Nephilim: Giants of the Bible

[Lost4words]

Only real giants ever found were from Photoshop! No real giant skeletons have ever been found.

 

[Michael Snow]

Only real giants ever found were from Photoshop! No real giant skeletons have ever been found.

Goliath was a giant.

 

[Lost4words]

Goliath was a giant.

Yes, i agree.

Today, we also have 'giants'. Compared to the average person we do get extremely tall people.

 

[Michael Snow]

Yes, i agree.

Today, we also have 'giants'. Compared to the average person we do get extremely tall people.

And then there was Andrea of the Princess Bride fame. Miss him!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would marriage between the two human groups you describe anger God to the point that he wiped out the entire human race except for 8 people?

Where do you see the sons of God marrying the daughters of man as being the cause of the flood? In Genesis 6 itself it says the reason God decided to send the flood was this:

"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." - Genesis 6:5-7

That doesn't sound like the interaction between the sons of God and daughters of man was the issue. The issue was humanity's corruption--our sin.

Genesis 6:1-2 begins by telling us that humanity's population was booming, and that at this time "the sons of God" married "the daughters of man".

Genesis 63 tells us that God shortened the lifespan of humanity, saying "My Spirit cannot abide in man forever" and that their years would be only 120. This seems to be suggesting that, while those before the flood were living multi-centennial lifespans, as people multiplied, and presumably living long lives (and having multiple generations of children, who then had multiple generations of children), the lifespan was shortened. It could be interesting to dig into what "My Spirit cannot abide in man forever" means here. Does this suggest that the reason for the long lifespans of the antedeluvian patriarchs had to do with God, by His Spirit's power, giving them long lifespans? Or does this point earlier to where God breathed into the lump of clay He formed and bring His breath that there was still lingering after the Fall a provision from God that God ultimately removed in some capacity here. Or perhaps these aren't mutually exclusive ideas at all. But anyway that is likely tangential.

Genesis 6:4

"The nephlim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

We have at our disposal several questions:

What relationship do the nephilim have with the sons of God and daughters of men getting married and having children? In this statement "the nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughers of men and bore children to them" it would seem to suggest that there may be no direct connection. "The nephlim were on the earth in those days" what days? the days "when the sons of God came into the daughers of man and bore children to them". It does not appear that it is suggesting the nephilim were the product of the union between the sons of God and daughters of men, but rather the nephilim were around when the sons of God and daughters of man came together and had children.

However it also says, "These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." Well, who were? The nephilim? Or the children born to the sons of God and daughters of man? Perhaps the "these" also somehow makes the nephilim and children connected, the nephilim may be the children born; but they may not.

Perhaps the whole "when" sequence is a parenthetical, sort of like "The nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward (when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and bore children to them), these were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" In which case "these" applies to the nephilim but not to the children.

Or perhaps the mention of the nephilim is simply a statement in what is a very fast-paced sequence of statements in Genesis 6:1-4. And the "these"refers to the children, not to the nephilim at at all.

Now, I have--generally--assumed, or treated the passage at any rate, as there being a connection between the nephilim and the children, and thus the statement of "these were the mighty ones of old, men of renown" as applying to both, because both are connected. However, my assumption here isn't a given.

Looking at the Hebrew--admitting that I am hardly an expert here--the text also looks like it could be rendered as "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and bore to them these, the mighty ones which were of old, men of renown". This, I suppose, depends on whether "bore to them" is the end of a statement, (in the ESV translation I've quoted in this post, the translation adds the word "children" to aid English reading, as in the ESV this is the end of a sentence). Some translations treat "bore to them [children]" as the end of a sentence, while other translations continue the sentence with another form of puncuation--which with my given and admitted lack of expertise would suggest to me that this is an example of translation-as-interpretation.

I'm not here to offer a dogmatic answer, merely to provide some analysis and offer worthwhile questions to ask while looking at the text.

If push came to shove, I'd probably still operate under the interpretation that the mighty ones are the children bore by the daughters of man to the sons of God; and that this may still connect with the nephilim But I'm less certain of that connection now.

Now, as far as the identity of the sons of God--regular men or angels? My vote is that it's still just people. Further, taking a closer analysis of Genesis 6:4 still leaves me convinced the nephilim are regular people--the nephilim may or may not be connected with those born, with those born being the mighty ones, the men of renown.

And, getting back to the beginning of this post, I don't see a reason to think that any of this is related to why God destroyed the world with the flood. This is talking about the earth becoming populated, which is the context in which God finds people evil and sinful; but that evil isn't that the sons of God and daughters of man got married and had children. That doesn't appear as a reason for God destroying the world at all.

At the end of the day I also still feel as I have for a long time. Genesis 6:4 is a weird verse. Everything in Genesis 6:1-4 is a little weird, it's almost like the author is speed-running, "This was happening, and this, oh and also this happened" to get the stage set as quickly as possible in order to tell the story of the flood. But what we end up having is one of the most confusing, baffling, and difficult to interpret texts in the entire Bible. That isn't a criticism, that's simply an observation. Sometimes the biblical writers write things that were probably very clear to the original readers, but which we have a much harder time trying to figure out.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BPPLEE]

Where do you see the sons of God marrying the daughters of man as being the cause of the flood? In Genesis 6 itself it says the reason God decided to send the flood was this:

"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." - Genesis 6:5-7

That doesn't sound like the interaction between the sons of God and daughters of man was the issue. The issue was humanity's corruption--our sin.

Genesis 6:1-2 begins by telling us that humanity's population was booming, and that at this time "the sons of God" married "the daughters of man".

Genesis 63 tells us that God shortened the lifespan of humanity, saying "My Spirit cannot abide in man forever" and that their years would be only 120. This seems to be suggesting that, while those before the flood were living multi-centennial lifespans, as people multiplied, and presumably living long lives (and having multiple generations of children, who then had multiple generations of children), the lifespan was shortened. It could be interesting to dig into what "My Spirit cannot abide in man forever" means here. Does this suggest that the reason for the long lifespans of the antedeluvian patriarchs had to do with God, by His Spirit's power, giving them long lifespans? Or does this point earlier to where God breathed into the lump of clay He formed and bring His breath that there was still lingering after the Fall a provision from God that God ultimately removed in some capacity here. Or perhaps these aren't mutually exclusive ideas at all. But anyway that is likely tangential.

Genesis 6:4

"The nephlim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

We have at our disposal several questions:

What relationship do the nephilim have with the sons of God and daughters of men getting married and having children? In this statement "the nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughers of men and bore children to them" it would seem to suggest that there may be no direct connection. "The nephlim were on the earth in those days" what days? the days "when the sons of God came into the daughers of man and bore children to them". It does not appear that it is suggesting the nephilim were the product of the union between the sons of God and daughters of men, but rather the nephilim were around when the sons of God and daughters of man came together and had children.

However it also says, "These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." Well, who were? The nephilim? Or the children born to the sons of God and daughters of man? Perhaps the "these" also somehow makes the nephilim and children connected, the nephilim may be the children born; but they may not.

Perhaps the whole "when" sequence is a parenthetical, sort of like "The nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward (when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and bore children to them), these were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" In which case "these" applies to the nephilim but not to the children.

Or perhaps the mention of the nephilim is simply a statement in what is a very fast-paced sequence of statements in Genesis 6:1-4. And the "these"refers to the children, not to the nephilim at at all.

Now, I have--generally--assumed, or treated the passage at any rate, as there being a connection between the nephilim and the children, and thus the statement of "these were the mighty ones of old, men of renown" as applying to both, because both are connected. However, my assumption here isn't a given.

Looking at the Hebrew--admitting that I am hardly an expert here--the text also looks like it could be rendered as "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and bore to them these, the mighty ones which were of old, men of renown". This, I suppose, depends on whether "bore to them" is the end of a statement, (in the ESV translation I've quoted in this post, the translation adds the word "children" to aid English reading, as in the ESV this is the end of a sentence). Some translations treat "bore to them [children]" as the end of a sentence, while other translations continue the sentence with another form of puncuation--which with my given and admitted lack of expertise would suggest to me that this is an example of translation-as-interpretation.

I'm not here to offer a dogmatic answer, merely to provide some analysis and offer worthwhile questions to ask while looking at the text.

If push came to shove, I'd probably still operate under the interpretation that the mighty ones are the children bore by the daughters of man to the sons of God; and that this may still connect with the nephilim But I'm less certain of that connection now.

Now, as far as the identity of the sons of God--regular men or angels? My vote is that it's still just people. Further, taking a closer analysis of Genesis 6:4 still leaves me convinced the nephilim are regular people--the nephilim may or may not be connected with those born, with those born being the mighty ones, the men of renown.

And, getting back to the beginning of this post, I don't see a reason to think that any of this is related to why God destroyed the world with the flood. This is talking about the earth becoming populated, which is the context in which God finds people evil and sinful; but that evil isn't that the sons of God and daughters of man got married and had children. That doesn't appear as a reason for God destroying the world at all.

At the end of the day I also still feel as I have for a long time. Genesis 6:4 is a weird verse. Everything in Genesis 6:1-4 is a little weird, it's almost like the author is speed-running, "This was happening, and this, oh and also this happened" to get the stage set as quickly as possible in order to tell the story of the flood. But what we end up having is one of the most confusing, baffling, and difficult to interpret texts in the entire Bible. That isn't a criticism, that's simply an observation. Sometimes the biblical writers write things that were probably very clear to the original readers, but which we have a much harder time trying to figure out.

-CryptoLutheran

If that’s the case the flood was a major failure on God’s part. Man’s heart has not changed, his thoughts are still evil and even Noah himself got drunk.
I take 120 years to be the time until the flood because Noah and his sons still lived long lives.
I’m not going to argue over the fallen angels marrying women and having giant children, I think that has been argued thoroughly with neither side changing their minds

 

[Paul4JC]

Now notice it doesn't say Angel's, it says son's of God, so why add to the text that which is not there?

Referring to the book of Enoch is all well and good, but it is not Scripture, so doesn't carry the same weight, right?
Also when do we believe that Enoch was written? Somewhere around 300 BC perhaps, which is quite late, so then how authoritative are we to consider this book on such things?

As I see it there are three basic references to 'sons of God' in the Bible. Those in Job, where we assume it is referring to angels. Adam is referred to the 'Son of God' in Luke 3. And as Christians, we are considered to be children of God - so we can consider that those who feared God were 'sons of God'. Since it is in the plural, then it wasn't referring to Adam. So we are left with 2 option, Angels, or God fearing men.

As I see it, the issues with these options include:
Angels: How? Angel's are spirit, not flesh and blood. We have no reason to believe this is possible?
Why? not sure if this is really why, and I guess it could be argued that 'they saw the daughters of men were beautiful' to answer this question. Are we talking about angels here, or demons? Is it legitimate to consider a demon a 'son of God'. When did Satan fall from grace? could also be a relevant question. If it was angels, was this related to Satan's fall from grace and other angels joining him. That would seem to be the only possible consideration. Both of these seem to be insurmountable difficulties with this position.

Men: Firstly, why are the called Son's of God. I actually agree with you, this reference, to me, doesn't seem to make any sense they are mere men. The idea that it is talking about ruler, in my view, might actually be the most reasonable consideration from this perspective. On the other hand, is verse 6 relevant - And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. If angels were involved, why then no mention of them here. It seems that God considered the source of the problem to be man, not angels. (similarly in verse 3, 'my spirit shall not always strive with man.'
Secondly, why did their children generally (if not exclusively) become men of renown, which are also considered to be giants. How can we make sense of all or even most of the children born to the 'Sons of God' and 'daughters of men' being giants and/or men of renown. What is happening to make their children more significant than others?

Since you have raised the issue of makeup, how do we imagine society to be in these times. It is highly likely that the average person before the flood would be considered a genius by today's standards. Also this is close to 1000 years after Adam was created, so what level of technology do we expect that they have?

Believers are sons, or children, of God

[1Jo 3:1 ESV] 1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

"Then we shall be where we would be,
then we shall be what we should be;" Praise the Savior, Ye Who Know Him | Hymnary.org

“they will be like the angels in heaven.” [Mar 12:25b ]

[Rom 8:19 NASB] For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

Are you suggesting the sons of Cain were not sons of God? Do you not have a supernatural Bible view? The seventy nations of Babel were given to the gods. Only Israel became God's son.

[Exo 4:22 ESV] Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son,

If Israel is His firstborn son, then how could the Sethites be?

The Lord referred to the nation as his son and individuals as his children. Ye x859 [are] the children 1121 of Yähwè יָהוֶה 3068 your ´Élöhîm . So it’s usually in the plural sense.

[Deu 14:1a ESV] "You are the sons of the LORD your God.

In contrast the term sons of God is used four times in the Old Testament. The sons of God in contrast to sons of your God, Israel.

121 [e] 430 [e]
ḇə·nê- hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm
בְנֵי־ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙

The scene goes from earth to the heavenly realm, some have dubbed “the divine council.” The angels were involved with parts of creation, and those that rebelled still appear before God.

[Job 2:1 ESV] Again there was a day when the sons of God [1121 ḇə·nê of 430´Élöhîm] אֱלֹהִים came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also (being a son) came among them to present himself before the LORD. Italics mine

[Job 38:7 ESV] when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

From Job we can clearly see that the implication is the Angels not Seth’s decedents. The elohim in God’s throne room are also his sons…

[Psa 82:1 ] God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the "gods" (elohim):

[Deu 32:8-9 ESV] When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. 9 But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.


You are free to ignore 1 Enoch. You should ignore many sermons and books and Christian teachers. because they are not the word of God. When one is lined up to the word of God, it's a mistake to ignore such. So it is with 1 Enoch

Jude quotes and alludes to 1 Enoch, as does Peter, who also mentions Tartarus. We no longer live in the 1600's. The Dead Sea Scroll changed have the playing field. "The other Enochic writings were authoritative at Qumran, however, and were popular among early Christian writers as well. The Enochic texts remain a canonical part of the Bible of the Ethiopian Church." Dead Sea Scrolls Spotlight: The Book of Enoch - The BAS Library

Angels and the Angel of the Lord appear in the flesh throughout the OT. e.g. You know the ones who appeared to Abraham and ate with him, and who the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with? Do you think they were not physical? Gen 18:1-8; Gen 19:1-5

If you believe in a young earth, as I do, then antediluvian history is 1/4 of all. On average, they lived 15-20 times our current lifespans. What kind of faculties and abilities do you think they had?


Yes, many women depend on makeup. Just go to YouTube and watch, with and without makeup. It's one thing to appreciate beauty, it's another to appreciate cake! To say in Genesis 6 women suddenly became noticeably beautiful is to say the previous 5 chapters they were ugly. I already explained this in my previous post.


Btw, demons are disembodied spirits of the first generation of the Nephilim giants.
Where Do Demons Come From? - Logos Bible Study Platform

 

[Lost4words]

And then there was Andrea of the Princess Bride fame. Miss him!

Giants indeed. But, not whole nations of them!

 

[Paleouss]

Believers are sons, or children, of God

I totally agree. Believers are frequently are said to be the sons and daughters of God (which supports my position). This familial reference to those that "call upon the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26) are the sons and daughters of God is not only something found within the NT but the OT as well.

We see in 1John 3:10-12 the writer refers to two types of children: (1) "the children of God", and (2) "the children of the devil" (1John 3:10). It goes on to give two examples of human beings within these two groups: (1) "Cain who was of the wicked one", and (2) Abel who's works were described as "righteous" (1John 3:12).

The interesting part is that these examples that are given, clearly place Cain and Abel (and Seth, name meaning "anointed" and his line "called upon the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26)) within a familial group in the context of Genesis chapter 3. And not just familial but spiritually familial, for Abel's works were "righteous" (1John 3:12) and God has "respect" for Abel AND his offering (Gen 4:5).

The scene goes from earth to the heavenly realm, some have dubbed “the divine council.” The angels were involved with parts of creation, and those that rebelled still appear before God.

I have skipped over some of what you wrote.

Addressing the book of Job for your arguement is good. I think it is one of the strongest parts of the angel view (although I do not agree with the conclusion). I notice that you point out that man can be "sons of God" at the beginning of your post. Then you point out that angels can be sons of God. In which I agree.

The elohim in God’s throne room are also his sons…

This I totally agree with. That is, that both man and angels are dipicted within Scripture as sons and daughters of God. This position then would acknowledge that both man and angels should be considered in Genesis 6:2.

This position, and argument, is basically saying that the term sons of God, daughters of God, angels of God, children of God is a designation of 'whose they are'. That is to say, to what father they belong, to whose master they serve, to whom they are a slave too (to sin or righteousness).

From Job we can clearly see that the implication is the Angels not Seth’s decedents.

So here is where I would disagree. You use the word "clearly" and say the "implication" is the angels. If you agree with what I wrote above, that the familail terms used in the Bible are to designate ownership of 'whose you are'. Then the verses in Job seem to fail for the angel view. First, because the moniker "sons of God" denote ownership by God as their father. Fallen angels do not have God as their father, but Satan. Second, the text in Job in no way tells us that any of the angels coming before the Lord are fallen (exept Satan by implication of who he is). That would have to be inferred upon the text. It is my view that the author of Job, who uses other forms of the word angel in other parts of the book of Job, uses the term "sons of God" in the Job verse (not the more common form) because he is distinguising three groups and to whom these angels belong within the text. So these angels called sons of God in Job, in my view, are angels in right standing with God (for they are the sons of God and not the sons of Satan).

Even in the angel view, "sons of God", is supposed to be a reference to angels in general. The angel view, as I know it, can make no claim of confidence to which angels these "sons of God" belong in Job. In Genesis 6:2, they just assume it, because the angels still loyal to God would never procreate with human beings. And in Job they infer it as well because the text doesn't tell us who these angels are loyal too. Unless of course one has my view that sons of God is denoting possession. Then the text is clearly telling us to whom these angels belong.

You should ignore many sermons and books and Christian teachers. because they are not the word of God.

This entire comment is a straw man. It is an attempt to paint a position as being one of little knowledge that "ignore" sermons, books and teachers of authority. It is an apeal to authority to try to win a debate. It may also be an attempt at a personal insult.

When one is lined up to the word of God, it's a mistake to ignore such. So it is with 1 Enoch

Any sermon or book from and Christian teacher, no matter how one perceives them to be lined up, should be tested against the one and only inspired word of God. Any claims to attempt to prevent such tests against the biblical text is...well...a huge red flag.

You went on to present a wide range of evidence, below.

Jude quotes and alludes to 1 Enoch, as does Peter, who also mentions Tartarus

Yes, Jude appears to quote either a part of the oral tradition of Enoch or the actual book of Enoch (no one knows which). A couple of points here. (1) Jude, and Peter say nothing about angels procreating with humans. (2) The reference by Jude and Peter in no way suggests that the book of Enoch is inspired and all true, or, that Peter and Enoch think it is all true (this would have to be inferred). Paul, in Acts 17:27-29 quotes the writings of poets. No one thinks these poets writings should be considered as divinely inspired. But that Paul is using a well known saying or concept that relates to a message to connect with the people he is writting too.

I will also point out that many Jews of Jude and Peter's day thought that the book of Enoch was truth. But, we have evidence that many did not think it was true. We also know that the Christian Bible and the Jewish equivalent rejected the book of Enoch. We also know that many Jews thought that justification came through works first. Something Paul spent a considerable time in his writting trying to dispell. So just because some Jews thought it to be true in that day does not make it true.

Angels and the Angel of the Lord appear in the flesh throughout the OT. e.g. You know the ones who appeared to Abraham and ate with him, and who the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with? Do you think they were not physical?

This is another topic in which we agree. But again, our conclusions are different. I do accept that angels of the Lord (what I bolded is important) have apeared in flesh in the OT. I will point out that it was the humans in Sodom that wanted to have sex not the angels. Further, humans wanting to have sex doesn't mean the angels were capable of it.

But to the topic of angels being able to be in 'physical form', I agree. I also would agree with anyone that said that the comments of Jude and Peter could be refereing to fallen angels that came into the physical word, physically. But again, this does not mean they were capable of procreation with humans. Interestingly , God disliked this "not keeping their proper domain" (Jude 1:6) so much that he put these fallen angels in chains (2Pet 2:4). Something that we see evil spirits fear greatly (Luke 8:31).

Btw, demons are disembodied spirits of the first generation of the Nephilim giants.

We don't agree on this issue. For me there is not enough Biblical evidence to have confidene in such a claim. To me evil spirits are those fallen angels that are fallen but have kept their proper domain here on earth. And for me that proper domain is spiritual form. I will concede, however, that I do not have enough biblical evidence to assert it as clear truth.

Peace be to you

 

[ViaCrucis]

If that’s the case the flood was a major failure on God’s part. Man’s heart has not changed, his thoughts are still evil and even Noah himself got drunk.

You're right, actually. I think that's precisely the correct take-away from the story of the flood.

The way God is going to fix the problem of evil actually shows up later in Genesis.

"Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing." - Genesis 12:1-2

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'And to his seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your seed,' who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16

Jesus. It's about Jesus, it's always been about Jesus.

I take 120 years to be the time until the flood because Noah and his sons still lived long lives.
I’m not going to argue over the fallen angels marrying women and having giant children, I think that has been argued thoroughly with neither side changing their minds

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paleouss]

You're right, actually. I think that's precisely the correct take-away from the story of the flood.

Crypto? ViaCrucis? I don't know how to address you. lol

In a previous post, you had written...

And, getting back to the beginning of this post, I don't see a reason to think that any of this is related to why God destroyed the world with the flood. This is talking about the earth becoming populated, which is the context in which God finds people evil and sinful; but that evil isn't that the sons of God and daughters of man got married and had children. That doesn't appear as a reason for God destroying the world at all.

I'm not sure you have been reading my posts to others and know my position, but I hold that the context of Genesis 6:1-4 include Genesis 3:15, Genesis chapter 4 & 5, and then Genesis chapter 6 (and the rest of the Bible for that matter). THE storyline is about the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 or "thy seed" and "her seed". This verse has long been seen as a Messianic prophecy. It not only is referring to THE seed, Jesus Christ, but also the seed line of godly men that will produce the Savior. This conflict of "her seed" and "thy seed" is immediately played out in Genesis chapter 4.

More to your point, the reason God sent the flood was because of Genesis 6:5 and Genesis 6:8. At least IMO.

Gen 6:5 (KJV)
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen 6:8 (KJV)
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

That is, wickedness was everywhere and there was only one man that was in right standing in the eyes of God. But that is a very serious problem. Why? Because Genesis 3:15 predicts a savior through "her seed". And at the time of Noah, there was only one bearer of the seedline left, Noah. Genesis 4:25 refers to Seth as a "seed" like his brother. Which is referring back to Genesis 3:15 and placing Seth and Abel in the familial group of "her seed". In Genesis 4:26 "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". Which means that there is an uptick in godly men.

So the why is because of Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 6:5 & 6:8. The how, that is, how did the uptick in godley men get so out of whack that there was only one left in Genesis 6:8? The answer to how is in Geneis 6:1-4. Those godly men, sons of God, married ungodly women and were pulled away from their faith. As happens frequely as shown in the book of Genesis: Genesis 24:3-4, 27:46, 28:1-3, Gen 26:34-35, Gen 34. And further referenced by Deuteronomy 17:7, Judges 3:6, Deuteronomy 7:3, Joshua 23:12, Ezra 10:2, 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Got to go. Peace to you and your family

 

[Paul4JC]

A database of excerpts from ancient documents that retell the story of the Nephilim & the ‘sons of God’.

Nephilim Sources Database - Chasing the Giants

The largest online database of ancient documents that tell the story of the Nephilim & the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-4.

chasingthegiants.com

 

[Paleouss]

A database of excerpts from ancient documents that retell the story of the Nephilim & the ‘sons of God’.

Nephilim Sources Database - Chasing the Giants

The largest online database of ancient documents that tell the story of the Nephilim & the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-4.

chasingthegiants.com

Thank you for the sources link.

God bless.

 

[biblelesson]

But Gen 6:1-4 speak of the Nephilim and the the sons of God taking daughters of man as wives. So how is this myths and fables?

In the lineage of Jesus, Luke 3:22-38 KJV, His lineage is traced all the way back to Adam to where Adam is the son of God, Luke 3:38 KJV, then why were those male sons born after him not sons of God?

It is clear from Luke 3:38 KJV, that Genesis 6:1 KJV, is talking about the male sons that were born and were populating the earth, were called sons of God, as well as the female daughters born of these men (sons of God) were called daughters of men.

No one is considering that Genesis 6:1 KJV is telling us the earth is being populated. Sons and daughters are being born. Genesis 6:1 KJV is simply saying from “man” who God created, “men” started to multiply, and from these “men” daughters were born, called daughters of men.

If men were multiplying on the earth, and daughters were born unto them, then you have baby boys (men multiplying), and baby girls (daughters of men) born. The baby boys grew up into men and saw the daughters who had grown up - that they were fair and took them as wives, Genesis 6:2 KJV. This was simply the earth being population between the males born after the creation of man, and the daughters born unto these men, thus the earth was being populated with men and women.

You have to understand why the men born then are called the sons of God, while the women born then are called daughters of men. Think more on Eve being taken from Adam’s rib.

Only the men were sons of God! The women were daughters of men, because woman was taken from man.

 

[biblelesson]

I agree. People focus on the verse part....Sons of God....what could they be.....just humans some assert.......but they leave off what happens when they carry out this thing. Giants.

Here is a verse to consider “intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,” Colossians 2:18 KJV.

The only thing we know about angels is what the Bible tells us. You will not find anywhere in the Bible that angels married fleshly women.

Sin originated from Adam’s sin which was out of control as the earth populated, and the wickedness of man grieved God, Genesis 6:5-6 KJV. This wickedness was due to the fall, not evil angels.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nephilim

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[Paul4JC]

Genesis 6 ² the angels of God, having seen the daughters of humans, that they were beautiful, took for themselves women from all whom they picked out. Lexham English Septuagint.

Genesis 6:2 that the *angels of God. having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. Septuagint, Brenton's Edition *6:2 Alexandrian LXX

 

[Paleouss]

Genesis 6 ² the angels of God, having seen the daughters of humans, that they were beautiful, took for themselves women from all whom they picked out. Lexham English Septuagint.

Genesis 6:2 that the *angels of God. having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. Septuagint, Brenton's Edition *6:2 Alexandrian LXX

Hello Paul4JC, I hope you have been enjoying all the blessing God has given you.

In regard to you providing the translastion from the Septuagint. It would appear that you provide this as more evidence toward a claim that Genesis 6:2 is referring to angels and not humans. The most important qeustion I have is do you consider the Septuagint your Bible? For example, my Bible is the NKJV, KJV, ESV.

Also, there is a Hebrew Bible that exists today, called the Masoretic text, that the Jewish people us as their scripture. If you consider the Septuagint as your Bible, then this debate takes a turn toward which ancient text should be used. Because the Septuagint (the particular Greek tanslation you chose) is at odds with the Masoretic text of the Jews and the other tranlastions I said that I use regarding Genesis 6:2.

There are a couple of points I would like to make.

(1) It is valuable to everyone, not just those that hold that 6:2 are humans, to know what people thought the text should be translated too in various time periods regarding the tranlastion of the Hebrew text. So my point here is that your evidence, in my view, has some value. I am of the camp, however, that think the translators of the manuscript used for this Septuagint translation you presented for Genesis 6:2 did not render an exact word for word translation of the text. The exact word for word translation, in my view, is "sons of God".

(2) Many think that the Septuagint is a whole, one, intact, Greek version of the OT. However, it is actually a collection (from multiple discoveries) of what is considered best, and thought to be the most reliable, Greek manuscripts reconstructed to represent the OT in one book from Hebrew to Greek. So when scholars refer to the ‘Septuagint’ they are referring to this collection of various writings. This does not mean, however, the Septuagint is without value or that some do not consider it THE primary source above all others. Some do, I myself do not consider it a primary source.

(3) It is very important for everyone to know, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew to Greek. So when one reads the English form of the Septuagint they are reading a translation of a translation of the original Hebrew text (we assume). In my view, it is difficult enough to try and translate Hebrew to English. Let alone try and translate Hebrew to Greek and then Greek to English and keep to the true Hebrew meaning. Different languages present different language barriers. Also, if one is familiar with the fact that there are many different English translations in circulation today, then one is probably familiar with the fact that some versions of the Bible are ‘paraphrases’ (like the living Bible) that state what the translator thinks the text is saying, while others try to translate exact word for word. Which brings me to the problem I have with the Septuagint regarding Genesis 6:2.

(4) In regard to the various Greek manuscripts considered for your presentation of the Septuagint stating "angels of God" in Genesis 6:2. Only one manuscript (the Codex Alexandrinus) reads "angels of God". The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek tranalsations) read "sons of God", not angels of God in Genesis 6:2. Therefore, not even a review of Greek translations have a consensus. Which leads us back to what I stated in a previous post, "I will also point out that many Jews of Jude and Peter's day thought that the book of Enoch was truth. But, we have evidence that many did not think it was true." And more to our topic of this post, we have a Greek manuscript that says "angels of God" and others that say "sons of God". In regard to Christian doctrine, details matter. And in this case, they matter a great deal.

(5) There are many differences, changes, and additions in the Septuagint when campared to the Masoretic text. As I understand it, there are more than 148 major differences. One of those differences is in Genesis 6:2. So is the Septuagint, in regard to Genesis 6:2, a paraphrase of a concept the translators of the time thought it should read OR is it an exact word for word translation of the Hebrew? I tend to hold the former and place more credibility on the Masoretic text (today's Jewish version) which reads "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2. And the offical Jewish position of today, of the Masoretic Text, is that Genesis 6:2 is speaking about humans when translating "sons of God".


Piece to you and may God do a fruitful work through you.

 

[BPPLEE]

Hello Paul4JC, I hope you have been enjoying all the blessing God has given you.

In regard to you providing the translastion from the Septuagint. It would appear that you provide this as more evidence toward a claim that Genesis 6:2 is referring to angels and not humans. The most important qeustion I have is do you consider the Septuagint your Bible? For example, my Bible is the NKJV, KJV, ESV.

Also, there is a Hebrew Bible that exists today, called the Masoretic text, that the Jewish people us as their scripture. If you consider the Septuagint as your Bible, then this debate takes a turn toward which ancient text should be used. Because the Septuagint (the particular Greek tanslation you chose) is at odds with the Masoretic text of the Jews and the other tranlastions I said that I use regarding Genesis 6:2.

There are a couple of points I would like to make.

(1) It is valuable to everyone, not just those that hold that 6:2 are humans, to know what people thought the text should be translated too in various time periods regarding the tranlastion of the Hebrew text. So my point here is that your evidence, in my view, has some value. I am of the camp, however, that think the translators of the manuscript used for this Septuagint translation you presented for Genesis 6:2 did not render an exact word for word translation of the text. The exact word for word translation, in my view, is "sons of God".

(2) Many think that the Septuagint is a whole, one, intact, Greek version of the OT. However, it is actually a collection (from multiple discoveries) of what is considered best, and thought to be the most reliable, Greek manuscripts reconstructed to represent the OT in one book from Hebrew to Greek. So when scholars refer to the ‘Septuagint’ they are referring to this collection of various writings. This does not mean, however, the Septuagint is without value or that some do not consider it THE primary source above all others. Some do, I myself do not consider it a primary source.

(3) It is very important for everyone to know, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew to Greek. So when one reads the English form of the Septuagint they are reading a translation of a translation of the original Hebrew text (we assume). In my view, it is difficult enough to try and translate Hebrew to English. Let alone try and translate Hebrew to Greek and then Greek to English and keep to the true Hebrew meaning. Different languages present different language barriers. Also, if one is familiar with the fact that there are many different English translations in circulation today, then one is probably familiar with the fact that some versions of the Bible are ‘paraphrases’ (like the living Bible) that state what the translator thinks the text is saying, while others try to translate exact word for word. Which brings me to the problem I have with the Septuagint regarding Genesis 6:2.

(4) In regard to the various Greek manuscripts considered for your presentation of the Septuagint stating "angels of God" in Genesis 6:2. Only one manuscript (the Codex Alexandrinus) reads "angels of God". The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek tranalsations) read "sons of God", not angels of God in Genesis 6:2. Therefore, not even a review of Greek translations have a consensus. Which leads us back to what I stated in a previous post, "I will also point out that many Jews of Jude and Peter's day thought that the book of Enoch was truth. But, we have evidence that many did not think it was true." And more to our topic of this post, we have a Greek manuscript that says "angels of God" and others that say "sons of God". In regard to Christian doctrine, details matter. And in this case, they matter a great deal.

(5) There are many differences, changes, and additions in the Septuagint when campared to the Masoretic text. As I understand it, there are more than 148 major differences. One of those differences is in Genesis 6:2. So is the Septuagint, in regard to Genesis 6:2, a paraphrase of a concept the translators of the time thought it should read OR is it an exact word for word translation of the Hebrew? I tend to hold the former and place more credibility on the Masoretic text (today's Jewish version) which reads "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2. And the offical Jewish position of today, of the Masoretic Text, is that Genesis 6:2 is speaking about humans when translating "sons of God".


Piece to you and may God do a fruitful work through you.

Old Testament occurances of the phrase
Gen 6:2 - That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Tools

Gen 6:4 - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, whenthe sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Tools

Job 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Tools

Job 2:1 - Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Tools

Job 38:7 - When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Sure looks to me like it’s referring to angels

 

[d taylor]

-​

Nephilim in Hebrew means fallen ones and not giants.