Who are the Nephilim? (Genesis 6:4)

[SHW]

You are welcome, Donsnow.

There were and are indeed giant (in size) men on earth. They just weren’t and aren’t half-human and half-demonic.

One more thing, perhaps already posted:

Mark 12:25
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Angels have no bodies, therefore they never could and never will procreate. The reason for a human body is for procreation - to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Genesis 1:28

God created a finite number of angels. One third of them rebelled against Him and followed Satan. St. Augustine taught that the number of righteous humans will make up for the number of angels that fell. articles.christiansunite.com/article11006.shtml

Revelation 12:3-5
And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

After Jesus returns, then there will be no more procreation.

Luke 18:8
I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”

Some of the righteous will be killed by the Antichrist and die as martyrs for Christ. Many persons will choose to follow the Antichrist because it is easier to follow Antichrist then die for Christ. Those still faithful to Christ who survive this Great Tribulation will meet Him in the air as He comes to meet them at His Second Coming and they will be changed miraculously from mortal to immortal in an instant. They will return with Him to heaven and then the final judgment will convene.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Corinthians 15:51-53
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The righteous human beings on earth who survive the Great Tribulation will not die. They will be changed instantly from mortal to immortal. None will have to go to Purgatory since they will have expiated all of their sins during the trials of the Great Tribulation of Antichrist.

Immediately after the Great Tribulation, Christ returns for His Second Coming.

Matthew 24:29-30
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

As you can see, the righteous have to go through the Great Tribulation. There is no “rapture” beforehand which takes them out of harm’s way. This is why Jesus asks if He will find faith on the earth when He returns. Many, many people will succumb/submit to the Antichrist and his demands. But, only the righteous who persevere to the end of their lives still obeying God will be saved.

Mark 13:13
And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Irenaeus

That’s not what he said. He said that Jesus had lived as a baby, a child, a youth (20-30), and a mature man (30-40), grouping most of them with a certain decade. Since Jesus was a rabbi with the authority and judgement of an old man, he said he counted as having lived to the age of an old man – ie, 40-50. Therefore, Jesus had lived the life of all ages of human being, and could die and rise for all ages of human being.

It’s not a very clear passage, and apparently a lot of people copied it wrong. But that’s the gist of the argument, if I recall correctly. He wasn’t saying that Jesus was fifty. (He might have been saying that Jesus was forty.)

 

[jtatsiue]

Donsnow,

Granted, SQ isn’t a scholar; he’s a retired commodities trader who currently makes his living selling doomsday preparedness supplies, e.g. bomb shelters, survivalist gear, nonperishable foodstuffs, etc… However, Michael Heiser, www.michaelsheiser.com possesses an academic pedigree that would most likely put everyone on this board to shame, here’s a link to his curriculum vitae, michaelsheiser.com/MHeiserCV.pdf

Like I’ve suggested to SHW, to shrug off Heiser’s exegesis as hokum or folksy, homespun pseudo-intellectual tripe or sensationalistic charlatanry without giving his work the thorough attention it deserves is to miss the boat (ark reference intended, the days the Bible compares with the time of Noah may lie just ahead) entirely. Your options are clear: either become acquainted/reckon with his scholarship or match it and write your own dissertation. For starters, watch the 9 part YT series here, youtube.com/watch?v=E-W6c9a3ldQ and listen to Heiser’s analysis of the Hebrew translation of Genesis 6 and if you still conclude that he’s, intentionally or not, spreading myths, fables and Coast to Coast radio fodder that’s fine.

And trust me, I get it man, I find the notion, along with the mental image it conjures, of fallen angels getting it on with mortal women to be as blanch inducing as the next guy. I can’t blame you for scrambling to find any marginally plausible alternative theory. The sooner we can put the kibosh on this pesky angelic/human hybrid, transgenic, chimeric monstrosity debate the sooner we can finally get some rest and cease our worrying about the frighteningly macabre implications of what a literal reading of Genesis 6 might actually portend for the human race given the last days prophecies regarding the reprisal of evil prior to the Messiah’s return. Let’s move on to cheerier, less controversial topics, you know, like the heretical pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, something we can all agree on I’m sure.

 

[SHW]

Re: Irenaeus

That’s not what he said. He said that Jesus had lived as a baby, a child, a youth (20-30), and a mature man (30-40), grouping most of them with a certain decade. Since Jesus was a rabbi with the authority and judgement of an old man, he said he counted as having lived to the age of an old man – ie, 40-50. Therefore, Jesus had lived the life of all ages of human being, and could die and rise for all ages of human being.

It’s not a very clear passage, and apparently a lot of people copied it wrong. But that’s the gist of the argument, if I recall correctly. He wasn’t saying that Jesus was fifty. (He might have been saying that Jesus was forty.)

Thank you for your answer.

I think I found the passages you are referring to:

1. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” Luke 3:23 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

1. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” John 8:56-57 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “You are not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that Hecertainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished toprove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. **He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, **and have You seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Æons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:— Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22) newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

I can see why people get confused when they read copies of these old manuscripts. They do write much differently than we do today! Irenaeus is stating that Jesus is close to or almost 50 years old.

 

[SHW]

Mike Heiser’s work is fantasy. His premise is totally false. When you begin with a false premise, you can still come up with many seemingly plausible explanations to help you reach your own false conclusions.

Look at verse #3.

Genesis 3:3
And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

Man is flesh. He is not half human and half demon. Now, if you wish to continue to believe in fantasy, you may use your free will and continue to do so. I will not be joining you, however.

I believe that the sons of God are descendants of Seth and that the daughters of men are descendants of Cain.

 

[SHW]

Also, look at verse 5:

Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

God was sorry that He had made man on the earth. He said that He would destroy man whom He created from the face of the earth. One man was deemed righteous out of all sinful mankind. Noah’s wife and his three sons and their wives were also saved because of Noah’s righteousness.

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow,

Granted, SQ isn’t a scholar; he’s a retired commodities trader who currently makes his living selling doomsday preparedness supplies, e.g. bomb shelters, survivalist gear, nonperishable foodstuffs, etc… However, Michael Heiser, www.michaelsheiser.com possesses an academic pedigree that would most likely put everyone on this board to shame, here’s a link to his curriculum vitae, michaelsheiser.com/MHeiserCV.pdf

Like I’ve suggested to SHW, to shrug off Heiser’s exegesis as hokum or folksy, homespun pseudo-intellectual tripe or sensationalistic charlatanry without giving his work the thorough attention it deserves is to miss the boat (ark reference intended, the days the Bible compares with the time of Noah may lie just ahead) entirely. Your options are clear: either become acquainted/reckon with his scholarship or match it and write your own dissertation. For starters, watch the 9 part YT series here, youtube.com/watch?v=E-W6c9a3ldQ and listen to Heiser’s analysis of the Hebrew translation of Genesis 6 and if you still conclude that he’s, intentionally or not, spreading myths, fables and Coast to Coast radio fodder that’s fine.

And trust me, I get it man, I find the notion, along with the mental image it conjures, of fallen angels getting it on with mortal women to be as blanch inducing as the next guy. I can’t blame you for scrambling to find any marginally plausible alternative theory. The sooner we can put the kibosh on this pesky angelic/human hybrid, transgenic, chimeric monstrosity debate the sooner we can finally get some rest and cease our worrying about the frighteningly macabre implications of what a literal reading of Genesis 6 might actually portend for the human race given the last days prophecies regarding the reprisal of evil prior to the Messiah’s return. Let’s move on to cheerier, less controversial topics, you know, like the heretical pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, something we can all agree on I’m sure.

Hello, jtatsiue -

Let’s get something straight. Since my fourth decade of life (two and a half decades ago), I have been censoring what I allow to come into my mind. As we are to have a good bodily diet, so do I also seek a good mental diet. I have heard enough of MH, from his own mouth on Coast-to-Coast all night talk radio, to determine, his credentials notwithstanding my desire and duty to protect my faith, that I don’t want to hear or read anymore from him. He made his case on the radio and that’s all that I will allow him. I have determined that I was misled and that’s it. I refuse to allow him a second chance to mislead me.
In years to come, jtatsiue, you also may learn to judge people by the fruits of their mouth in comparison to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I attempt to cling to the latter and not be moved by smooth talkers or writers, to the contrary. No, I don’t have to go to MH’s Youtube nor be intimidated by his academic credentials.
In senior high school, a World History teacher tried to teach us to question authority: church and parents, etc. I determined then to question academic and government authority. My parents and the church had proven themselves and did not need questioning. You would do well to become skeptical of skeptics and gullible about the church, instead of your seemingly present vice-versa.

God is love,
Don

 

[donsnow]

This is very interesting. Would anyone say that those who accept the Sons of God being angels are in agreement with the Early Church Fathers and are truer to tradition (or even Apostolic Tradition) than those who deny it?

Howdy humblelurker -

In regard to Numbers 13, 33 I am sure the spies went into Cainanland and were impressed by the size of the inhabitants. I think that their comment about Nephilim were their cultural opinions, just as many college students today are confused by the cultural opinions of Socialist, Gay, Skeptical and Aetheist professors.
I went to college in '99, to study Computer Networking and I know what kind of people teach there. I had two out of five professors who were more interested in teaching their cultural opinions than convincing the class about the validity of the subject they were supposed to teach. Two bad apples out of five (and the other three knew their subjects and could get them across to us in the class) were too much.
I decided to quit chasing the almight dollar and left college. I will return to college to improve the talents God gave me, when I get more settled in church.

In the meanwhile, I’ve learned to sift fact from opinion. And, in my mind that Joshua sent spies into Cainanland was a fact. That the spies saw giants may well be also a fact. That those giants were Nephilim or the progeny of Nephilim remains, in my mind, a cultural opinion.

God is love,
Don

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Nephilim found in Genesis 6:1-4 are the result of intermarrying people with different beliefs. The Nephilims are referred to as ‘Sons of God’, they are the descendants of Seth, which are intermarrying with the ‘daughters of men’, which are the decedents of Cain.

Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve. Abel was killed by Cain. From the line of Seth comes Noah. When the ‘Sons of God’( which are the descendants of Seth), intermarried with the ‘Daughters of Men’(which are the descendants of Cain), their offspring was the Nephilim.

The word Nephilim is from the Hebrew which mean ‘the fallen ones’ or ‘Giants’. Another reference is in Numbers 13:33. The people already living in Canaan are refereed to as a race of giants, in Hebrew, ‘Nephilim’. They were considered to be the offspring of arrogant unions.

The interpretation of the “sons of God” as Seth’s lineage can be traced to the Gospel of Luke and his genealogy of Jesus. In Luke 3:38 it states, ‘the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God’. Thus, the lineage of Seth is called the “sons of God,” while the lineage of Cain is referred to as the “children of men,” which later became a label applied to all wicked men, as evidenced by the Psalms of St. David.

The verses Genesis 6:1-4 shows the ‘sons of God’ were religious and virtuous descendants of Seth, while the ‘daughters of men’ were women following the way of Cain. Thus, this passage serves to highlight the increasing depravity of mankind before the flood. If this text was referencing angels, it would not make sense, because God clearly states He is punishing men for their sins and does not mention angels.

 

[SHW]

Nephilim found in Genesis 6:1-4 are the result of intermarrying people with different beliefs. The Nephilims are referred to as ‘Sons of God’, they are the descendants of Seth, which are intermarrying with the ‘daughters of men’, which are the decedents of Cain.

Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve. Abel was killed by Cain. From the line of Seth comes Noah. When the ‘Sons of God’( which are the descendants of Seth), intermarried with the ‘Daughters of Men’(which are the descendants of Cain), their offspring was the Nephilim.

The word Nephilim is from the Hebrew which mean ‘the fallen ones’ or ‘Giants’. Another reference is in Numbers 13:33. The people already living in Canaan are refereed to as a race of giants, in Hebrew, ‘Nephilim’. They were considered to be the offspring of arrogant unions.

The interpretation of the “sons of God” as Seth’s lineage can be traced to the Gospel of Luke and his genealogy of Jesus. In Luke 3:38 it states, 'the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God’. Thus, the lineage of Seth is called the “sons of God,” while the lineage of Cain is referred to as the “children of men,” which later became a label applied to all wicked men, as evidenced by the Psalms of St. David.

The verses Genesis 6:1-4 shows the ‘sons of God’ were religious and virtuous descendants of Seth, while the ‘daughters of men’ were women following the way of Cain. Thus, this passage serves to highlight the increasing depravity of mankind before the flood. If this text was referencing angels, it would not make sense, because God clearly states He is punishing men for their sins and does not mention angels.

Thank you for your post with the reference to Luke 3:38…

Coast to Coast Radio rakes in millions of dollars with guests such as Michael Heiser. Sadly, many people continue to be duped by this Talk Radio.

 

[jtatsiue]

Don,

If your reading of MH’s work finds it to be contrary to the “red letters”, that’s great; my exploration into these matters—spoken of at length in the book of Enoch and only in passing in Genesis along with a smattering of verses scattered throughout the Old Testament Law and Prophets, obliquely referred to by the Messiah in a few passages pertaining to the last days, referenced again in the book of Jude and the book of Revelation—has just begun. So you’ve reached the end of your intellectual, spiritual journey as it pertains to these issues, i.e. you’ve arrived at a bedrock conclusion, and I’m only a few years in and thus I’m still undecided, though clearly I wear my leanings on my sleeve. I think there’s more than a kernel of truth in MH’s premise that the “fallen angels” were guilty of meddling with human DNA and thus “man” was transmogrified (were there Island of Dr. Moreau inspired half-breeds skulking around, I don’t know, I’m open to the possibility that scripture alludes to genetic tampering) into something other than what Yahweh initially created, save for Noah who as the King James and a few other translations put it was “perfect in his generations” which might be a reference to his lineage, DNA and not merely his “righteousness”. Noah may have stood apart from the rest of humanity both spiritually and genetically, is it not possible that scriptures can be interpreted in multiple ways, none of which are contradictory or diametrically oppositional? Like it or not, your position is firmly planted in your ability to decipher the English language and the letter kills, it can’t house the enormity of what God said. As soon as you write something down, you’ve diminished it. The law is perfect but does that mean God’s intent for the law was fulfilled in the mere act of writing it down or in reading what had been reduced to the barbaric, primitive limitations of linguistic syntax? You’ve cited the repetition of the word “man” in several verses in the book of Genesis ostensibly as support for your belief that the “sons of God” weren’t angelic and that their offspring, the Nephilim, the men of renown, were fully human and not some mash-up of angelic and human DNA. Okay, but I’m still not convinced. Words are not enough, c.f. John 5:39-40, Acts 18:24-26

Ecclesiastes 7:18 It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them.

That said: your vein of thought is incompatible with mine due to a variety of factors. Fundamentally, you appear to be operating from a strictly modernist perspective whereas I, being a member of Generation X, was reared under more postmodernist cultural conditions and my thought patterns reflect a greater degree of flexibility, i.e. a higher tolerance for paradox, or seeming contradiction, less of an emphasis on empiricism and the scientific method and I’m less apt to anchor “truth” to prima facie sensory, terrestrial evidence. I’ve been trying to mount an argument rooted in evidentiary support but what I’ve really got are hunches, premonitions, rather opaque, Biblical turns of phrase here and there which provide a few bread crumbs, non-canonized writings, ancient myths preserved on clay tablets, cryptic Egyptian hieroglyphics on cave walls, and yes, links to YT and Google video and various websites devoted to conspiratorial intrigue. I think it’s great that it’s your study of scripture that has led you to a different conclusion then the one I’ve (almost) reached but I also detect an undertone of disillusionment in your posts, an axe to grind with the waywardly mystical, mercurial Coast to Coast demographic so quick to lap up the most sensationalistic tabloid fodder. There’s no question that your position, regardless of how much you say it is informed solely by a desire to avoid straying from orthodoxy, is informed by an innate set of subjectivities and biases you can scantly, if at all, detect. I can understand your point of view but I’ll never fully subscribe to it and I don’t believe that I should. The truths I’m endeavoring to lay hold of don’t have an earthly origin anyway. Neither of us can claim any special insight beyond our respective divinely bestowed allotment; both of us are peering into these matters as though “looking through a glass dimly”. In my case, I believe that MH’s interpretation of Biblical Hebrew reinforces my admittedly imperfect, tenuous grasp of the plain spoken English translations and risking a conclusion drawn largely from a type of hermeneutical Rorschach, I can see evidence for MH’s view throughout scripture. You mentioned the virtuous, Biblically mandated act of challenging authority, well done. MH himself challenged the powers presiding over the seminary where he taught, citing irreconcilable differences on doctrinal grounds and was swiftly relieved from his professorial duties. I’m not sure why your assessment of MH pits him as a deliberately deceitful divider of the word of truth; he may simply be making an honest mistake, then again, so could you, so could I. We could equivocate on this topic forever but ultimately “truth” is a Person not a doctrine or theological precept and I’m clinging to the Truth with my whole heart, soul, mind and strength as I’m sure you are as well. That is all that matters.

 

[donsnow]

Dear jtatsiue -

Whew! Ok, you’re passionate about MH teachings and about the subject. Let me comment as I go again through your text.

Can’t do that, makes it too long to submit. Have to leave out quoting you.

Actually, I had granted MH a provisional credibility in what he said. I haven’t read his book(s). I remember having found Enoch a dry read, with offensive passages that described, I guess, the fallen angels. I just reread Jude, a little jewel of writing. I see where he mentioned Enoch and before that what I took as a reference to fallen angels. I see where those verses could be interpreted in favor of MH’s teachings. I’ll take your word for like references in Revelation, which is a much longer reread. I’ve read that book, several times. Well, I just had an open mind to MH’s topic. But, I don’t use scripture to argue about other scripture. The devil can do that and I don’t want to be like him. I just saw where those late night talks on the radio, and I listening to stay awake through my watch (had the volume low so I could hear outside noises and my window down) had misled me from the scriptures quoted on this thread. I actually have quite a way to go in my spiritual development. Heh, nothing to be ashamed of, wearing your leanings on your sleeve. Mother always told me I wore my heart on my sleeve. Not the same thing, but the same honesty.

Yes, scriptural passages do have different levels of information. Funny you should mention genetic tampering back then. I’ve heard terrible reports of some scientists in England and other places mixing human and animal genes, this recent decade. That’s going beyond reasonable bounds to me, and also likely to hurry our times into the end times, imho.

The scriptures you referred to, appear to me, to speak of coming to a personal relation with Jesus. I don’t see how they apply to the topic of Nephilim, either aye or nay.
However, the Ecclesiastes quote I do.Usually, I can see both sides of a topic and sometimes more than two sides.

Ah, there’s the crux. Our mode of thought differs. No argument.
You discern correctly that I have chosen to think differently than postmodernist. I don’t intend to change that, and you may not be ready to change from that. However, even within my chosen limits, I still can recognize paradoxes, rely on intuition and recognize the limits of the scientific methodology. I try to keep truth anchored to Jesus Christ and to how a statement matches what it tries to describe. Since God gave us bodies as well as minds, I see no harm in holding to prima facie sensory, terrestial evidence, since it’s this planet we live on; except when that would contradict the Holy Spirit.

Some programs on Coast to Coast I won’t listen to, to protect my mind; on the other hand there have been a lot of Coast to Coast programs I have listened to, and if I were still working nights, would listen to, again. Just depends upon the subject. What you sense is my disturbance at finding myself misled and I thought I was too smart for that to happen.
Thank you, Jesus, for more humiltiy.

It’s scantily, BTW, that I detect that set of emotions. I’m working on better communicating with myself, than I have in the past. Now, let me see what you think you see as you peer into my mind from your own private perspective.

I’ve learned a body can see just about anything in the scriptures of the Holy Bible, but go ahead.

MH reminds me of Charles Darwin who, when a student, dropped out of seminary, where his parents had put him after he dropped out of medical school, and went sailing on the HMS Beagle. Which in my mind, is no recommendation
Now, as a seminary professor, Dr. MH should have known better than to have butted heads with the seminary’s authorities and resigned and gone his way, before he got his superiors righteously upset with him for twisting young seminarians minds away from the Gospel, which is the purpose of going to seminary, in my mind and in mho.

My apologies for appearing to charge MH with deception. Didn’t mean to come across that way. Looks like I do leave room for being misunderstood during a private conversation, my own self.
Yes, MH and you and I could be mistaken; which can happen when going outside the canonized bounds of scripture.

I agree with your assessment of your and my each clinging to the truth. Let us agree to disagree on the other, then. Peace.

 

[SHW]

Correction:

The race of giants (Nephilim) are a result of Cain’s evil offspring according to the writings (visions) of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich in the book, The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, Volume One.

Cain’s evil offspring even seduced some of Seth’s (Noah’s) offspring and they then followed their evil ways.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6037243&postcount=379

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6037262&postcount=380

 

[jtatsiue]

Dear Ghosty,

I read the book of Enoch. Its interesting. It isn’t in the canon though… so what are Catholics to think of it?

Agricola

You’re right, the book of Enoch isn’t canon but passages from it are quoted in what was eventually deemed canonical and some have concluded that the Messiah was familiar with the book because of His self-identification with the term “son of Man” which the book of Enoch uses. Also, in reference to your earlier post where you express doubts on the validity of the “sons of God” as angels interpretation due to the presumption that angels have no corporeality, that they’re apparitions, ghostly, or intangible spirit beings but there’s nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that angels lack physicality. Human beings are spiritual beings and we have bodies. In reference to why would Yahweh allow rebel angels and mankind to mate, well, is that any more horrific than allowing the Holocaust or slavery or the centuries of feudalism that proceeded it or the Iraq war for that matter or 911. God allows these things. The reason you should look into these matters is that Jesus said that the days of His return would be just like the days of Noah. The Nephilim inhabited the earth during those days and many have predicted that they will return to claim bodies as their disembodied spirits have roamed the earth and the nether realms for thousands of years since the Flood wiped nearly all of them out. This is a fascinating subject. I believe it to be on of the most neglected subjects in all of Christendom.

 

[jtatsiue]

Dear jtatsiue -

I can see where you’re coming from, although I wouldn’t compare MH with Darwin and I wouldn’t fault him for challenging the authorities within academia, without open dialog, without fostering an environment of truly free intellectual inquiry, there can be no progress. Sure we need structure, correction, scrutiny, reprimand and reproof because we’re fallible and are prone to go astray but without the freedom to oppose conventional wisdom ideas and systems of belief become self-reinforcing and that’s not what God wants, not the God that says, come let us reason, an ongoing invitation to go deeper.

Also, we shouldn’t assume that the evidence for Biblical truth lies amid our finite existence, at least not in every case. The truth of God is ultimately and inexorably tied up with the personality of the Divine Being and God emanates truth from beyond the cosmos. It should come as no surprise that Biblical truths are at times difficult to wrap our mortal minds around. If modernistic theology embraced the universality of truth then postmodern theology pushes the envelope even further by stressing that truth supersedes even a realm as large as the universe. Why stop at only what makes sense within a infinitesimally tiny sliver of material reality when actual reality encompasses infinitely more? Ultimately, Christian apologetic reasoning can’t provide all the answers a skeptic is looking for, nor should it. Faith comes when a soul is converted to the Person we both acknowledge as our only hope.

Intriguingly and in passing you mentioned that genetic engineering, gene splicing, transgenic meddling, etc… will play a role in the last days. I wholeheartedly, emphatically agree with you there. The Nazis, or so I’ve heard, read among conspiratorial circles, were obsessed with cloning and the Antichrist’s regime will in my opinion be a return of the third Reich writ large. A few Christian authors have posited that the Antichrist will be a clone. There is so much more to discuss.

 

[Hope3]

You’re right, the book of Enoch isn’t canon but passages from it are quoted in what was eventually deemed canonical and some have concluded that the Messiah was familiar with the book because of His self-identification with the term “son of Man” which the book of Enoch uses. Also, in reference to your earlier post where you express doubts on the validity of the “sons of God” as angels interpretation due to the presumption that angels have no corporeality, that they’re apparitions, ghostly, or intangible spirit beings but there’s nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that angels lack physicality. Human beings are spiritual beings and we have bodies. In reference to why would Yahweh allow rebel angels and mankind to mate, well, is that any more horrific than allowing the Holocaust or slavery or the centuries of feudalism that proceeded it or the Iraq war for that matter or 911. God allows these things. The reason you should look into these matters is that Jesus said that the days of His return would be just like the days of Noah. The Nephilim inhabited the earth during those days and many have predicted that they will return to claim bodies as their disembodied spirits have roamed the earth and the nether realms for thousands of years since the Flood wiped nearly all of them out. This is a fascinating subject. I believe it to be on of the most neglected subjects in all of Christendom.

It is true that Enoch is quoted in Scripture, but it does not say that this quote is from a specific book or from any book at all. It could be part of the oral history of the Jewish faith. There is no absolute proof that the Book(s) of Enoch was even in existence during Jude’s lifetime.

There was only one incarnation (from spirit into human flesh) and it was the Word made Flesh. John 1:14 No person with human form had ever descended from heaven or ascended into heaven until Jesus Christ became incarnate. John 3:13 It took the power of the Holy Spirit to do this miracle and the Holy Spirit is all-good and cannot do anything evil. Ephesians 5:9

These facts makes it impossible for angels to have ever become incarnate men or to ever have had sexual intercourse with women on earth. It takes the Holy Spirit’s power to endow a spirit with flesh and the Holy Spirit absolutely did not make these angels incarnate in order for them to do evil and neither can spirit mate with flesh and produce offspring and therefore this particular Book of Enoch such as we know it today is a fable.

Paul warns us that we should not believe in fables. 1 Timothy 1:3-4, Titus 1:13-15,

Sons of God refers to the righteous souls, either human or angel.

Revelation 21:7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.

Most of the angels, when tested, chose to serve God. They “overcame” and therefore they are sons of God. God created them first before He created mankind.

Adam was a righteous son of God before he fell from grace.

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Cain killed Abel, therefore he was not righteous and neither are any other persons who sin against God’s commandments. All mankind except some few of those persons from Noah’s family had become sons and daughters of men because of their disobedience to God. In this spiritual sense, sons and daughters of men are also known as sons (and daughters) of disobedience. Ephesians 2:1-3

Almost all of mankind had become corrupt by the time of Noah. The righteous had intermarried with the unrighteous and had thereby chosen to follow the ways of the unrighteous and thereby they became unrighteous also. This is why the flood was necessary. Almost all mankind except for Noah’s family had become sons of men (disobedient to God/unrighteous).

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

So, Seth’s lineage is righteous, but Cain’s is not. Cain’s descendants are therefore sons of men and daughters of men denoting their unrighteousness.

Luke 20:34-36 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for** they are equal to the angels and are sons of God**, being sons of the resurrection.

The righteous angels were the first sons of God. Righteous humans will also become sons of God after the resurrection of the dead.

Yes, it will be like the days of Noah shortly before Jesus’ Second Coming and this means that most people will follow the Antichrist instead of Jesus Christ’s gospel. Matthew 24:3-13

It is time for all of Christians to stop believing in and perpetuating fables.

 

[Authorcharlieg]

What we need to understand to interpret this passage is that in Hebrew, the original language of the passage, there is no past, present, or future to the verb. Everything is in present, either perfect for completed action, or imperfect for incomplete action.

The original writer was talking about the present, events contemporary to the author, by relating them as events in the past. The events contemporary to the author were the invasions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.

The writers, were arguing at the time with the desire of the Hebrew nation about their desire to copy the ways of the foreign powers, by having kings, foreign trade and with it, the desire to acquire wealth in the form of gold and silver.

In Hebrew, the word used for gods, Elohim, can also refer to judges. “Nephilim” is Hebrew for the fallen ones. The passage reads:

When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of the judges saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. Then the LORD said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.” At that time the fallen ones appeared on earth, after the sons of the judges had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the soldiers of old, the men with a name.

The sons of the judges refers to the powerful nations around Judea and Israel. They were the judges who were creating the standards the Hebrews desired to emulate. The daughters of men were the Hebrew people who wanted to assimilate with Assyria and Babylonia.

The fallen ones, “Nephilim” were the Jewish kings and leaders who were conquered by these powers. The result of the unions between these sons of the judges and the daughters of men were simply great soldiers, men of violence.

With this in mind comes the rest of the passage:

When the LORD saw how great was man’s rot on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but rot, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.

When we look to find what this rot is we find it in two passages: Verse 11

The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. Verse 13

God told Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them.

The passage is a warning to all who would use violence, no matter how seemingly justified to resolve their problems. That is the way of the judges, those who would judge who is fit to live and die. That is the way of those who would build a merchant empire. That is the way God rejects and that is the way God calls us to reject.