, as Kings and such..or the the line of Seth.

"sons of" is not a blood line, its the offspring, everyone after seth that descended from seth. we know that only a select few made it, the rest of them, who were also sons of seth,were destroyed.

It never mentions any offspring that are giant nor angels....but the offspring are men....what type Mighty...Mighty how? Most likely in status and power.
And that is more likely the meaning of giants...

they are called nephilim which most believe is giants. they were not the version of mankind that the Most High created. they had been phisically corrupted into something else.
these giants show up again after the flood when the spies came back from canaan. they brought back those grapes, one single cluster and it took 2 men and a pole to carry them.
you also have the fact the Most High ordered them to kill every man, woman, child and any other living thing in canaan. does our Lord, the one that hates shedding innocent blood, order the deaths of children, unless they were not children like we know. Canaan, nephilim, the story of Sodom, there is much more to all this than these people being just a bunch of sinners.

Sanoy · Jun 1, 2017

corinth77777 said:
.....
Well There is more valid evidence that stands besides "sons of God" to be the line of Seth...than assumptions of them being fallen angels.

What evidence is there of the sethite theory? All that I am aware of is the plucking of an obscure verse, whose context is lost, in Genesis 4:26 and insisting that it applies to "sons of God" because of a verse clear on the other side of the Bible. It's simply demanded even though Job makes a clear correlation between the Sons of God and Angels.

The view that Genesis 4:26 refers to the sons of God is modern. Jewish writing in and around the second temple era show no such correlation between this verse and the "Sons of God".
Targum of Onkelos - then in his days the children of men ceased from praying in the name of the Lord;''
Targum of Jonathan - this was the age, in the days of which they began to err, and they made themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord;''
Jasher 2:3 - "And it was in the days of Enosh that the sons of men continued to rebel and transgress against God, to increase the anger of the Lord against the sons of men."
Jubilees 4:12 - "He began to call on the name of the Lord [YHWH] on the earth."
The Sethithe theory just does not come from a reading of the text. It comes first from a disbelief or disgust over the sin of the watchers and second from trying to find an alternate explanation.

When we last talked I gave you several explicit scriptural references, modern scholarship, as well as a reference to surrounding context of the region of Ugaric and Phoenicia in relation to the "sons of God". You never responded to those statements so what evidence do you refer to when you say the Sethite theory has more valid evidence?

jaybird88 · Jun 1, 2017

Sanoy said:
What evidence is there of the sethite theory? All that I am aware of is the plucking of an obscure verse, whose context is lost, in Genesis 4:26 and insisting that it applies to "sons of God" because of a verse clear on the other side of the Bible. It's simply demanded even though Job makes a clear correlation between the Sons of God and Angels.

The view that Genesis 4:26 refers to the sons of God is modern. Jewish writing in and around the second temple era show no such correlation between this verse and the "Sons of God".
Targum of Onkelos - then in his days the children of men ceased from praying in the name of the Lord;''
Targum of Jonathan - this was the age, in the days of which they began to err, and they made themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord;''
Jasher 2:3 - "And it was in the days of Enosh that the sons of men continued to rebel and transgress against God, to increase the anger of the Lord against the sons of men."
Jubilees 4:12 - "He began to call on the name of the Lord [YHWH] on the earth."
The Sethithe theory just does not come from a reading of the text. It comes first from a disbelief or disgust over the sin of the watchers and second from trying to find an alternate explanation.

When we last talked I gave you several explicit scriptural references, modern scholarship, as well as a reference to surrounding context of the region of Ugaric and Phoenicia in relation to the "sons of God". You never responded to those statements so what evidence do you refer to when you say the Sethite theory has more valid evidence?

i agree with you. the sethite theory didnt exist until 300-400 AD. my question has always been, why did rome change this story?

JacksBratt · Jun 1, 2017

jaybird88 said:
i agree with you. the sethite theory didnt exist until 300-400 AD. my question has always been, why did rome change this story?

I think it just blows peoples minds to believe or entertain the concept of Angels taking on a form and mating with human women.

What they need to understand is that Satan had them do this terrible sin in order to attempt to corrupt the human bloodline. The act was so sinful that God bound these 200 angels for all time, until the judgement. Imagine, and angel, a spiritual being with far more freedom in so many dimensions that humans.... bound in chains for all known time!
The two reasons that Satan did this were:

1/ He hated humans due to the fact that God loved them and wanted as many of them to perish as he could possibly doom.
2/ If he could not condemn all the humans, he would corrupt the bloodline so that there were no pure human bloodlines for Christ to become human and administer salvation.

jaybird88 · Jun 1, 2017

JacksBratt said:
I think it just blows peoples minds to believe or entertain the concept of Angels taking on a form and mating with human women.

your right, it blows their mind. and this in itself is just as frustrating.
men walking on water, no problem, talking snakes, no problem, fire from the heavens, no problem, sun stopping for a day, no problem. but angels getting with humans, no way!

corinth77777 · Jun 1, 2017

Sanoy said:
What evidence is there of the sethite theory? All that I am aware of is the plucking of an obscure verse, whose context is lost, in Genesis 4:26 and insisting that it applies to "sons of God" because of a verse clear on the other side of the Bible. It's simply demanded even though Job makes a clear correlation between the Sons of God and Angels.

The view that Genesis 4:26 refers to the sons of God is modern. Jewish writing in and around the second temple era show no such correlation between this verse and the "Sons of God".
Targum of Onkelos - then in his days the children of men ceased from praying in the name of the Lord;''
Targum of Jonathan - this was the age, in the days of which they began to err, and they made themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord;''
Jasher 2:3 - "And it was in the days of Enosh that the sons of men continued to rebel and transgress against God, to increase the anger of the Lord against the sons of men."
Jubilees 4:12 - "He began to call on the name of the Lord [YHWH] on the earth."
The Sethithe theory just does not come from a reading of the text. It comes first from a disbelief or disgust over the sin of the watchers and second from trying to find an alternate explanation.

When we last talked I gave you several explicit scriptural references, modern scholarship, as well as a reference to surrounding context of the region of Ugaric and Phoenicia in relation to the "sons of God". You never responded to those statements so what evidence do you refer to when you say the Sethite theory has more valid evidence?

There is no evidence for sons of God to be angels....
The offspring are Men...
There is more evidence to lean toward leaders or the line of Seth.
The genealogy......is the evidence
And the purpose of mentioning it
Its what the Bible calls sons along with Israel

Sanoy · Jun 1, 2017

corinth77777 said:
There is no evidence for sons of God to be angels....
The offspring are Men...
There is more evidence to lean toward leaders or the line of Seth.
The genealogy......is the evidence
And the purpose of mentioning it
Its what the Bible calls sons along with Israel

I have given you explicit scriptural reference that identifies the Sons of God as Angels. Job 38:7.
I have given you explicit scriptural reference that identifies how the Nephilim were produced. Jude 6-7.
I have given you Authoritative contextual reference "The phrase bene elohim, translated "sons of the Gods", has an exact parallel in Ugaritic and Phoenician texts, referring to the council of the gods. [Source ]
I have given you counterfactuals like Deuteronomy 38:8 that, via the table of nations informs us that there are 70(2) sons of God, which exceeds the patriarchal line of the Sethite theory. You refuse this on the arbitrary basis that it is not in the KJV. Nor do you attempt to make any comment on why the Masoretic should be preferred over the LLX which preceded it by 1,000 years.
I have given you 2 extra-biblical texts and 2 Targums from around the second temple era commenting on the verse you claim to be a component of the Sethite theory. None of them share your interpretation because your interpretation is modern (relatively).

You have not said anything to oppose this evidence, but have instead chosen to simply claim it doesn't exist. When I ask you for your evidence you say it exists but you either refuse to provide that evidence or you make vague references to things like genealogies. If you believe evidence exists for the Sethite theory then why not provide it?

I don't need to believe that the Nephilim existed. If you can tell me why the Sethite theory is correct, or that it is a more critical reading of the text I will happily switch views. But I won't do so from vague references. I believe the Nephilim existed because I have read the texts critically and they speak very plainly. I have also studied this content from an ANE perspective and it matches what the Bible reports. God wanted this in Genesis for a reason so I'm not going to close my eyes to it, or try to find a way to fix it just because the material is hard to bare.

Sanoy · Jun 1, 2017

Here is an interesting time line.

Stone age lasted "3.4 Million years"
Bronze age lasted "~2,00 years"
The Iron age lasted "~1,000 years"
In the 1910's we were honking at Horse drawn buggies to get off the road.
In the 1960's only 50 years later we landed on the Moon.
Present - At the present age we are going to put colonies on mars. AI is frightfully close. Organs will be printed very soon, some parts already are. We have driverless taxi's, 3 more years and they will fly. We have pills that can repair DNA damage. EM drives are heading to space. Genomes are mapped, and we have the CRISPR technology to alter them. By the end of this year there will be a human head transplant in China, and in 3 more years a brain transplant. We have also added over 50 genders and aborted 1,454,585,000 children world wide.

The age we live in is an aberration in the technological timeline, and there is a good reason for that. If one doesn't know this content what is happening will be invisible.

JacksBratt · Jun 1, 2017

corinth77777 said:
There is no evidence for sons of God to be angels....
The offspring are Men...
There is more evidence to lean toward leaders or the line of Seth.
The genealogy......is the evidence
And the purpose of mentioning it
Its what the Bible calls sons along with Israel

Well, Seth must have had a great pharmacist.
His offspring were huge and built megalithic structures all over the world.
He also must have been just about as wise as Solomon due to the fact that he was a genetic engineer.

Nope..........not a chance. Humans mating with humans do not create Nephilim nor corrupt all flesh.

Der Alte · Jun 1, 2017

JacksBratt said:
They are mentioned and even though not canonized, are still excellent sources for reference. The Book of Enoch is even quoted in the Bible.

I don't think it is prudent to assume that some nonscriptural writing quoted in the Bible is canonical. Paul found some nugget of truth in several pagan writings but that certainly does not canonize everything that writer wrote.
As certain even of your own poets (hōs kai tines tōn kath' humās poiētōn). “As also some of the poets among you.”Acts 17:28

[1] Paul is quoting Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen.
[2] In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander
[3] and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides.
[4] Acts 17.28, for example, paraphrases Aratus, Phaenomena 5.
[5] 1 Corinthians 15.33 quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.
[6] Titus 1.12 quotes Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon.
[7] In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
[8] In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Asher 6:2,
[9] while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of Benjamin 4:3
[10] and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7.
[11] [12] Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and 77:1, respectively).

danstribe · Jun 1, 2017

Sanoy said:
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?"

I agree and I've studied this extensively and I've read the book of Enoch, which by the way is referenced multiple times in the NT. Saying that angels are not capable of sexual relations with humans is contrary to what the bible says. I understand that people have been uncomfortable with such things but that doesn't negate the truth. As far as aliens from other planets I think they are the fallen angels and will be the great lie that God causes the wicked to believe. I mean, come on! Even the news is saying the aliens are real and people have been prepared to believe for decades now with all these movies and such.

corinth77777 · Jun 1, 2017

JacksBratt said:
Well, Seth must have had a great pharmacist.
His offspring were huge and built megalithic structures all over the world.
He also must have been just about as wise as Solomon due to the fact that he was a genetic engineer.

Nope..........not a chance. Humans mating with humans do not create Nephilim nor corrupt all flesh.

According to?

jaybird88 · Jun 1, 2017

corinth77777 said:
There is no evidence for sons of God to be angels....
The offspring are Men...
There is more evidence to lean toward leaders or the line of Seth.
The genealogy......is the evidence
And the purpose of mentioning it
Its what the Bible calls sons along with Israel

there are several scriptures that directly link sons of the Most High as heavenly beings.
several have been listed. you also have Adam created as a son of the Most High with no death until the fall and separation from the tree of life.
Adam was created in the Image of the Most High, male and female:
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.

everyone after Adam was created in the image image of Adam:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

this is the difference between son of the Most High and son of man.

trying to make son of the Most High to mean mankind would mean there is no transformation for believers, we die and go right back to being mankind.

Are we mixed with giants or angels ?

Searching for Truth

learner

learner

Well-Known Member

learner

Well-Known Member

learner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

learner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Active Member

learner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency