Who/what were the Nephilim?

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Wanted to ask this question to my Reformed brethren.

 

[JM]

Oh boy, here we go...

 

[Elderone]

Here is a long article from Answers in Genesis on the subject.

Who Were the Nephilim? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Oh boy, here we go...

That's why I asked it here, and not anywhere else. lol.

 

[twin1954]

Wanted to ask this question to my Reformed brethren.

Any answer you get is only speculation. Specualtion is worthless when it comes to the things of God. While we all may have opinions they are just that, opinions. The truth is that we really don't know who they were and it really doesn't matter.

I find that I can spend all of my time seeking and searching for Christ in all the Scriptures. That is enough for me.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Any answer you get is only speculation. Specualtion is worthless when it comes to the things of God. While we all may have opinions they are just that, opinions. The truth is that we really don't know who they were and it really doesn't matter.

I find that I can spend all of my time seeking and searching for Christ in all the Scriptures. That is enough for me.

Best answer I ever heard about the subject, that's why I asked it here.

 

[Rhamiel]

me and a Methodist friend used to debate this topic a lot

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

I'm satisfied withe Twin's answer. Now if I can only figure out who Melchizedek really is.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Here is a long article from Answers in Genesis on the subject.

Who Were the Nephilim? - Answers in Genesis

interesting, thanks for the link!

 

[Faith.Man]

One thing we know from Holy Scripture, the Nephilim were alive before and after Noah's flood. They survived the flood, evidently, or the flood was a large local flood which is what I believe. The flood cleared the area of the Nephilim, who were the offspring of angels and man. This is a literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[bsd058]

One thing we know from Holy Scripture, the Nephilim were alive before and after Noah's flood. They survived the flood, evidently, or the flood was a large local flood which is what I believe. The flood cleared the area of the Nephilim, who were the offspring of angels and man. This is a literal interpretation of scripture.

This is not a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation would classify "sons of God" as direct descendants of God who were male. Also, the Bible says their offspring were human--not half-angelic nor half-human; it calls them men of renown, to be specific.

 

[JM]

The Nephilim are space aliens!

 

[bsd058]

The Nephilim are space aliens!

lol.

Ever watch ancient aliens on the "History" Channel?

 

[H3br3wHamm3r81]

This is not a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation would classify "sons of God" as direct descendants of God who were male. Also, the Bible says their offspring were human--not half-angelic nor half-human; it calls them men of renown, to be specific.

Not so.

It is indeed a literal interpretation because not all "sons of God" are "direct descendants of God who were male." Elsewhere, the Bible clearly identifies others who are sons of God who are not "direct descendants of God who were male." So, one may interpret the text literally by saying the nefilim were the progeny of the fallen angels (sons of God) and daughters of humans.

Angels are sons of God, see Job 38:4-7.

Also, the Bible says their offspring were human--not half-angelic nor half-human; it calls them men of renown, to be specific.

The Bible also says that Jesus is a man.

For example, Romans 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Does that mean Jesus was JUST a man?

No need to answer. It's a rhetorical question.

Also, the fact that the nefilim were giant in stature, implies that there was something extraordinary about their parent(s). In this case, the fallen angels produced superhuman progeny.

 

[bsd058]

Not so.

The Bible also says that Jesus is a man.

For example, Romans 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Does that mean Jesus was JUST a man?

It's a poor rhetorical question. The offspring of angels and men, would be half men and half angelic. The incarnation was not a mix, as there were no sexual relations between Mary and God. It was an assumption/adding of humanity to the Word.

Are you saying that the Nephilim were 100% angel and 100% man? If this is the case, they could not have been produced by sexual relations. If they reproduced sexually, then it is a half-and-half mix. Like how a horse and an donkey make a mule (a completely separate species).

 

[bsd058]

Not so.

It is indeed a literal interpretation because not all "sons of God" are "direct descendants of God who were male." Elsewhere, the Bible clearly identifies others who are sons of God who are not "direct descendants of God who were male." So, one may interpret the text literally by saying the nefilim were the progeny of the fallen angels (sons of God) and daughters of humans.

Angels are sons of God, see Job 38:4-7.

All this shows is that you do not interpret sons of God in Job in a literal sense, either.

You interpret it to mean angels. In Job, I would interpret it in this way, too.

I might also turn your attention to other passages which claim sons of God are holy people of God.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2-KJV)

Ex 4:22 - Israel is God's firstborn son.

When you decide to interpret sons of God, you like the angelic interpretation better for Gen 6. But don't pretend a son of God can only be interpreted as an angel.

Just so we're both on the same page, I've been thinking about this, and I think actually that the only person that fits into a literal interpretation of "son of God" is Jesus Christ. He literally is begotten of the Father, being of the same substance with the Father.

"God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." (Nicene Creed)

This is the literal interpretation. The angelic interpretation is not a literal interpretation, but can only be figurative.

 

[bsd058]

Also, the fact that the nefilim were giant in stature, implies that there was something extraordinary about their parent(s). In this case, the fallen angels produced superhuman progeny.

Nephilim means giant. I'll give you that.

 

[H3br3wHamm3r81]

All this shows is that you do not interpret sons of God in Job in a literal sense, either.

You interpret it to mean angels. In Job, I would interpret it in this way, too.

Again, yes I am interpreting it literally because "sons of God" does in fact mean angels.

Job 38:4
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

There were "sons of God" who existed when God laid the foundations of the earth, before he created man.

So, sons of God can be angelic beings; therefore, I am interpreting it literally. You are the one making the assumption that sons of God can only be translated literally as human beings. Scripture says otherwise. A literal translation does not mean it can only be translated one way. As long as "sons of God" has several meanings, a literal translation can be one of many things.

I am certainly not translating it allegorically, nor metaphorically. Am I? No, I am not.

Again, I don't know why people bring up 1 John. Was 1 John written at the same time as Job? There was no New Covenant (and thus human "sons of God") at the same time as Job. That's called an anachronism. It's like Muslims calling Jesus a Muslim.

Yes, Israel is called "firstborn son" because God adopted the nation of Israel as His own people (cp. Exo. 3:7; Rom. 9:4). But, the nation of Israel did not exist when God was founding the earth. Only angels did.

 

[bsd058]

Again, yes I am interpreting it literally because "sons of God" does in fact mean angels.

Job 38:4
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

There were "sons of God" who existed when God laid the foundations of the earth, before he created man.

So, sons of God can be angelic beings; therefore, I am interpreting it literally.

No you are not. As I've shown to you, if you say that sons of God is interpreted in the angelic sense in one part of the Bible, therefore this is the literal interpretation, you have to say that Israel is literally the son of God, that we are literally the son of God, etc..

The only one who fits into a literal interpretation of sons of God is Jesus Christ himself.

Therefore, your interpretation isn't literal. It is figurative, since literalness must be defined by absolutes. Christ is the only literal Son of God.

You are the one making the assumption that sons of God can only be translated literally as human beings.

I never said this.

Scripture says otherwise. A literal translation does not mean it can only be translated one way.

Yes it does. Can you give an example where something can be interpreted literally

As long as "sons of God" has several meanings, a literal translation can be one of many things.

So you're just arguing over semantics, then. In that case, I can say that I'm interpreting it in a literal sense, since I believe sons of God refers to Seth's godly line.

This is just stupid though. Sons of God is clearly an idiom for something else. You say it's angels. I say it's godly people.

Again, I don't know why people bring up 1 John. Was 1 John written at the same time as Job?

Again? When have you ever argued this in the first place?

There was no New Covenant (and thus human "sons of God") at the same time as Job. That's called an anachronism. It's like Muslims calling Jesus a Muslim.

You completely missed the point. I'm discussing what it means to interpret something literally. I'm saying there are different sense of the idiom.

Yes, Israel is called "firstborn son" because God adopted the nation of Israel as His own people (cp. Exo. 3:7; Rom. 9:4). But, the nation of Israel did not exist when God was founding the earth. Only angels did.

I'm not denying this. I agree there is room for an angelic interpretation of "sons of god." In Job, for instance. I agree that sons of God is referring to angels. Just know, the right/proper interpretation shouldn't be confused with what is literal. Literalness is a different concept altogether.

And like I said before, the only literal Son of God is Jesus Christ. Anyone who falls short of Jesus cannot "literally" be God's son, but only figuratively/analogically.

I honestly cannot argue with you guys forever. I need to work on other things. The reason I don't interpret it as angels in Gen 6 is because the offspring would then be half-human and half-angel. They were called men, though. The author went out of his way to state the offspring were humans, not "mules" so to speak (half-n-halfs).

We both know that Jesus Christ was not a half-breed. He was truly man and truly human, because he added to himself humanity. Offspring which are fully human (and not incarnational) cannot have one of their parents as angels and one as human. Otherwise the resulting species would be something completely other than human and angelic. Yet we know they were men. Maybe I just interpret "men of renown" too literally though.

You can continue to argue. I'll let you have the last word. Have a good day.