Who are the Nephilim? (Genesis 6:4)

[SHW]

It is important to look at the context of the verse in question.

RSV-CV
Gen 6:1-5
When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
5 The LORD 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.

What is God speaking of?
The flesh of man. He is not speaking of “half-flesh and half-demonic beings” at all. Instead, He is lamenting the sinfulness of man and He is also now limiting their normal life spans to a mere 120 years instead of the hundreds of years that were allotted to their ancestors.

Who were these “daughters of men”? Some were the daughters of the Philistines (progeny of Cain):

Ez 16:26-28
“Behold, therefore, I stretched out My hand against you, diminished your allotment, and gave you up to the will of those who hate you, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed of your lewd behavior. 28 You also played the harlot with the Assyrians, because you were insatiable; indeed you played the harlot with them and still were not satisfied.

It does not look like they asked the women’s/girl’s (daughters of men/Cain) permission before they “chose” to “marry” them. Apparently, the daughters of men did not “choose” the rebellious sons of God in return. Instead, the women were ashamed of these men’s lewd behavior! Rebellion causes the loss of God’s favor and they now become disinherited sons.

Gen 6:5 speaks of the wickedness of man. He never speaks of angels and their half-human offspring. They do not exist.

Rom 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
**
Both righteous angels and righteous men/women are called sons/daughters of God because God created all of them in His own image and likeness.** He is speaking of mighty men of old who were also men of renown, and He was not speaking of men who were merely giants due to body size. They were “mighty men of old” and “men of renown” because they enjoyed the blessings of God’s favor upon them.

However, disobedient sons and daughters lose their status as sons/daughters of God by sinning and they also lose their inheritance of eternal life with God forever (unless they repent before death). The angels, however, only got one chance to choose God since they were in His presence and saw Him face to face; they saw Him as He is. Men will not see Him face to face until they die.

Col 3:23-25
And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

Some of Seth’s offspring (righteous sons of God) rebelled against God and “married” the offspring/progeny of Cain (i.e. daughters of Philistines). This angers God against men because they chose human lust over love of God and His commands, and He is a jealous God. Ex 20:4-6

God does not sanction intermarriage between righteous and unrighteous at all because the righteous soon follow their spouses into idol worship.

Even Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, fell into this trap:

1 Kings 11:4
For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David.

This is also why we are admonished in the New Testament:

2 Cor 6:14-16
**Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. **For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

Myths are very prominent in the history of mankind. These myths also influenced peoples’ understanding of Scripture especially when read and studied centuries later as was this passage in Genesis. Peoples’ interpretations of Scripture were and are influenced by their own personal experiences and cultural biases.

God was angry at the sins of MAN.

Interesting info:

The Jews believe that Goliath, the Philistine, was the son of Orpah.
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=336&letter=G

Orpah was the daughter-in-law of Naomi and Ruth was her other daughter-in-law. Read the book of Ruth for more info on this. Ruth married Boaz and their son is in the lineage of the Savior (the house of David). Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.

Now, we are only allotted about threescore and ten years (70) years of life. Will it soon be down to only 50 because of man’s obstinate sinfulness?

Psalm 90:10

 

[SHW]

If, Satan can “transform himself into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14) then fallen angelic beings were capable of assuming corporeal form. The Bible indicates that Lucifer was a “changeling” or a shape-shifter. As I’ve posted elsewhere, check into Michael Heiser’s work, youtube.com/watch?v=E-W6c9a3ldQ
The “sons of God” is a reference to angelic beings according to Heiser, a believer and a PhD in ancient languages, Biblical Hebrew, check out his site, michaelsheiser.com

Satan can “appear as” an angel of light. It is an illusion. He cannot actually “change” himself into anything. He is a demonic spirit and he will remain one forever.

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

These transformations are merely illusions (a misleading appearance or image) designed to fool people into sinning against God.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really do admire those of you who are biblical scholars. I really do. And not being one myself, I know I can’t offer any kind of bible-based clarification on this.

I will, however, mention that the first white settlers (and Indian resettlers) who came into my part of the U.S. claimed the Osage who lived here were seven feet tall. Maybe they were, and maybe they only seemed so, but anthropological support of the proposition is mighty thin.

It may be noted as well that the Aztecs initially thought Cortez was Quetzlcoatl, the pale god returned to destroy their civilization and kill them all. They were only half right. Some few of them probably believed the whole thing to the very end. But the fact that Cortez was not Quetzlcoatl, and demonstrated it amply, didn’t change the fact that he destroyed their civilization and that they were dying out. Then, later on, when it seemed the Aztecs were doomed to all die out, Our Lady of Guadalupe (some say she really said “Coatlashupe”…the conquer of Quezlcoatl) appeared, and the symbolism around that appearance; poorly understood by the Spanish, had such an effect on the Indians that it led to massive conversions almost overnight. Did all the Aztecs still believe Cortez (or the Spanish presence) was Quetzlcoatl? It’s exceedingly doubtful. But the symbolism of the old myth and the destruction it promised still resonated, and had meaning after the literal understanding had disappeared. So, then, did Our Lady’s message of life, mercy and redemption. If she did, indeed, say “Coatlashupe”, it would not have meant, literally, that she had come to conquer Cortez, but to redeem them from the physical and spiritual doom which had befallen them, and which the myth of Quetzlcoatl signified for them.

You can’t read the Iliad without concluding that either the Greeks were stupid or that their religious beliefs were “layered”. Sometimes the gods are expressed literally; sometimes as “forces” of fate or nature, not to be taken literally. Sometimes Zeus is hardly more than a bully and a rapist, and sometimes he’s not far from being the Yahweh of the Hebrews. It’s hard to conclude anything other than that the more ancient anthropomorphic mythological elements were not understood by the Greeks in a literal sense, but in the context of the overall work. It seems they were more tolerant of mythological elements than we tend to be. Perhaps the Hebrews were as well.

I know of no reason to think the ancient Hebrews could not have had similar understandings about certain things that were no longer taken literally. The “point of the story”, perhaps is the point of the story, not whether the details should be taken literally in every respect.

 

[jtatsiue]

Have you checked out Michael Heiser’s YouTube clip? You’ve identified yourself as a lay person, not a Biblical scholar, ergo; you might want to familiarize yourself with MH’s work. You’ll also want to read the following books:

amazon.com/Nephilim-Stargates-Year-Return-Watchers/dp/0978845315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258489045&sr=1-1

amazon.com/Omega-Conspiracy-Satans-Assault-Kingdom/dp/0978845358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258489213&sr=1-1

The first book will provide a little of the archeological, mythological and anecdotal evidence for the existence of the Genesis 6 “men of renown”, the legends of Greek mythology, the tales of demigods, the Titans of ancient folklore, vampires, incubi, etc… may actually have a basis in Biblical fact.

Despite the surfeit of evidence I can understand your hesitancy to buy into the Genesis account of fallen angelic—supposedly strictly immaterial beings—having intercourse with the “daughters of men”. Do yourself a favor and set aside the understandably incredulous reaction that the hoary, distasteful and hideously macabre image an angelic, female sexual union conjures and focus on the evidence sans your presuppositions. Start with the evidence; do not start with your conclusion which you admitted was not based on any scholarly erudition. There’s no way I can encapsulate the voluminous evidentiary support for the existence and other-worldly lineage of the Genesis 6 Giants in a single forum entry but if you do the diligence on this issue, starting with Michael Heiser’s research, www.michaelsheiser.com you might be surprised at the conclusions you’ll eventually reach. You’ll also want to check out this site, www.stevequayle.com Happy studying!

 

[jtatsiue]

The metaphorical limitations/parameters of the scriptures you cited don’t preclude Lucifer’s ability to “shape-shift” or to traverse the unseen (only from humanity’s extremely limited visual perception) barriers separating the three dimensional, vibratory, five sense physical existence and the extra-dimensional realms. The original Hebrew indicates that the serpent in the garden had this ability; anecdotal accounts of such reptilian beings were ubiquitous in the ancient world, e.g. the Mayan, African, Egyptian, Sumerian and Asian legends testify to a reptilian, serpentine race of beings who visited earth from the heavens possessing advanced knowledge of physics, cosmology, mathematics and engineering—a possible explanation for the existence of technologically advanced ancient civilizations, e.g. Atlantis as well as the construction of megalithic monuments such as the Giza Pyramids. There is so much research on these topics that at least partially corroborate a literal interpretation of Genesis 6 that it certainly bears further study prior to reaching a conclusion. As to your assertion that Lucifer is a “spirit” being and thus cannot assume a physical form, again, I’m not sure the scriptures you enclosed in your post unequivocally assert that Lucifer lacks the ability to bodily enter this world, plane of existence nor does it rule out the possibility that he actually has literal DNA that could be passed on (or merged with human DNA) should he choose to do so. There are other scriptures which metaphorically imply the existence of a non-metaphorical Satanic lineage, starting with Genesis 3:15, Daniel 2:43 (what “mingles” with the seed of men?). As I’ve encouraged other posters, check into the work of Michael Heiser, Tom Horn and Steve Quayle and begin to parse the Hebrew text to see if it means exactly what it appears to mean in English, especially concerning the passage in Genesis 6:4. The literal definition of the word “demon” does indeed refer to a “disembodied” spirit in Greek. Many believe that the spirits of the Nephilim roam the earth as demonic entities (starved of sensuality, desperate for a body, hoping to be reconstituted in the last days) but the Bible doesn’t, as far as I can tell, explicitly state that angelic beings (fallen or otherwise) are strictly vaporous, apparitional, intangible spirits.

 

[SHW]

Actually, a truly demon-possessed person is extremely strong, but the demon still uses/borrows the human body to demonstrate this strength. He does not “create” this human body himself and then inhabit it. He has no power to procreate.

 

[SHW]

… Daniel 2:43 (what “mingles” with the seed of men?).

RSV-CE

Daniel 2:31-45
"In your vision, O king, you saw a statue, very large and exceedingly bright, terrifying in appearance as it stood before you.
32 The head of the statue was pure gold, its chest and arms were silver, its belly and thighs bronze,
33 the legs iron, its feet partly iron and partly tile.

34While you looked at the statue, a stone which was hewn from a mountain without a hand being put to it, struck its iron and tile feet, breaking them in pieces.
35 The iron, tile, bronze, silver, and gold all crumbled at once, fine as the chaff on the threshing floor in summer, and the wind blew them away without leaving a trace. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. [This refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Stone that the builders rejected, but Jesus defeats sin and death anyway. Jesus ushers in His Church and it filled the whole earth.]

36 This was the dream; the interpretation we shall also give in the king’s presence.
37 You, O king, are the king of kings; to you the God of heaven has given dominion and strength, power and glory;
38 men, wild beasts, and birds of the air, wherever they may dwell, he has handed over to you, making you ruler over them all; you are the head of gold.
39 Another kingdom shall take your place, inferior to yours, then a third kingdom, of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.
40 There shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; it shall break in pieces and subdue all these others, just as iron breaks in pieces and crushes everything else.
41 The feet and toes you saw, partly of potter’s tile and partly of iron, mean that it shall be a divided kingdom, but yet have some of the hardness of iron. As you saw the iron mixed with clay tile,
42 and the toes partly iron and partly tile, the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.
43 The iron mixed with clay tile means that they shall seal their alliances by intermarriage, but they shall not stay united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
44 In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever.
45 That is the meaning of the stone you saw hewn from the mountain without a hand being put to it, which broke in pieces the tile, iron, bronze, silver, and gold. The great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future; this is exactly what you dreamed, and its meaning is sure."

These first 4 kingdoms were ancient kingdoms of human beings and they each, in turn, were in power over the whole known world in those ancient times. (Romans 1:8)

Statue:
1st kingdom: Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian kingdom (head of gold)
2nd kingdom: Medo-Persian (chest and arms of silver)
3rd kingdom: Greek (belly and thighs bronze)
4th kingdom: Roman (legs are of iron and feet and toes of iron and clay tile) Seals kingdom alliances (iron with clay) by intermarriage. This 4th kingdom was the kingdom in power when Jesus was born.

Jesus ushers in His own kingdom, but it is a kingdom within our hearts and souls while we are on earth. Eventually when we die, we will join Jesus’ Messianic kingdom in heaven forever. (Luke 17:20-2,1 Romans 8:23, 1 Peter 2:25) Jesus’ kingdom will last forever. Until we enter heaven, we are to be members of His Church on earth which is ruled by His bishops.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. 18 Pray for us.

“The main meaning of all this is that the kingdom of God inaugurated by Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 4:17) will oppose the various pagan kingdoms, which are the personification of the kingdom of Satan. This kingdom of God, which is the Church, is, Augustine thinks, symbolized by the stone “which was cut out by no human hand… and smote the image” (2:34-35). Beginning in a small, insignificant way, the Church will spread all over the world, thanks to the power of God who sustains it. This, in summary, is the content of Daniel’s interpretation.” – Antonio Fuentes catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208otg.asp

Persons such as Michael Heiser and Steve Quayle can make their own interpretations about Scripture/prophecies at any time they choose to and there will be some persons who will follow their lead. Just because they claim to “know” does not mean that they are correct.

Also, many anti-Catholics claim to “know” the truth about the Church, but they actually do not have a clue as to what “truth” is.

The Statue (4 major pagan kingdoms of mankind) are defeated once and for all by the kingdom of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, and His kingdom will last forever.

Coast to Coast is entertaining. I have listened to it a couple of times

 

[jtatsiue]

SHW,

I totally agree. My post never stated that “demons” (again, disembodied spirits) possessed procreative powers. I believe fallen angels can and have throughout human history engaged in cloning, genetic experimentation, the mixing of species and a host of other dark sciences strictly forbidden by Yahweh. Noah’s lineage was free of such tampering (“pure in his generations”), precisely why he was chosen to build the ark.

 

[catholic1seeks]

v. 6:1-4: Sons of God and daughters of men: Many Fathers in the first 4 centuries thought angels had bodies, and so these lines meant real children of angels: St. Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine. St. Justin thought Psalm 78.25 meant that angels have food in heaven: “men ate the bread of angels”. He even added, that the offspring were demons Now God could not create beings evil from the start. But Justin was fond of Plato, who spoke of daimones, beings intermediate between the secondary gods and the great God on the one hand, and humans. Later Platonists even spoke of good and bad daimones (cf. Augustine, City of God 9. 19 Then Julius Africanus proposed they were children of Seth. But today we consider it a fragment, within the mythic genre spoken of by John Paul II, which the inspired writer used, without asserting its truth, to show the decline of the race leading to the deluge. On Feb. 13, 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission said we may consider the possibility of implicit citations if there are solid reasons, and if it does not contradict the Church. Our case meets those standards.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=81&chapnum=0&id=2207&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=544465

 

[jtatsiue]

SHW,

“Persons such as Michael Heiser and Steve Quayle can make their own interpretations about Scripture/prophecies at any time they choose to and there will be some persons who will follow their lead. Just because they claim to “know” does not mean that they are correct.”

Of course their truth claims don’t confer some sort of layperson’s equivalent of papal infallibility; to fawningly, sycophantically subscribe to their every doctrinal assertion would be folly, without question, however, you act as if your admittedly unscholarly dissenting opinions are interchangeable with theirs, as if you could interrupt their classrooms and proceed to hold forth on the topics they’ve devoted decades to studying. Seriously? If so, that is hubris in the extreme and that characteristic alone will keep you from ever apprehending the truth regardless of the amount of head knowledge you manage to accumulate. Remember, condemnation without investigation is essentially ignorance. Dismissing what a scholar of Michael Heiser’s ilk has to offer without so much as giving his research a cursory perusal is foolish. Watch the YT clip I posted earlier and take MH to task on his grammatical parsing of the original Hebrew if you can, otherwise, you might want to dial down the doctrinaire tone a tad before denigrating the vast panoply of research that points to conclusions that happen to diverge from your own. Just a thought.

 

[SHW]

SHW,

I totally agree. My post never stated that “demons” (again, disembodied spirits) possessed procreative powers. I believe fallen angels can and have throughout human history engaged in cloning, genetic experimentation, the mixing of species and a host of other dark sciences strictly forbidden by Yahweh. Noah’s lineage was free of such tampering (“pure in his generations”), precisely why he was chosen to build the ark.

Well, we do know for sure that a male donkey and a female horse (mixing of species) produces a sterile mule.

 

[SHW]

v. 6:1-4: Sons of God and daughters of men: Many Fathers in the first 4 centuries thought angels had bodies, and so these lines meant real children of angels: St. Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine. St. Justin thought Psalm 78.25 meant that angels have food in heaven: “men ate the bread of angels”. He even added, that the offspring were demons Now God could not create beings evil from the start. But Justin was fond of Plato, who spoke of daimones, beings intermediate between the secondary gods and the great God on the one hand, and humans. Later Platonists even spoke of good and bad daimones (cf. Augustine, City of God 9. 19 Then Julius Africanus proposed they were children of Seth. But today we consider it a fragment, within the mythic genre spoken of by John Paul II, which the inspired writer used, without asserting its truth, to show the decline of the race leading to the deluge. On Feb. 13, 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission said we may consider the possibility of implicit citations if there are solid reasons, and if it does not contradict the Church. Our case meets those standards.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=81&chapnum=0&id=2207&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=544465

Good post.

“Manna rained down” from heaven. Perhaps it is called the “bread of angels” simply because it came down from heaven and is not of earthly origin; heaven being the “abode of angels.” They had very fanciful speech in their poetry in those days.

Psalm 78:23-25
Yet He had commanded the clouds above,
And opened the doors of heaven,
24 Had rained down manna on them to eat,
And given them of the bread of heaven.
25 Men ate angels’ food;
He sent them food to the full.

 

[SHW]

Of course their truth claims don’t confer some sort of layperson’s equivalent of papal infallibility; to fawningly, sycophantically subscribe to their every doctrinal assertion would be folly, without question, however, you act as if your admittedly unscholarly dissenting opinions are interchangeable with theirs, as if you could interrupt their classrooms and proceed to hold forth on the topics they’ve devoted decades to studying. Seriously? If so, that is hubris in the extreme and that characteristic alone will keep you from ever apprehending the truth regardless of the amount of head knowledge you manage to accumulate. Remember, condemnation without investigation is essentially ignorance. Dismissing what a scholar of Michael Heiser’s ilk has to offer without so much as giving his research a cursory perusal is foolish. Watch the YT clip I posted earlier and take MH to task on his grammatical parsing of the original Hebrew if you can, otherwise, you might want to dial down the doctrinaire tone a tad before denigrating the vast panoply of research that points to conclusions that happen to diverge from your own. Just a thought.

How do you know that I have not read or studied any of their work(s)? Aren’t you jumping to conclusions?

There are also differences in opinion as to what the original Hebrew (or Greek) means. The meaning of the words depends upon the cultural influences in the time period in which the texts were written. They were written for their own peers and these people understood what they meant at that time. It does not mean that we will understand correctly now what these words from thousands of years ago intended to convey.

This is why the Catholic Church still uses Latin as its official language. It is now a dead language and the meanings of the words cannot be changed by either time or new cultural influences.

Remember when “gay” meant “happy” or “merry” or “joyous”? I do. Try and use that original meaning now in a conversation. No one does because it has been appropriated by the homosexuals to mean something entirely different.

MH may not be entirely correct in his own interpretation of Hebrew. Phrases can mean something entirely different than the separate individual words.

We say the phrase, “It is raining cats and dogs.”

Is it literally raining cats and dogs? No, but it is raining pretty doggone hard.

Someone 2000 years from now might think that we meant it literally and that cats and dogs actually fell/rained down from the sky.

 

[Benadam]

My reasoning in regards of who the Nephilim are is based on the idea that the sons of God are decendants of Seth and the daughters of men are the decendants of Cain. They represent the two cultures that form the archetype of all cultures. sons of God represent patriarchal culture and the daughters of men are matriarchal.

These two cultures are manifest today as the culture of life and the culture of death.

The daughters of men and sons of God reappear in the story Balaak learning from Balaam how to use women to seduce the Jewish men and corrupt the then modern day sons of God. Jesus mentions this most ancient struggle in Revelation.

All of humanity is whole in the union of these two cultures. Their children would be familiar with and in likeness to the males called 'sons of God and the females of the daughters of men. The spiritual conduits of both cultures. The men of God’s people and the women of witchcraft. In their most primal and powerfull manifestations.

The Nephilim knit the whole world together in their very bodies and souls. What’s best in both and what’s worst. So In the generation of Nephilim are all the virtues and all the vice of humanity. A knowledge of both sides of mankind known with unparalleled intimacy. They would have taken advantage of family loyalties from both cultures. From this view of the Nephilim there is an untapped sea of possibilities to reflect on.

 

[SHW]

My reasoning in regards of who the Nephilim are is based on the idea that the sons of God are decendants of Seth and the daughters of men are the decendants of Cain. They represent the two cultures that form the archetype of all cultures. sons of God represent patriarchal culture and the daughters of men are matriarchal.

These two cultures are manifest today as the culture of life and the culture of death.

The daughters of men and sons of God reappear in the story Balaak learning from Balaam how to use women to seduce the Jewish men and corrupt the then modern day sons of God. Jesus mentions this most ancient struggle in Revelation.

All of humanity is whole in the union of these two cultures. Their children would be familiar with and in likeness to the males called 'sons of God and the females of the daughters of men. The spiritual conduits of both cultures. The men of God’s people and the women of witchcraft. In their most primal and powerfull manifestations.

The Nephilim knit the whole world together in their very bodies and souls. What’s best in both and what’s worst. So In the generation of Nephilim are all the virtues and all the vice of humanity. A knowledge of both sides of mankind known with unparalleled intimacy. They would have taken advantage of family loyalties from both cultures. From this view of the Nephilim there is an untapped sea of possibilities to reflect on.

Good post. The Jewish (righteous sons of God) men were easily corrupted by their own lustful thoughts and desires. Jesus and the Apostles warn all of us:

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

Luke 16:15
And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Acts 8:22
Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.

2 Peter 2:12-16
But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.

 

[jtatsiue]

You hadn’t demonstrated any familiarity with MH’s work, sorry for the presumption. Based on your explanation, it sounds as though the Hebrew text is just immutably inscrutable and we shouldn’t expect to ever reach a definitive, empirical conclusion. Given that, no one can really make any bold, declarative statements about what Genesis 6:4 actually means. I guess we’ll see what happens.

 

[SHW]

You hadn’t demonstrated any familiarity with MH’s work, sorry for the presumption. Based on your explanation, it sounds as though the Hebrew text is just immutably inscrutable and we shouldn’t expect to ever reach a definitive, empirical conclusion. Given that, no one can really make any bold, declarative statements about what Genesis 6:4 actually means. I guess we’ll see what happens.

The Church may pronounce her decision on the meaning of this particular Scripture if she chooses to, but I doubt that she will. She has other things that are more important to attend to.

However, most Catholic scholars today, which includes all the ones that I am familiar with, believe that the sons of God are of the lineage of Seth and that the daughters of men are of the lineage of Cain.

It is much easier to study the Bible these days with all of our special research tools at the ready. The early church fathers had no such tools. Also, they were trying to understand Biblical texts that were almost as foreign to them as these texts are to us today since they were already thousands of years old, two thousand years ago, when they first studied them. So the cultural phraseology, which even alludes to myths (just as our own cultural phraseology does today because of our constant exposure to fictional books and movies), and Hebrew terms, etc. of that time when Genesis was written had already evolved by the time the early church fathers studied them.

The early church fathers were free to form their own opinions about Scriptures, but if the Church later ruled against their opinions, then they were no longer allowed to teach their previous opinions. I remember reading that one of them (Irenaeus - Against Heresies) wrote that Jesus was about 50 years old when he died. Yet, Luke states that Jesus began His public ministry when He was 30. (Luke 3:23) Scholars believe that Jesus was about 33 when He died.
gotquestions.org/length-Jesus-ministry.html

That is why I think that the following Scripture is relevant when studying writings of that pre-Christian time period:

Titus 1:13-14
This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

Poetry is especially hard to understand when read thousands of years after it was authored. One of the reasons that I dislike most poetry is that there are as many opinions about the meaning of it as there are persons reading it.

 

[humblelurker]

v. 6:1-4: Sons of God and daughters of men: Many Fathers in the first 4 centuries thought angels had bodies, and so these lines meant real children of angels: St. Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine. St. Justin thought Psalm 78.25 meant that angels have food in heaven: “men ate the bread of angels”. He even added, that the offspring were demons Now God could not create beings evil from the start. But Justin was fond of Plato, who spoke of daimones, beings intermediate between the secondary gods and the great God on the one hand, and humans. Later Platonists even spoke of good and bad daimones (cf. Augustine, City of God 9. 19 Then Julius Africanus proposed they were children of Seth. But today we consider it a fragment, within the mythic genre spoken of by John Paul II, which the inspired writer used, without asserting its truth, to show the decline of the race leading to the deluge. On Feb. 13, 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission said we may consider the possibility of implicit citations if there are solid reasons, and if it does not contradict the Church. Our case meets those standards.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=81&chapnum=0&id=2207&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=544465

Ghost stated:

From Job 1:

6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
7: The LORD said to Satan, “Whence have you come?” Satan answered the LORD, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

and from Numbers 13:

31: Then the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.”
32: So they brought to the people of Israel an evil report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone, to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature.
33: And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim); and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

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?

 

[donsnow]

Well, I’ve sat many a night, when I worked nights, and listened to Art Bell and George Norey present their guests and the ideas of the guests. I’ve heard Stephen Qualye several times and another man who wrote books on giants and angels (Michael Heiser?) present their thoughts on this topic. There seems to be a folk consensus that Nephilim were human children, who grew to be giants, who had a fallen angel for a sire and a human woman for a mother.
I call that a folk consensus, for good reason. I just wanted to let you know, I have heard these authors themselves speak on the radio, what they meant in their books.
I was misled by their speaking.

Ghostly and SHW, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, for casting the light of scripture onto this topic. I would like to stand with ya’ll, in this debate, because your use of scripture is appropriate and true, in my eyes.

I also have read a translation to the Book of Enoch I have here at home. I don’t remember anything in there about the Nephilim, so if it’s there it didn’t make an impression on me.

As far as giants, I think that were were giants. I have a The Complete Parallel Bible, which has four different Biblical translations side by side in the text. There are the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Revised English Bible (REB), the New American Bible (used by the St. Joseph Bible) (NAB) and the New Jerusalem Bible NJB). These are all Catholic Bibles. In 1 Samuel 17 we find the story of David and Goliath, and vs 4 describes Goliath. Out of the four, three have Goliath’s height as six cubits and a span. The standard cubit was 18". Only the NAB states that Goliath was 6 1/2’ tall. My Douay-Rheims (to me the authorative Catholic Bible) has Goliath’s height at six cubits and a span. I choose the four agreeing interpretations as Goliath’s height: 9 1/2’. That’s a giant.
I’ve also read of a giant Irishman whose bones were transported to his grave; I can’t remember the corpse’s length, but I have the impression it was greater than 9’. I’‘ve also twice in my life met two different men who stood 7’ tall, here in Texas. Then, there’s the French wrestler, Andre the Gentle Giant, who was measured at 8’ tall and seen by thousands of viewers in the middle Twentieth Century. Giants are not limited to the Holy Bible and only a very negative person would claim that Biblical giants were myth. They were real. We still have giants in our modern day, as I’ve shown above.
Each time I met a 7’ tall man here in Texas, I still stood 6’ tall and was not accustomed to craning my neck back to look any man in the eye . But, those two times I had to do just that:thumbsup:.

Anyway, after having been misled by MH’s and SQ’s wonderous tales, I will accept and go by Ghostly’s and SHW’s scriptural corrections about the Nephilim.

God is love,
Don

 

[Benadam]

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?

Romans 8

19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God.

Romans 8

23 And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.

Human sons adopted at the end, human sons who lost their inheritance at the beginning.

It’s fitting at the very least.