Nephilim: Angels, giants, or God's eugenics program? [Archive]

Tricky

29th January 2008, 07:31 AM

The bible never says the Nephilim were "angel-human hybrids". That is just one interpretation.

LLH
It's not real clear. Genesis 6:4 says:

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Not clear whether the Nephilim were the Sons of God or the children of the Sons of God and Daughters of Men.

King James says:
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
That makes it look like the Nephilim or "giants" were different from the Sons of God. So yes, it's very confusing.

But what is even more confusing is the very next verses.

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
or in the KJV:

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
So it is quite apparent that having the "Sons of God" interbreeding with the Daughters of Man (the earliest recorded evidence of eugenics) did nothing to improve the stock. In no time flat, they're so wicked that they have to be destroyed. Perhaps God only sent his juvenile delinquent sons, thus saving his pride-and-joy to clean up after them.

It's also not mentioned whether or not Noah is one or is descended from one of these half-breeds, but since God finds favor with him, one would suspect that he was. That would of course mean that the people on earth were NOT all descended from Adam and Eve, but from one of Noah's female ancestors and an unnamed Nephilim. It really throws a monkey wrench into things.

And I have to wonder why God didn't have any daughters to go mess around with the Sons of Man. Doesn't seem quite fair to either sex.

In any case, I must thank Radrook for bringing Nephilim into the equation. It really puts a much more pagan look onto the whole Christianity myth. Zeus and his children were always messing around with mortals too.

Tricky

29th January 2008, 07:33 AM

Genesis doesn't say that the earth is 6000 years old.
Well duh! It wasn't 6000 years old at the time of Genesis.

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:04 AM

Well duh! It wasn't 6000 years old at the time of Genesis.

Good semantic point! LOL

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:12 AM

The bible never says the Nephilim were "angel-human hybrids". That is just one interpretation.

LLH

Yes the Bible does say it in the book of Jude 1

6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Notice that the angels leaving the habitation is compared to what happened in Sodom and Gommorah. Even as in Sodom and Gomorrah the scripture says. Or just like it happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. The flesh that these rebel angels went after was strrange due to its being prohibited to them. In short, it was unnatural for this relationship to happen. Notice thatr both are set as an example in reference to this.

So ypou see, not all interpretations are equal. Some are out of harmony with what the rest of the Bible clearly tells us about the subject. So when these interpretations prove to be out of harmony with the rest of the Bible-then they identify themselves as erroenous. It's as simple as that.

Now, if we ignore what the rest of the Bible tells us and insist on our own understanding, then we are writing our own version of the Bible. Essenbtially, that's what has happened in relation to the preflood Genesis account in relation to the sons of God mentioned there. The only time the Bible uses te term sons of God is in reference toi angels.

Here is a description of a heavenly assembly where the asngels are called sons of god.

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

Below the sons of God are said to have been present when God created the earth.

(King James Version)

Job 38

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 08:18 AM

All interpretations aren't equal. How do we know? Because some interpretations are out of harmony with what the rest of the Bible clearly tells us about the subject. So when these interpretations prove to be out of hartmony with trhe rest of the Bible-then they identify themselves as erroenous. It's as simple as that.

Now, if we ignore what the rest of the Bible tells us and insist on our own understanding, then we are writing our own version of the Bible. Essenbtially, that's what has happened in relation to the preflood Genesis account in relation to the sons of God mentioned there.

Indeed so. Didn't Jesus say in response to a question about whose wife a woman would be in heaven if she remarried after her first husband's death that we would be like Angels and there would be no husband and wife. I take this to mean that the Angels are asexual and therefore there could be no Nephilim ....either that or heaven is a free for all sexytime ...hadn't thought of it like that before..:boggled: How does one join again?

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 08:19 AM

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:39 AM

Chapter and verse ?

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

Genesis 6:3-5 (King James Version)

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

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 08:41 AM

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

Genesis 6:3-5 (King James Version)

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

To be fair it doesn't say that they were rebels does it?

It also contradicts what Jesus said about Angels not really have such inclinations.

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 08:43 AM

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

Genesis 6:3-5 (King James Version)

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

You'll note in the verses you quoted the word "angel" did not appear.

LLH

Radrook

29th January 2008, 08:47 AM

Indeed so. Didn't Jesus say in response to a question about whose wife a woman would be in heaven if she remarried after her first husband's death that we would be like Angels and there would be no husband and wife. I take this to mean that the Angels are asexual and therefore there could be no Nephilim ....either that or heaven is a free for all sexytime ...hadn't thought of it like that before..:boggled: How does one join again?

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 08:55 AM

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

There is a fair bit of supposition there because I can't recall any comment in the Bible that says any of that or that God had a particular issue with the "mighty men of old" - am I forgetting something?

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 08:55 AM

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

So from one tiny vague snippet you have derived the above "facts"? Are you 100% sure?

LLH

Ladewig

29th January 2008, 09:06 AM

How's chances of putting the whole angels, human, and hybrid angels argument in its own thread and using this thread to discuss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 09:08 AM

How's chances of putting the whole angels, human, and hybrid angels argument in its own thread and using this thread to discuss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

Picky.

Ocelot

29th January 2008, 09:10 AM

Indeed so. Didn't Jesus say in response to a question about whose wife a woman would be in heaven if she remarried after her first husband's death that we would be like Angels and there would be no husband and wife. I take this to mean that the Angels are asexual and therefore there could be no Nephilim ....either that or heaven is a free for all sexytime ...hadn't thought of it like that before..:boggled: How does one join again?

yes that the common interpretation of Matthew 22:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:30&version=9)

This leads us to the scene in Kevin Smith's Dogma where Alan Rickman a the Archangel Metatron hoists his robe to show that he is "ill equipped"

Great film by the way.

Anyway people who study the crazy making Bible reckon that this apparent contradiction can be fixed by assuming that fallen angels (demons) possessed the bodies of ungodly men to produce evil offspring.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 09:18 AM

yes that the common interpretation of Matthew 22:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:30&version=9)

This leads us to the scene in Kevin Smith's Dogma where Alan Rickman a the Archangel Metatron hoists his robe to show that he is "ill equipped"

Great film by the way.

Anyway people who study the crazy making Bible reckon that this apparent contradiction can be fixed by assuming that fallen angels (demons) possessed the bodies of ungodly men to produce evil offspring.

A fair bit of assuming though because I am fairly sure neither are described as evil in a book not averse to ascribing a bit of blame. My own view is that the rather more fluid concept of dieties and their interaction with man were not completely ironed out of the earlier stories. These stories are rather more comparable with the myths of say Greece and similar mythologies and lack the rather heavy handed value judgements of later works.

Ocelot

29th January 2008, 09:52 AM

The only time the Bible uses the term "sons of God "is in reference to angels.

Well that's not really true is it. In Hosea 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=HOsea%201:10;&version=9;) the poeple of Isreal are called the sons of the Living God

10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

God tells David that his offsping will be God sons in II Samuel 7:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:14;&version=9;)

14I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

Jesus refered to himself as the Son of God numerous times. To be fair Jehovah's Witness's believe that Jesus had a pre human existance as the Archangel Michael. - being the only archangel and the first being created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Jesus.2C_the_son_of_God

So no contradiction there if you follow the JW's take on that doctrine but otherwise it's a problem to your assertion. Jesus also tells us that we're all Sons of God, or at least capable of becoming so. John 1:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:12;&version=9;)

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

So apart from not being true it's also pretty dodgy logic. You say that the "Sons of God" refered to in Genesis 6:4 are angels and to support that you suggest that the phrase "Sons of God" in the bible only relates to angels, however this supporting predicate assumes the truth of your conclusion.

It's like saying that the Duck billed platypus doesn't lay eggs because it suckles it's young with milk and no creature which suckles it's young with milk lays eggs.

One might as easily say that Nephlim or Giants is only used in the bible to discuss the offspring of humans and fallen angels, yet what of the post flood Nephlim in Numbers 13:33

33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

I don't know your take on this but many claim that these at least were human otherwise how did they survive the flood?

Tricky

29th January 2008, 09:58 AM

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heaven in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood angelic use of this power was sinful.
So let me get this straight. God loses control over his angels, they become material, sprout penises and start fornicating all over the place. So because He can't control His randy "sons" the world becomes a hotbed of sin, even worse than Las Vegas. To correct His mistake, God punishes every living thing on earth. Is that about right?

And people wonder why atheists don't look to the bible for moral guidance.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 10:08 AM

Belz...

29th January 2008, 10:16 AM

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

That omniscient deity should've seen that coming.

not all interpretations are equal. Some are out of harmony with what the rest of the Bible clearly tells us about the subject.

It's difficult for the bibble to be in harmony with itself, though. See Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

The nephilim mentioned in Genesis were the hybrid offspring of humans and rebel angels.

So I take it "sons of God" means angels ? Are we sure about that, and how do we know they were rebels ?

Jesus was referring to angels as they are in heavenb in their natural spiritual state.
Angels in their natural spirit state are asexual. But the angels who did what they did left their natural stae and materialized bodies in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. This materialization was of itself not sinful since we are told that angels such as Gabriel and others did materialize to bring messages to mankind. However, the purpose of the preflood
angelic use of this power was sinful.

And, exactly where do you find evidential support for that bit of explanation ?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 10:34 AM

If Angels rebelled and took physical form does that mean they free will? If so what is man's role in the Divine Comedy? In what way are we different if at all?

Radrook

30th January 2008, 06:31 AM

Except there is one thing about your statement that isn't simple. Determining which interpretations are in conflict with other parts is also an opinion.

If the Bible were a a hodge podge of unrelated writings, having no central theme as you imagine it to be, then your statement might be applicable, But since it isn't, it is not.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,....

No matter what crazy system you come up with your going to be left with opinions and lots of them.

And the crazy ones will be out of harmony with basic biblical theology and make themselves immediately identifiable because they cause biblical disharmony.

That is unless god speaks directly to you, in which case you don't need the bible.

LLH

That's your idea, not mine.
The scriptures are sufficient in providing us with the clear accurate knowledge that is needed.

2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 06:37 AM

The bible never says the Nephilim were "angel-human hybrids". That is just one interpretation.

LLH

First, do you need to put the "laughing out loud" comment in your response? What purpose does it serve to do that-further the diuscussion-or discourage further diuscussion? The only thing I see it accomplishing is terminating the discussion With YOU and continuing the discussion with someone who doesn't have that irritating obnoxious need.

BYE!

BTW

I have a choice as to what I allow to appear on my computor screen or not. Ever occur to you?

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 06:41 AM

volatile

30th January 2008, 06:57 AM

Except there is one thing about your statement that isn't simple. Determining which interpretations are in conflict with other parts is also an opinion. No matter what crazy system you come up with your going to be left with opinions and lots of them. That is unless god speaks directly to you, in which case you don't need the bible.

LLH

He's a Jehovah's Witness. God talks directly to the Watchtower Council, 12 old white guys in Brooklyn, who then pass on the teachings in pamphlet form. No opinions needed in Radrook's reality, just obedience to the party line.

Tricky

30th January 2008, 07:15 AM

And the crazy ones will be out of harmony with basic biblical theology and make themselves immediately identifiable because they cause biblical disharmony.
Who determines which ones are out of harmony? (And don't say "God" because he has the annoying tendency to tell people exactly what they already believed.)

The scriptures are sufficient in providing us with the clear accurate knowledge that is needed.
Is it so clear that is no disagreement among Christians about what knowledge is revealed by the scriptures?

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 07:22 AM

Who determines which ones are out of harmony? (And don't say "God" because he has the annoying tendency to tell people exactly what they already believed.)

Is it so clear that is no disagreement among Christians about what knowledge is revealed by the scriptures?

Or indeed what they were just intending to believe.

I think it would be fair to say that Christians have disagreed quite unpleasantly about what the Bible says a number of times. The Catharists felt the full brunt of what disagreement means.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 07:27 AM

Well that's not really true is it. In Hosea 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=HOsea%201:10;&version=9;) the poeple of Isreal are called the sons of the Living God

God tells David that his offsping will be God sons in II Samuel 7:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:14;&version=9;)

Jesus refered to himself as the Son of God numerous times. To be fair Jehovah's Witness's believe that Jesus had a pre human existance as the Archangel Michael. - being the only archangel and the first being created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Jesus.2C_the_son_of_God

So no contradiction there if you follow the JW's take on that doctrine but otherwise it's a problem to your assertion. Jesus also tells us that we're all Sons of God, or at least capable of becoming so. John 1:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:12;&version=9;)

So apart from not being true it's also pretty dodgy logic. You say that the "Sons of God" refered to in Genesis 6:4 are angels and to support that you suggest that the phrase "Sons of God" in the bible only relates to angels, however this supporting predicate assumes the truth of your conclusion.

It's like saying that the Duck billed platypus doesn't lay eggs because it suckles it's young with milk and no creature which suckles it's young with milk lays eggs.

One might as easily say that Nephlim or Giants is only used in the bible to discuss the offspring of humans and fallen angels, yet what of the post flood Nephlim in Numbers 13:33

I don't know your take on this but many claim that these at least were human otherwise how did they survive the flood?

You are right. My premise was faulty. Thanx for bringing that premise fallacy to my attention.

BTW

I realized it was faulty and could easily be refuted but inexplicably did not delete it. A fact which at the moment is baffling me. In any case, thanx once again. : )

Radrook

30th January 2008, 07:32 AM

He's a Jehovah's Witness.

Go tell that to my local JW elders so they can LOL. Better yet, go tell my kids.

God talks directly to the Watchtower Council, 12 old white guys in Brooklyn, who then pass on the teachings in pamphlet form. No opinions needed in Radrook's reality, just obedience to the party line.

Obedience to the party line? What party line? And you know all this based on what? Your feverish imagination-of course.

BTW
Is this all you have to add to the discussion? Snide remarks about personal matters you know nothing about?

Well, OK then.
Bye!

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 07:38 AM

You are right. My premise was faulty. Thanx for bringing that premise fallacy to my attention.

BTW

I realized it was faulty and could easily be refuted but inexplicably did not delete it. A fact which at the moment is baffling me. In any case, thanx once again. : )

Your thanks are appreciated.

Do you still believe that the Nephilim in the story of Genesis were the offspring of angels though? If so would you accept that a solely human origin still a valid alternative interpretation of scripture? What about the Nephlim of Numbers?

Radrook

30th January 2008, 07:54 AM

Your thanks are appreciated.

Do you still believe that the Nephilim in the story of Genesis were the offspring of angels though? If so would you accept that a solely human origin still a valid alternative interpretation of scripture? What about the Nephlim of Numbers?

Sure! An alternate explanation that would correct one that is faulty is acceptable. I try to illuminate but I can also benefit from illumination if it is legitimate. Actually, since the issue is a non-salvational one it is certainly open to modification if modification is deserved. In short, believing or not believing that they were angels doesn't in any way affect my status before God whatever that status might chance to be. : )

However, I still tend to believe they were angels based on 2 Peter and Jude. The nephilim mentioned in the Exodus account by the Israelite spies could have been an exaggeration on the part of the spies due to their fear of the size of the warriors they saw.
As to the reference of Nephilim in Numbers, I have read about the interpretation of their tribal names as being indirect references to Nephilim. I always discounted such conclusions on the fact that the flood was intended to wipe out the seen and that the angels involved had been prevented from repeating their pre-flood activity. Their restriction I understood to be made mention in Jude where tartarus is mentioned.

volatile

30th January 2008, 08:01 AM

Go tell that to my local JW elders so they can LOL. Better yet, go tell my kids.

Oh, sorry. I was a pretty obvious conclusion though - I just presumed that when you were supporting JW doctrine and dogmatic interpretations of scripture, dealing out apologetics for the Watchtower and castigating any alternative opinions all over this forum, it was because you were a JW. You're not? Were you ever?

Obedience to the party line? What party line? And you know all this based on what? Your feverish imagination-of course.Based on your posts on the subject of Witnesses, and my knowledge of the organisational practices of the Watchtower organisation, wherein disobedience from the approved thoughtline results in disfellowshipping.

If you're not a JW, you do a damn fine impression of one.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 08:07 AM

So let me get this straight. God loses control over his angels, they become material, sprout penises and start fornicating all over the place. So because He can't control His randy "sons" the world becomes a hotbed of sin, even worse than Las Vegas. To correct His mistake, God punishes every living thing on earth. Is that about right?

The problem is that you are not getting it straight. You are twisting it to fit your anti-Christian ant-biblical agenda.

If I said that it was impossible for aliens somewhere in space to sprout penises then you would jump up and object by saying "Um. and how do you know that?" I would then say "Because it's ridiculous!" Whereupon you would again jack-box up and say????

As for control, it's been explained a thousand or more times but to no avail that God is permitting these things with the purpose of giving mankind what they wanted, the right to choose their own ways. They sided with Satan from the start and that's what they received.

Whose mistake then was it?

Which of course will only serve to provoke another barrage of ill-conceived conclusions and totally irrelevant questions.

And people wonder why atheists don't look to the bible for moral guidance.

You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I could very well say No wonder Christians tend to avoid turning into atheists in view of their crazy ideas. From a Chrsitian standpoint, of course. But I won't because that comment derails the subject away from context into the personal criticism of freedom of choice area which is not open to negotiation.

volatile

30th January 2008, 08:08 AM

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 08:20 AM

Interesting, Why is it that we can presume that the spies in numbers exagerated but not peter or jude?

Beerina

30th January 2008, 08:26 AM

...but "siding with Satan" seems to include things definitely bad, like murder and theft, and things that modern society doesn't consider bad at all, like varied sexuality and sexual freedom. And, apparently, enslaving people was not considered as part of "siding with Satan".

So at this point, if the God hypothesis is true, then we're all in for a world of hurt, siding-with-Satan-wise, because clearly God is immoral.

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 08:27 AM

Wait, wait. Some of us seem to be having a "Is Deckard a Replicant?" conversation, and others seem to be having one more akin to "Who built Stonehenge?".

You really believe that the Nephilim actually existed, in reality, don't you, Radrook? Can we rewind to that bonkers assertion before we get onto discussing what colour hats they wore?

Party hats with the coloured tips?

I think the argument was they didn't :)

I do have a slight issue with the "whose fault is that" line. Firstly, I am not sure the serpent was Lucifer and secondly aren't the innocent easy to take advantage of and a protective parent knows this? God didn't cut them much slack did he? One mistake and death and pain are theirs for ever - not just them but all their descendents. It is not that I have a big gripe about this but rather that it just doesn't ring true as a working theology. It seems too small and petty to be literally true to my poor brain.

Tricky

30th January 2008, 08:30 AM

If I said that it was impossible for aliens somewhere in space to sprout penises then you would jump up and object by saying "Um. and how do you know that?" I would then say "Because it's ridiculous!" Whereupon you would again jack-box up and say????
I responded to what appeared to be the way you described Nephilim and in keeping with what the bible said. You said they were asexual in heaven, but became sexual on earth. The bible says they interbred with women. The very next thing the bible says is that God has found that the earth has grown too wicked. Now maybe that's making an intuitive leap, but I can't help but think that if anything else important happened in that gap, then the bible would have mentioned it, don't you think? How many generations were there between the coming of the Nephilim and Noah? (And did Bishop Usher take them into account?)

So don't give me your straw man. I'm trying to discover what you think the Nephilim have to do with anything. I even asked you if it was right. If it is wrong, I would expect you to tell me what you think really happened.
As for control, it's been explained a thouisand or more times that God is permitting these things with the purpose of giving mankind what they wanted, the right to choose their own ways.
How does releasing horny angels fit in with what mankind wanted? How does sending Nephilim or giants or whatever give mankind a choice? It sounds like he is allowing celestial beings (his own sons) to dominate mankind.

Whose mistake then was it?God made the mistake, obviously, unless you can show me where humans asked for the Nephilim.

But another thing strikes me as odd. Whether called giants or Nephilim, these creatures are described as "the sons of God". Given how much of the bible is devoted to just one of God's progeny, it seems quite odd that all these other sons get only a single verse. And what about these children they sired? Jesus was the son begotten by God himself, but all these others are, at worst, begotten grandchildren of God. Don't you think they'd be aware of that? If so, why would they be so wicked? Is the seed of God that bad?

Really, this is a fascinating part of the bible that I never realized the implications of before. It doesn't do God any credit either that his own sons have so little respect for him.

Radrook

30th January 2008, 08:31 AM

If Angels rebelled and took physical form does that mean they free will? If so what is man's role in the Divine Comedy? In what way are we different if at all?

Free will within the parameters of law just as we have freedom under democracy within the aameters of law.

The difference betwen angels and man is that we are material and they are spirit. They have greater power and are physically closer to God .

2 Peter 2:10-12 (King James Version)

11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Hebrews 2:6-8 (King James Version)

6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; ....

This Guy

30th January 2008, 08:42 AM

SNIP

God made the mistake, obviously, unless you can show me where humans asked for the Nephilim.

As I understand it, there was a miscommunication and a time slip of some sort.

It was Moses, when he was trying to deal with the Pharaoh. He asked for Napalm, and the requisition got fouled up, and, well, you know the rest.

:boxedin:

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 08:47 AM

As I understand it, there was a miscommunication and a time slip of some sort.

It was Moses, when he was trying to deal with the Pharaoh. He asked for Napalm, and the requisition got fouled up, and, well, you know the rest.

:boxedin:

"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle"
- Arthur Dent

Radrook

30th January 2008, 09:08 AM

I responded to what appeared to be the way you described Nephilim and in keeping with what the bible said. You said they were asexual in heaven, but became sexual on earth. The bible says they interbred with women.

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female although the Bible refers to them as sons and Genesis tells us that they took INTEREST only in women and not men as far as carnal relations were concerned which from my viewpoint is understandable. You need not be sexual being to take interest in the sexual activity of sexual beings and wonder just how such things would be experienced. There are humans who take interest in animals for sexual purposes. Or taking the example a bit further, I might not be an alien but I might take INTEREST in a certain activity which the aliens seem to find extremely pleasurable and if I had the power I might want to experience that activity and even be willing to face the consequences to experience it if another human who had would constantly brag about it in my presence as I am sure Satan did.

The very next thing the bible says is that God has found that the earth has grown too wicked. Now maybe that's making an intuitive leap, but I can't help but think that if anything else important happened in that gap, then the bible would have mentioned it, don't you think? How many generations were there between the coming of the Nephilim and Noah? (And did Bishop Usher take them into account?)

The earth growing wicked is said to have occurred simultaneously with the sons of God taking interest in the daughters of men. Clearly there is a contrast being made here between these sons of God[b] and mankind since otherwise the human females would not have been referred to as daughters [b]of men as OPPOSED TO sons of God.

So don't give me your straw man. I'm trying to discover what you think the Nephilim have to do with anything. I even asked you if it was right. If it is wrong, I would expect you to tell me what you think really happened.

Strawman?

How does releasing horny angels fit in with what mankind wanted? How does sending Nephilim or giants or whatever give mankind a choice? It sounds like he is allowing celestial beings (his own sons) to dominate mankind.

What you describe as horniness you do so because you are looking at the matter through human eyes. It could just as well be described as intense curiosity interest. What you express as releasing can also be expressed as allowing or permitting freedom of choice. Mankind's choice was to go it on their own while siding with the enemy of God Satan. The consequences of disobedience they knew would be death. At least Adam knew. Eve was deceived into believing the tripe Satan spewed out. In any case, Adam's choice was to rebel. He knew that would put him in league with whatever it was that was using the serpent as a puppet but he chose to take his chances.

As for mankind's being dominated. It sounds to me like mankind was having a party with these rebel angels. Even going so far as to cooperating with them in producing hybrids.

God made the mistake, obviously, unless you can show me where humans asked for the Nephilim.

When you choose to reject divine protection and guidance those bad things happen which you might not have expected but should have. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

grandchildren[/I] of God. Don't you think they'd be aware of that? If so, why would they be so wicked? Is the seed of God that bad?
Really, this is a fascinating part of the bible that I never realized the implications of before. It doesn't do God any credit either that his own sons have so little respect for him.

When God created he proclaimed his creation good. In order for him to proclaim it good, it could not be a programmed robotic creation incapable of making choices. If it were robotic then he would have viewed it as bad. God did what he had to do. From that point on, the creatures he created had to used their faculties as they were carefully instructed to stay witthin the parameters of God's advice. That this creation made the wrong choices is its responsibility.

God could not allow sin without a negative consequence because that would encourage sin in HIS universe. So the freedom given had to be a relative one just as the freedom we enjoy under our democracies has to be a relative in order to encourage people to abide by conduct which is not harmful to others and themselves.

Being sons of God means only that their life can be traced to God. Some sons choose to be obedient-others choose not to be. The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God? Or better said, how much credit does that do him?

There are parents who bring up their kids with love and yet their kids grow up to be ingrates anyway. What does that say about the parents?

BTW

When I say that his creation could not be robotic and be considered good I am referring to intelligent creatures who would be made in his image. Obviously ants and other insects are robotic and are still considered good.

Akhenaten

30th January 2008, 09:09 AM

Didn't Lara Croft kill off the last of the Nephilim?

Gord_in_Toronto

30th January 2008, 09:09 AM

Free will within the parameters of law just as we have freedom under democracy within the aameters of law.

The difference betwen angels and man is that we are material and they are spirit. They have greater power and are physically closer to God .

2 Peter 2:10-12 (King James Version)

11Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Hebrews 2:6-8 (King James Version)

6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; ....

So angels rebel and they still get to hang around heaven all day and their leader, Satan, gets to make bets with God (vide Job) but we poor humans, who were created by God as less than angels, get screwed around on Earth before being sent to Hell.

Cognative Dissonance anyone?

:boggled:

Ocelot

30th January 2008, 09:50 AM

The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God?

Do you have a biblical reference for that. I've variously seen numbers from a tenth to a third of angels sided with Satan but I don't know if that's from the bible or from peripheral sources like Milton.

Also you cited Jude 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:6;&version=9;) as evidence that the Nephilim of Numbers could not be the son of fallen angels as these were now chained beneath the earth.

If that so what of Satan being in God presence and wandering the earth in Job?

Furthermore what about exocism? Was the unclean spirit cast out by Jesus in Mark 1:21-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:21-28;&version=9;) a fallen angel.

Does this suggest to you that angels continue to turn their back on God even after the fall of Satan.

If so what does this tell you?

edge

30th January 2008, 09:56 AM

After Adam And Eve sinned, God cast down to Earth, Satan and his Rebel Angels.
They had more influence up untill the flood and less after.

The word which is translated, "giants", in the King James version of the Bible is, in Hebrew, "Nephilim", which means, "Those who fell, or ... the fallen ones". Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven". These fallen angels came to earth for a serious purpose.
The "fallen ones" sought to merge with the bloodline of Adam, because of the promise to send a redeemer through Adam's kinsman. The Hebrew says that the Sons of God saw that the women were a fit "extension", for they sought to extend themselves into this realm from the spirit realm, as well as to extend themselves into the "children of the promise" the lineage of Adam. Satan tried to prevent the eventual birth, in the distant future, of the Messiah.

The mating of human beings with angels resulted in hybrid creatures, evil spirits with human bodies. The human \ angel hybrids began to corrupt and destroy the human race, resulting in the Deluge, "the end of all flesh" except Noah and his family.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/chamishgiants.html
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

Nogbad

30th January 2008, 10:17 AM

Do you have a biblical reference for that. I've variously seen numbers from a tenth to a third of angels sided with Satan but I don't know if that's from the bible or from peripheral sources like Milton.

Also you cited Jude 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:6;&version=9;) as evidence that the Nephilim of Numbers could not be the son of fallen angels as these were now chained beneath the earth.

If that so what of Satan being in God presence and wandering the earth in Job?

Furthermore what about exocism? Was the unclean spirit cast out by Jesus in Mark 1:21-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:21-28;&version=9;) a fallen angel.

Does this suggest to you that angels continue to turn their back on God even after the fall of Satan.

If so what does this tell you?

It has been suggested that the verse in Revelation 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

indicates that a third of the heavenly host fell with him. (Reveleation is a bit weird though so it could mean loads of other things too)

Any rebellion that pulls a third of Government, Army or whatever is significant. It begs the question why? Why would so many having seen heaven and God rebel?

LordoftheLeftHand

30th January 2008, 11:28 AM

Madalch

30th January 2008, 02:00 PM

It appears to me that Adam was not the first human, but simply the first Hebrew- the first of the chosen people. His kids found plenty of non-Hebrew women to marry.

I'm not surprised that the early Hebrew (or Hebrewish tribes, if you prefer) would have considered themselves proper "men" and other people as not men. There are cultures today who have no word for themselves other than the equivalent of "the people" (which I guess makes foreigners "not-really-people").

Garrette

30th January 2008, 02:09 PM

Frankly, were I to become a believer again, I'd toss in with Old Nick (or the god of this world, according to 2 Cor 4:4). He got bad press, but a close reading of his actions reveals him to be a damned site more straightforward and trustworthy than the opposition.

Tricky

30th January 2008, 02:21 PM

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female although the Bible refers to them as sons and Genesis tells us that they took INTEREST only in women and not men as far as carnal relations were concerned which from my viewpoint is understandable.
Well, FIRST of all, the only one that says the Nephilim were angels is you. Certainly the bible doesn't mention it. Of course, the bible mentions Nephilim a grand total of one time. But yes, that description calls them male and they "came in unto the daughters of men". But just because things don't marry does not mean "they are neither male nor female." Not by a long shot. On an unrelated note, do you think God is "neither male nor female"?

You need not be sexual being to take interest in the sexual activity of sexual beings and wonder just how such things would be experienced.
LOL. You think? Are you aware of the role excitement plays in impregnating women? What you are suggesting makes no sense at all.

There are humans who take interest in animals for sexual purposes. Or taking the example a bit further, I might not be an alien but I might take INTEREST in a certain activity which the aliens seem to find extremely pleasurable and if I had the power I might want to experience that activity and even be willing to face the consequences to experience it if another human who had would constantly brag about it in my presence as I am sure Satan did.
If you find sexual acts (with anything) pleasurable, then you are sexual. That's how it works.

The earth growing wicked is said to have occurred simultaneously with the sons of God taking interest in the daughters of men. Clearly there is a contrast being made here between these sons of God and mankind since otherwise the human females would not have been referred to as daughters of men as OPPOSED TO sons of God.
Where is it said that this occurred simultaneously? It looks as if a few chapters fell out of the book. And why would females be referred to as "sons of God" anyway? I can't understand what you're trying to say here.

Strawman? Yes. Your presumption of what I would "jump up and say" is what is called a "strawman" (i.e. it is your creation that you then burn). It is you criticizing me for something you only imagine I would do.

What you describe as horniness you do so because you are looking at the matter through human eyes. It could just as well be described as intense curiosity interest.
No it can't, at least not rationally. They impregnated the women. That isn't curiosity. That is sexuality.

What you express as releasing can also be expressed as allowing or permitting freedom of choice. Mankind's choice was to go it on their own while siding with the enemy of God Satan. The consequences of disobedience they knew would be death. At least Adam knew. Eve was deceived into believing the tripe Satan spewed out. In any case, Adam's choice was to rebel. He knew that would put him in league with whatever it was that was using the serpent as a puppet but he chose to take his chances.
This isn't man you are talking about. These are Gods sons. Did he make them naturally sinful too, or did they have their own "Garden of Eden" incident where they chose Satan? If they are angels, as you suggest, then there is no reason you should ever trust what an angel says because they might be a free agent, exercising their free will. They appear to be quite susceptible to Satan.

As for mankind's being dominated. It sounds to me like mankind was having a party with these rebel angels. Even going so far as to cooperating with them in producing hybrids.
Co-operating? Where does it say that? These are Sons of God, mind you. Do you think that women would have the will or even the ability to resist them? You're saying humans are at fault for not being able to resist demigods. Or is this like a "blame the women for the rape" thing?

When you choose to reject divine protection and guidance those bad things happen which you might not have expected but should have. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Ah, I see. So they deserved it.

When God created he proclaimed his creation good. In order for him to proclaim it good, it could not be a programmed robotic creation incapable of making choices. If it were robotic then he would have viewed it as bad. God did what he had to do. From that point on, the creatures he created had to used their faculties as they were carefully instructed to stay within the parameters of God's advice. That this creation made the wrong choices is its responsibility.
This is yet another definition of "good" that I am not familiar with. God gives them the ability to choose, puts temptation in their path, and then blames them for the fall? If this is the way God really is, then I would have a hard time describing Him as "good".

God could not allow sin without a negative consequence because that would encourage sin in HIS universe. So the freedom given had to be a relative one just as the freedom we enjoy under our democracies has to be a relative in order to encourage people to abide by conduct which is not harmful to others and themselves.
I fail to see where the God you describe is particularly adept at determining what is a "sin". He is cruel and manipulative, a terrible father, a mass murderer, (yes, that flood must have destroyed quite a number of innocent and even unborn babies) and psychotically vain. But eating certain fruit gets you punished for eternity. Is this who you look to for answers on right and wrong? :boggled:

Being sons of God means only that their life can be traced to God. Some sons choose to be obedient-others choose not to be. The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God? Or better said, how much credit does that do him?
LOL. Were are you getting your numbers? How do you know how many Nephilim there were? Besides, any good parent knows that obedience isn't an "off/on" thing. Children are obedient in some things and not in others and the amount they are obedient varies from child to child and as they grow. I realize such a concept doesn't fit into a set of beliefs where everything is either "good" or "sinful", but that's reality. It is much different from myths.

There are parents who bring up their kids with love and yet their kids grow up to be ingrates anyway. What does that say about the parents?
It depends. We usually hear these stories from parents. Ask the kids if they grew up with love and you may get a different story. But again, kids aren't either all good or all evil. Neither are parents. That only happens in fairy tales.

When I say that his creation could not be robotic and be considered good I am referring to intelligent creatures who would be made in his image. Obviously ants and other insects are robotic and are still considered good.
Again, another use of "good" that makes no sense. Ants just do what they do, whether it be cleaning up the detritus lying all over the earth, or stinging the living crap out of some poor baby who steps into their ant bed.

And if you think ants are robotic, then you never owned an ant farm. Don't be too proud of your big brain. It hasn't yet proved that it is a successful long-term adaptation.

LordoftheLeftHand

30th January 2008, 04:40 PM

First, do you need to put the "laughing out loud" comment in your response? What purpose does it serve to do that-further the diuscussion-or discourage further diuscussion? The only thing I see it accomplishing is terminating the discussion With YOU and continuing the discussion with someone who doesn't have that irritating obnoxious need.

BYE!

BTW

I have a choice as to what I allow to appear on my computor screen or not. Ever occur to you?

You know I've posted the letters "LLH" thousands of times on most (if not all) of my post around the internet and not once (until today) has anyone ever accused me of making fun of them (at least with that part of my post :)).

I think this misunderstanding helps make the point I and others have tried to make: That your interpretation of the vague verses of the bible MIGHT be totally wrong. After all you (and everyone else) are only human and fallible.

On a side note: Even at NCH Pakistan (a homeopathic website in Pakistan I sometimes post at) was it immediately recognized as an abbreviation for my moniker.

What evidence is there for the "law of similars"? Has this been shown to be reproducible, double blind tested, and subjected to peer review?

LLH

LordoftheLeftHand, welcome http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

Thanks for suggesting the abbreviation (LLH) of so difficult user name.

LLH

Silentknight

30th January 2008, 05:45 PM

LordoftheLeftHand

30th January 2008, 10:07 PM

According to extra-biblical Jewish texts, such as the Book of Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#The_Book_of_the_Watchers), the Nephilim are clearly described as human-angel hybrids. In fact, The Book of Jubilees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees) says that one of Jehovah's goals in causing the great flood was to rid the Earth of the Nephilim. Point is, you do have to go outside the bible to find out about their origins, because the bible itself doesn't provide all the details.

I suppose the real lesson here is that the bible is not and never was meant to paint a complete picture. There are numerous extraneous writings available to the Jews of the time, such as the books I mentioned, which the biblical authors assumed the target audience would be familiar with. Some extraneous books are even mentioned in biblical passages, like how Kings and Chronicles mention the "Annals of the Kings of Israel."

But now you've opened a can of worms. Since you accept "non biblical" sources, you now have to make a judgment on what non biblical sources you are going to accept and which ones you won't. Lets see where this leaves us:

1. Must use an opinion to determine which non biblical books are valid sources.

2. Must use an opinion to determine what the source really means.

With the above criteria i think you could support any statement, no matter how ludicrous.

LLH

halofish2000

30th January 2008, 11:32 PM

These extraneous writings may not be inspired but are inspiring. Especially if one wants to read some Hebrew history. No, the Bible was never meant to be a complete history lesson. Besides, the boook of Enoch is quoted over 100 times in the NT.

Radrook

31st January 2008, 12:34 AM

So angels rebel and they still get to hang around heaven all day and their leader, Satan, gets to make bets with God (vide Job) but we poor humans, who were created by God as less than angels, get screwed around on Earth before being sent to Hell.

Cognative Dissonance anyone?

:boggled:

Wow! With that understanding-no wonder you are an atheist!

Radrook

31st January 2008, 01:50 AM

It has been suggested that the verse in Revelation 12:4

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

indicates that a third of the heavenly host fell with him. (Reveleation is a bit weird though so it could mean loads of other things too)

Any rebellion that pulls a third of Government, Army or whatever is significant. It begs the question why? Why would so many having seen heaven and God rebel?

Numbers are not an indicator of rightness. The majority of Germans under Hitler supported his policies. What does that say about the rightness or morality of his policies. Nothing except that they agreed with them.

In reference to God, it's no mystery why they rebelled. They preferred to do things their way instead of the way God said things should be done. Why? Because as Satan said, in that way they would become like God being able to say what was good or evil. Which essentially meant that they could do things in any manner they pleased regardless of consequences.

Now, if we agree with Satan and these rebels that God is wrong and they were right in this matter. Then we would have to agree with theft, murder, and even with demon possession, which they were quite willing to inflict-and a host of other things which are generally recognized as crimes by mankind in general.

So even if the majority had rebelled and only a third had remained faithful that still would not prove the rightness of their rebellion nor that God was being unjust.

Radrook

31st January 2008, 02:50 AM

Do you have a biblical reference for that. I've variously seen numbers from a tenth to a third of angels sided with Satan but I don't know if that's from the bible or from peripheral sources like Milton.

The book of Revelation tells us that a third joined the rebellion. The reference to a tenth must be from a non-biblical source. I don't recall reading it in Milton's Paradise Lost, but perhaps in one of his poems? Here is a scripture which does give us specific numbers of angels present in heaven.

Daniel 7:10
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Also you cited Jude 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%201:6;&version=9;) as evidence that the Nephilim of Numbers could not be the son of fallen angels as these were now chained beneath the earth.

About the tribes encountered in Canaan, which some presently say proves they were of Nephilim descent, these could have been erroneously referred to as Nephilim by the Hebrew scouts sent to spy out the land due to the fear they had of fighting these big men. Of course even if they had been Nephilim that would have been no justification for their lack of faith and cowardice.

If that so what of Satan being in God presence and wandering the earth in Job?

Prior to Noah's day no mention of other angels joining Satan in his rebellion is made. So prior to this act these angels enjoyed privileged positions in God's service in heaven under God''s guidance which is referred to in the Bible repeatedly as light. When they rebelled, they lost their privileged position and were now far from the source of light which is God Himself since they had gained His disapproval. In short, they were now symbolically in deep spiritual darkness. Or Tartarus.

However, they were not restriction from wandering the earth or even entering heaven. This conclusion isn't just based on the book of Job. The book of Revelation which spoke of things that would tale place in the future, tells us that the hurlling of Satan and his demons out of heaven would be in the future. In other words, during the first century Satan and his angelic followers still had access to heaven and their restriction from entering heaven would need to wait until the time of the end since that is what John's vision is about.

In short, Revelation provides the answer to the question. It also guides us in our understanding of what tartarus did not mean. It did not mean a restriction from access to heaven or wandering about on the earth.

Furthermore what about exocism? Was the unclean spirit cast out by Jesus in Mark 1:21-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201:21-28;&version=9;) a fallen angel.

Does this suggest to you that angels continue to turn their back on God even after the fall of Satan. If so what does this tell you?

Actually, it doesn't tell me anything concerning the time when the angels involved in that possession rebelled. It could have been either during or after the flood. One thing is for sure, however, they also were in the spiritual darkness far from God's light as represented by tartarus.

What partnership does righteousness have with immorality, or what fellowship does light have with darkness?
2nd Corinthians 6:14

But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to be preserved in order that you might proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of the darkness into His marvelous light.
1st Peter 2:9

But you, brothers, are not in darkness that the day [of the Lord] should catch you like a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness.
1st Thessalonians 5:4-5

In Him was life, and this life was the light of men. And this light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not quenched it.
John 1:4-5

And this is the message which we have heard from Him and report to you, that God is light, and in Him is there is no darkness.
1st John 1:5

Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.
James 1:17

And the city has no need of the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God illuminated it and the Lamb was its lamp. And the nations will walk by its light.
Revelation 21:23-24

Ocelot

31st January 2008, 03:39 AM

The majority of the angels or sons of God chose to remain faithful. What does that say about God?

I think it's worth revisiting this question now that you have provided your own answer...

So even if the majority had rebelled and only a third had remained faithful that still would not prove the rightness of their rebellion nor that God was being unjust.

It says nothing.

Nogbad

31st January 2008, 03:48 AM

Numbers are not an indicator of rightness. The majority of Germans under Hitler supported his policies. What does that say about the rightness or morality of his policies. Nothing except that they agreed with them.

In reference to God, it's no mystery why they rebelled. They preferred to do things their way instead of the way God said things should be done. Why? Because as Satan said, in that way they would become like God being able to say what was good or evil. Which essentially meant that they could do things in any manner they pleased regardless of consequences.

Now, if we agree with Satan and these rebels that God is wrong and they were right in this matter. Then we would have to agree with theft, murder, and even with demon possession, which they were quite willing to inflict-and a host of other things which are generally recognized as crimes by mankind in general.

So even if the majority had rebelled and only a third had remained faithful that still would not prove the rightness of their rebellion nor that God was being unjust.

I am far from convinced that the majority of Germans supported Hitler but it is true that those with reservations kept silent. However, that is by and by. It is of course true that in itself a majority does not necessarily confer an automatic pass into being right.

The question I was actually posing was that one assumes Angels are not stupid. Why did they rebel if they knew that God merely had to say a word and they would cease to exist? (assuming omnipotence for God). It does not make sense. If one were to argue that they had no option but to rebel because it was God's will then that opens one huge can of worms.

There also appears to be an automatic assumption that rebelling Angels automatically favour stealing, rape etc, etc, Why would this be the case? Their rebellion might be because they thought God was too soft on such matters. Is it a case of demonising the demons?

I would consider myself an agnostic leaning towards atheism but if I were to lean the other way I would find it hard to accommodate such a maze of woolly concepts like angelic rebellions, the "fall" not to mention floods and arks which are way beyond the pale. I cannot see any logic in the train of thought at all.

Ocelot

31st January 2008, 03:54 AM

However, they were not restriction from wandering the earth or even entering heaven. This conclusion isn't just based on the book of Job. The book of Revelation which spoke of things that would tale place in the future, tells us that the hurlling of Satan and his demons out of heaven would be in the future. In other words, during the first century Satan and his angelic followers still had access to heaven and their restriction from entering heaven would need to wait until the time of the end since that is what John's vision is about.

Now I'm really confused. Perhaps you could clarify. In post 35 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385021&postcount=35) You said that you didn't beleive that the Nephilim of Numbers were the spawn of fallen angels as God had chained the bad angels in Tartarus as descibed in Jude 6 and 2 Peter and all the other Nephilim had been wiped out in the flood

Now your suggesting that the fallen angels of that time of Numbers still had access not only to earth but to heaven. And that the chaining of the fallen angels in Tartarus hasn't even happend yet but is a prediction for the end times. Surely then new Nephilim could have been sired after the flood and the Nephilim of Numbers could indeed be angel/deamon spawn.

When even approximately did/will the fall of Satan and his rebel host occur?

Nogbad

31st January 2008, 04:01 AM

LordoftheLeftHand

31st January 2008, 04:07 AM

When even approximately did/will the fall of Satan and his rebel host occur?

I'm telling you, he's gonna say 1917 (+/- 5 years).

LLH

Belz...

31st January 2008, 10:47 AM

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female

How does that follow ?

if I had the power I might want to experience that activity and even be willing to face the consequences to experience it if another human who had would constantly brag about it in my presence as I am sure Satan did.

Do you have anything but speculation ?

arthwollipot

31st January 2008, 02:32 PM

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female.How does that follow ?Clearly by this reasoning, since I am unmarried, I must be neither male nor female.

My son will be so surprised...

RobRoy

31st January 2008, 04:55 PM

I'm not certain what the OP is supposed to be asking, but from the thread topic it seems to ask what the Bible is referencing.

The answer for Nephilim, depends on who you ask.

If it's the Catholics, then they are an aboriginal population who inhabited Palestine "around the fourth millenium B.C.": We hear occasionally of them also as Rephaim, Enacim, Emim, Zuzim, Zamzommim, and Horites, these last, whose name means "cave-dwellers", being confined to the deserts of Idumæa. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06428c.htm)

The Lutheran answer seems to reference Nephilim as mere strangers and outsiders:

"Moses calls them ‘Nephilim,’ a word which seems to come from a Hebrew word meaning ‘to fall upon, to attack.’" (The People’s Bible / Genesis by John Jeske, Northwestern Publishing House, 1991. Page 75)

The reference I came up with for the Jewish view seems to be the same as most Creationists and Fundamentalists, that the Nephilim were not angels, but were the offspring of a class of angels called Grigori or Watchers. These references all seem to be second-hand, so I'm not certain if this is actually the Jewish view (especially since I had thought the Grigori were only part of the Catholic tradition of angels). If there's a Jewish Rabbi here, can you please step forward?

Then there's the view that the Nephilim or their parents were alien in nature, which quickly develoves into a ton of conspiracy theories, such as those put forth by Dimosthenis Liakopoulos. Liakopoulos claims that there were two alien races, the El who supported the Greeks and the Nephilim who supported the Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_and_Nephilim)

I, personally, like the concept of angels and their offspring, but I don't think there's any actual credence to this concept, and I have a tough time finding anything but second-hand support for it in the Bible.

halofish2000

31st January 2008, 05:34 PM

Here is a good read about the fallen angels http://www.piney.com/DSSBkGiants.html
This site has lots of the legends of old.

Silentknight

31st January 2008, 09:54 PM

Given that the books I mentioned previously were written by the Jews in the same time as the biblical scripture, and that scripture and these books refer back and forth to each other repeatedly, I think it's a safe bet that they were meant to go with it. If anyone should know how Jewish scripture ought to be interpreted, it's the Jews themselves from whom the scripture originated. The Midrashes and the Talmud would also be good references for that same reason, although I've heard the Talmud takes more than 7 years to read, and I'm not sure how a non-Jew would gain access to one.

Oroborus

1st February 2008, 03:52 AM

a bit like arguing dwarves are taller than gnomes isn't it?

Radrook

1st February 2008, 04:28 AM

How does that follow ?

How does what follow?

Do you have anything but speculation ?

Not if the whole Bible speculation is considered speculation.

Nogbad

1st February 2008, 04:32 AM

a bit like arguing dwarves are taller than gnomes isn't it?

You saying they are not like?

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/sly.gif

Oroborus

1st February 2008, 04:43 AM

[quote=Nogbad;3391994]You saying they are not like?
/quote]

Well gosh I mean first we have to decide if we're talking about gully dwarves and lawn gnomes or what! This epic and very important debate could last for eons :p

Nogbad

1st February 2008, 04:46 AM

Radrook

1st February 2008, 05:26 AM

Now I'm really confused. Perhaps you could clarify. In post 35 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3385021&postcount=35) You said that you didn't beleive that the Nephilim of Numbers were the spawn of fallen angels as God had chained the bad angels in Tartarus as descibed in Jude 6 and 2 Peter and all the other Nephilim had been wiped out in the flood. Now your suggesting that the fallen angels of that time of Numbers still had access not only to earth but to heaven.

I am not suggesting anything, I am showing you directly with scripture that the Devil is spoken of as having access to heaven after the flood and that such access was also still available to the other rebel angels during the first century of our common era because Revelation tells us that their expulsion from heaven was still scheduiled to take place in the future.

What other conclusion would YOU reach after reading those two references. That they didn't have access to heaven after the flood?

Angels thrust into tartarus were stripped of their heavenly privileges and spiritually distanced from God. WE jknow that this is so becausae Of the scriptures wghich tell us that the restrictions placed on such angels did not restrict their physical access to heaven as mentioned in Job[in reference to the Devil] and Revelation [in reference to the rest of the angels] where their activity in heaven is described as an accusatory one.

And that the chaining of the fallen angels in Tartarus hasn't even happend yet but is a prediction for the end times. Surely then new Nephilim could have been sired after the flood and the Nephilim of Numbers could indeed be angel/deamon spawn.

I didn't say that the Tartarus situation of angels hasn't happened yet, nor did I say that the prophecy about their expulsion from heaven hasn't been fulfilled. I said that their expulsion from heaven was prophesied as a future event at the time that Revelation was written. John spoke of it as scheduled to happen during the Lord's Day or the time the Bible refers to as the time of the end spokeen about in Matthew chapter twenty-four where the conditions on earth described match the conditions Revelation describe would be present as a consequence of that expulsion.

When, even approximately did/will the fall of Satan and his rebel host occur?

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

BTW

Before the chortling begins or increases into a frensied disonant bedlam, I am merely responding to questions and not evangelizing. Each has a right to his opinion be it atheistic, agnostic or theistic. That others choose to reject what I believe is OK by me. Also, If my views need a bit of modification I will modify them. However, salvational issues-are non-negotiable..

Belz...

1st February 2008, 05:30 AM

How does what follow?

Err... you said:

First, It was Jesus who said that angels did not marry in heaven. From that we can safely assume that they are neither male nor female

How does it follow that they are neither male nor female if they don't marry.

I'm not married.

Not if the whole Bible speculation is considered speculation.

Yes, usually speculation is considered speculation. You are claiming things without evidence. I can do that, too.

volatile

1st February 2008, 05:36 AM

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

You'll note, of course, that the date for Armageddon according to Watchtower doctrine has been changed a number of times (http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Prophecies/failed_prophecies.htm , http://www.bible.ca/jw-1914-generation.htm).

Exactly why should we take your word for it now that this time we really, really (honestly!) in the End Times? Remember the 1914 Doctrine? 1975? How the World will end within one generation?

If the Revelation scripture is so clear, why have the Witnesses changed their interpretations of what it means so many times?

volatile

1st February 2008, 05:41 AM

How does it follow that they are neither male nor female if they don't marry.

I'm not married.

I knew it!

Radrook

1st February 2008, 06:34 AM

Err... you said:
How does it follow that they are neither male nor female if they don't marry.

I'm not married.

First, you are right in a strictly logical sense since. It doesn't follow because the premise does not obligatorily lead to that conclusion and I thank you for pointing that out. : )

There is also the issue of meaning of male and female. The angels, of course, are referred to as sons of God. Which can lead us to conclude that being sons of God they would have the same physical needs as human males do. But that would also be a false premise since just like my premise it does not necessarily follow.

But what really provides us with the answer is biblical context. God created the sexes which lead to the category of male and female for procreation purposes. Since that was the function of the sexes, then we have to ask ourselves whether the angels also were to procreate in the same manner.

When we consider the rest of the Bible as context, which we always should, we find that angels are always referred to as sons. That in itself automatically indicates that there are no differences in gender among them. The only differences we are informed about are those of rank. There is the general category of angel, followed by cherubim, seraphim and archangel.

The following articcle provides further information:

Angels
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html

Yes, usually speculation is considered speculation. You are claiming things without evidence. I can do that, too.

Sorry I gave that impression and you are right in bringing it to my attention and keeping me on my toes.

BTW
The Bible describes the desire of these angels for female humans as unnatural. In other words God did not place that desire in their makeup. Based on that we can rightly concludec that if they did participate in that activity it was not because of an inherent sexual drive but based more on curiosity leading to an abuse of theit freedom of choice. Otherwise we would have to conclude that God himself made them that way and that is unscriptural.

This Guy

1st February 2008, 07:01 AM

SNIP

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

SNIP

Please explain why we should believe those that "understand" that we are in the "end time" today, anymore than those listed at the link below that believed they lived in the "end time". I don't think there has been many generations that have lived and not had someone forecast the end of the world in their lifetime. Even Paul had to correct the thinking of some in his day that believed they were in the end times (of course Jesus saying "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." might have had something to do with that.).

End Time Predictions (http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm)

If an explanation would be considered off topic for this thread I (and I suspect others) would be interested in a thread devoted to discussing why these are considered the "end times", and why we should believe those that say it today, above those that said it in times past.

Ocelot

1st February 2008, 07:03 AM

I am not suggesting anything, I am showing you directly with scripture that the Devil is spoken of as having access to heaven after the flood and that such access was also still available to the other rebel angels during the first century of our common era because Revelation tells us that their expulsion from heaven was still scheduiled to take place in the future.

What other conclusion would YOU reach after reading those two references. That they didn't have access to heaven after the flood?

I might come up with the conclusion that the bible was faulty. Is that a possibility you've considered?

You have suggested certain things. As well as pointing to references in the Bible you also offered your interpretations.

One was that the nephilim of Numbers couldn't have been sired by angels as this possibility was clsoed by the time of the flood. John's revelation was after the flood. It was after Numbers. It was after the Gospels. So therfore the chaining in Tartarus was/is to be after the time of John's revelation therefore after the flood.

That's a huge window of opportunity for new nephilim to be created. Therefore the Nephilim of Numbers being Angel Spawn is not opposed by the two quotes you provided.

I realise that you're free to change you mind on this as it's a non-salvational issue. (As far as I'm concerned you're free to change you mind on those as well if only you'd realise it) I realise that as far as your concerned you'd be happy for someone else to believe that the Nephilim of Number were angel spawn.

All I'm interested in is your thought processes on the matter. Do you now realise that the quotes you provided do not have the implication you suggested they did or is there something in those or other quotes that causes you to reassert your opinion that they were not Nephilim in that sense?

My opinion for what it's worth is that I have no reason to value any of it any as more or less of a folk tale than venus emerging fully formed from the ocean or Ganesh's mother restoring life to her beheaded son him with the only suitable head at the time being that of an elephant. They're great tales and who knows, buried within them might be some kernal of metaphorical truth distilled by generations of storytellers. Internal consistency is a great attribute for a story to have and an absolute necessity for believing to be completly true.

I didn't say that the Tartarus situation of angels hasn't happened yet, nor did I say that the prophecy about their expulsion from heaven hasn't been fulfilled. I said that their expulsion from heaven was prophesied as a future event at the time that Revelation was written. John spoke of it as scheduled to happen during the Lord's Day or the time the Bible refers to as the time of the end spokeen about in Matthew chapter twenty-four where the conditions on earth described match the conditions Revelation describe would be present as a consequence of that expulsion.

By "fall" I will assume that you probably mean their expulsion from heaven as described in Revelation as a future event. That is spoken of in Revelation as occurring in the time of the end. Since we are presently understood to be in that time period, and the consequences of that expulsion have occurreed and are occuring, it seems that the expulsion has already taken place.

I'm sorry I didn't realise that you understood us to be in that time period. Not that it's in the slightest bit relevent to the window of oportunity for the Nephilim of Number to have been spawned by angels.

I'm suprised not to have noticed the begining of the end times, all that trubulation, rapture, and great imagery from revalation. Though people have been despairing of the misery around them and declaring the end of the world top be nigh from the earliest days of these prophesies.I didn't realise that you were an anhilist.

Your beliefs really are quite similar to those to the Jehovah's Witnesses after all.

So if you don't believe that we are long for this earth I supposed you feel little need to do anything about gloabl warming, over popualtion, peak oil or any of the other long term issues facing society. It's a worry for the rest of us who hope that the human race has a long future ahead of us that so many are not inclined to agree. Imagine if you will what it might sem like to one of us.

Radrook

1st February 2008, 08:04 AM

Interesting, Why is it that we can presume that the spies in numbers exagerated but not peter or jude?

Because one leads to internal biblical disharmony while the other creates harmony. Would you choose to interprete a statement in Darwin's writings which would be out of harmony with the rest of the context? Or would you instead seek to understandthe statement by reviewing the context? Same thing with the Bible.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 08:06 AM

But what really provides us with the answer is biblical context. God created the sexes which lead to the category of male and female for procreation purposes.

I gathered from Genesis that it was for companionship. The "multiply" bit only happens after the fall, and way after the sexes were created.

When we consider the rest of the Bible as context, which we always should, we find that angels are always referred to as sons. That in itself automatically indicates that there are no differences in gender among them.

But then, why would he create only males ? Is he a mysoginist ? :D

The following articcle provides further information:

The Bible describes the desire of these angels for female humans as unnatural. In other words God did not place that desire in their makeup.

Impossible. If it isn't in their makeup then it can't happen, unless there is some "free will" crap we don't know about that can make up stuff from nothingness.

Otherwise we would have to conclude that God himself made them that way and that is unscriptural.

But what you just did IS unscriptural because some things are NOT written in the bible and we either HAVE to speculate or presume that we'll never know.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 08:09 AM

Haven't we been in the end times for two millenia now ? You'd think the man could keep an appointment. He DID say he'd be back within the apostles' lifetimes...

Belz...

1st February 2008, 08:10 AM

Because one leads to internal biblical disharmony while the other creates harmony.

Unfortunately that's only preferable if you assume that the bible SHOULD be harmonious. I don't hold such a contention.

Ocelot

1st February 2008, 08:51 AM

Because one leads to internal biblical disharmony while the other creates harmony. Would you choose to interprete a statement in Darwin's writings which would be out of harmony with the rest of the context? Or would you instead seek to understand the statement by reviewing the context? Same thing with the Bible.

I see. You're aware that the truth must be internally consistent. As an article of faith you believe that the Bible is the inerrant and so you believe that the bible is internally consistent - harmonious. I get that. It's obvious that on the face of it there are apparent inconsistencies and so we must slightly modify your article of faith. We acknowledge that the bible is open to alternative interpretations and say rather then the bible being internally consistent the correct interpretation of the bible is internally consistent.

It is a true testament to human ingenuity that such an interpretation even seems possible. In a way I respect your efforts in attempting this seemingly thankless task.

This is of course all based on an article of faith - that the bible is inerrant.

It's article of faith I'm sure you're aware I don't share. My exploration of your "harmonious interpretation" is a solely intellectual exercise and I'm grateful to you for indulging my questions.

It interests me that you are prepared to accept that the spies in Numbers were mistaken and that their mistake is not immediately clarified in the bible. It seems to me that a more harmonious explanation is that new Nephilim were created after the flood.

For me of course the important thing is not whether books such as the Bible or the Origin of the Species are internally consistent but whether they are consistent with reality. Reality is my benchmark.

Reality shows archaeological evidence of human occupation of the Canaan by the Hebrew tribes during and prior to the time of the Exodus. It doesn't show any evidence of them in Egypt or Sinai. It doesn't show any expected evidence for giants.

This suggests to me that the Biblical account may simply be the recording of inaccurate folk tales. Simply put, the writers recorded what they believed at the time but were prone to exaggeration or uncritical belief.

It seems to me that if you're prepared to accept that the spies may have exaggerated then what of Moses or whoever wrote Genesis. He wasn't around at the time of the flood. Might he have exaggerated that the flood covered the whole world. Or might he have reported Noah's exaggeration - after all Noah couldn't have known one way or the other.

It is more difficult to find alternative interpretations of Origin of the Species. As a scientist, Darwin wrote less ambiguously. This is further helped by the fact that his works are those of a single author and haven’t been retranslated over millennia. When Darwin wants to say many millions of years he says "many millions of years" he doesn't say six days and leave it to later interpretation as to whether day means a day, month year or a thousand years. However lets say that he did in one place write something where one interpretation was contradictory to an interpretation of what he wrote elsewhere. Which would I choose to be my favoured interpretation? Well the internal harmony argument is only relevant to the historical interest of what Darwin believed. If the interpretations required to make those beliefs consistent with one another were too strained I should have to entertain the notion that he had changed his mind. As for which was correct, experiment would tell me that. Reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

It seems to me that your are somewhat prepared to alter you interpretation of the bible to be harmonious with reality. In other threads you've distanced yourself from the young earth creationist viewpoint common in previous generations and shamefully still extanct amongst those whose education is lacking or has been sabotaged.

Radrook

1st February 2008, 08:57 AM

First let me say that I appreciate the calm and logical approach you are using in discussing this subject. I also understand that you disagree and that you have a right to reject and suspect anything that is said. That is after all the theme of this forum, to be skeptical and place everything under a scrutinizing light of logic. That's is perfectly OK by me.

I might come up with the conclusion that the bible was faulty. Is that a possibility you've considered?

The Bible was written with the purpose of providing mankind an explanation about our present condition and the plan which God put into motion help us escape our condition of bondage to sin and death via the offering of Jesus as a Ransom sacrifice. If the Bible has fulfilled that mission then it hasn't failed in its purpose. Since millions have accepted Christianity, I would say that the Bible has done its job with flying colors. As for all other tidbits, they are really of lesser importance to its central theme.

You have suggested certain things. As well as pointing to references in the Bible you also offered your interpretations.

And I asked you how you would conclude that the angels had no access to heaven after reading in Job and Revelation that they still had access to heaven and that such access was still to be cut short and would happen in the future. A question which you seem to ignore and prefer to continue to accuse me of merely interpreting as if the information in those two scriptures were not clear-which it is. That is frustrating because it misrepresents what I say as mere conjecture and being my view when the scriptures DEMAND that we conclude what they say, Might as well accuse me of interpreting Jesus as being the son of God as my idea as well-right? Or that Moses was the one leading Israel out of Egypt as merely my idea. Or that Jesus had twelve Apostles as merely my idea. Put yourself in my place and maybe you will realize just how annoying such accusations can become.

that the nephilim of Numbers couldn't have been sired by angels as this possibility was closed by the time of the flood. John's revelation was after the flood. It was after Numbers. It was after the Gospels. So therefore the chaining in Tartarus was/is to be after the time of John's revelation therefore after the flood. hat's a huge window of opportunity for new nephilim to be created. Therefore the Nephilim of Numbers being Angel Spawn is not opposed by the two quotes you provided.

John spoke of things that were to happen in the future. Jude was speaking of things that had occurred in the past and as a consequence of angelic rebellion during Noah's day.
Please read the book of Jude and see for yourself.

As for the Nephilim being still around after the flood, that would require several unacceptable conclusions.

1. God failed in his attempt to genetically cleanse mankind for some reason making the flood an unnecessary event.

2. The angels who sinned were free to continue gallivanting about as they had previously and the chaining of them doesn't apply to their ability to contaminate mankind in direct opposition to God.

Since those two conclusions are unacceptable, the interpretation you seem to prefer I choose to reject.

[ realise that you're free to change you mind on this as it's a non-salvational issue. (As far as I'm concerned you're free to change you mind on those as well if only you'd realize it) I realize that as far as your concerned you'd be happy for someone else to believe that the Nephilim of Number were angel spawn.

I am happy merely to give an explanation and let the person decide for himself what he or she prefers to believe. Neither am I viewing anyone who disagrees with me as tagged for destruction or as being beyond all hope or being morally inferior before God. That is for God to decide not us. I merely dispense the knowledge and it either takes root or it doesn't.

All I'm interested in is your thought processes on the matter. Do you now realize that the quotes you provided do not have the implication you suggested they did or is there something in those or other quotes that causes you to reassert your opinion that they were not Nephilim in that sense?

I believe I provided an explanation to that in my answer above.

My opinion for what it's worth is that I have no reason to value any of it any as more or less of a folk tale than Venus emerging fully formed from the ocean or Ganesh's mother restoring life to her beheaded son him with the only suitable head at the time being that of an elephant. They're great tales and who knows, buried within them might be some kernal of metaphorical truth distilled by generations of storytellers. Internal consistency is a great attribute for a story to have and an absolute necessity for believing to be completely true.

OK I guess we disagree on that.

....
I'm suprised not to have noticed the beginning of the end times, all that tribulation, rapture, and great imagery from revalation. Though people have been despairing of the misery around them and declaring the end of the world top be nigh from the earliest days of these prophesies.I didn't realise that you were an anhilist.Your beliefs really are quite similar to those to the Jehovah's Witnesses after all.

I never claimed that my beliefs were not similar.

Revelation's imagery is predominantly symbolic. So if you expected seeing a seven-headed wild beast galloping down the street after rising from the ocean and a drunken woman riding while drinking the blood of the saints, or expect to see Jesus to come charging out of heaven riding a white horse with a sword protruding out of his mouth or expect to see a woman in the heavens with stars around her head giving birth while a dragon is waiting to devour her offspring, then I guess you will be a bit disappointed.

BTW
Not all people can see or understand what is happening just as the majority of of Jews in Jesus time didn't understand what was really happening when Jesus was among them. So inability to understand is only evidence of inability to understand.

So if you don't believe that we are long for this earth I supposed you feel little need to do anything about global warming, over population, peak oil or any of the other long term issues facing society.

That assumption is a false premise. There being little time doesn't give mankind the authority to ruin the earth or to take on an uncaring attitude. Mankind was given earth as his home, to care for it and to make it a global paradise.

"Then the LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to Cultivate it and Guard it" ("to tend and care for it" - The Living Bible2) - Genesis 2:15

emphasis mine

So the attitude you describe is not a biblical or a Christian one. How do you arrive at such conclusions?

It's a worry for the rest of us who hope that the human race has a long future ahead of us that so many are not inclined to agree. Imagine if you will what it might seem like to one of us.

It's a sin to ruin the earth from a Christian viewpoint. Not inclined to agree with what? I can imagine what that and a host of other misunderstandings based on misinterpretations seem like.

Revelation 11:18 ". . . God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth."

Notice the the end times would be characterised by people ruining the earth? Or is that too cryptic also?

BTW
I once heard a woman conclude that certain Christians were erasing parts of the bible with their pens and markers when they were merely underlining in order to make locating them easier.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 10:02 AM

The Bible was written with the purpose of providing mankind an explanation about our present condition and the plan which God put into motion help us escape our condition of bondage to sin and death via the offering of Jesus as a Ransom sacrifice. If the Bible has fulfilled that mission then it hasn't failed in its purpose. Since millions have accepted Christianity, I would say that the Bible has done its job with flying colors.

I would like to add that it has been very successful, but only because people accept things without critical thinking. Otherwise it fares no better than other religious books, popular or otherwise.

Belz...

1st February 2008, 10:04 AM

1. God failed in his attempt to genetically cleanse mankind for some reason making the flood an unnecessary event.

I'm sorry, I must've missed the post where you showed that this was the reason of the flood.

Ocelot

1st February 2008, 10:45 AM

Radrook, I assure you that I mean no offence when I refer to your interpretations. You say that it is an interpretation demanded by the text but surely you acknowledge that different people have differing interpretations even amongst those who believe the bible to be inerrant.

I merely hope to gain some insight into your understanding.

Here's is where you earlier told me of your understanding and why you tended towards disregarding the spies account of post flood Nephilim.

However, I still tend to believe they were angels based on 2 Peter and Jude. The Nephilim mentioned in the Exodus account by the Israelite spies could have been an exaggeration on the part of the spies due to their fear of the size of the warriors they saw.
As to the reference of Nephilim in Numbers, I have read about the interpretation of their tribal names as being indirect references to Nephilim. I always discounted such conclusions on the fact that the flood was intended to wipe out the seen and that the angels involved had been prevented from repeating their pre-flood activity. Their restriction I understood to be made mention in Jude where Tartarus is mentioned.

So I look at Jude and indeed Jude 6 refers to angels being chained in Tartarus.

However Jude is after Genesis.

As far as I can see. The chaining in Tartarus may have happened after the flood. It may have happened after the time of Numbers. Perhaps during the later part of Genesis, or the time of Exodus or Leviticus or the earlier part of Numbers these angels were unchained.

Jews of the first century before Christ would have had access to these books and the Book of Enoch but obviously not Jude, the penultimate book of the penned no earlier than AD70.

Neither Does Jude place the chaining in Tartarus prior to the flood. All we know was that it was prior to AD70.

This is why I asked you when this event took place.

It appears that I caused confusion by mentioning the fall of Satan. I had believed that this referred to Satan first questioning God's wisdom and leading other angels to do the same and closely followed by God banishing them.

http://www.new-life.net/faq205.htm (http://www.new-life.net/faq205.htm) attempts to clarify.

I guess when you identified this time as during the end times you were not referring to the chaining in Tartarus but a second battle with Satan and the fallen host.

Now I had assumed that chaining angels in Tartarus would prevent angels from mating humans by denying then physical access to earth, and by implication denying them physical access to heaven.

It is clear that (morally) fallen angels still had access to both earth and heaven during the time of the Gospels, with Satan appearing in heaven in Job and in the desert to tempt Jesus in the time of the Gospels. Not to mention possessing humans appearing on earth for Jesus to cast out.

This would place the chaining after the time of Jesus but before Jude was written.

As such the Nephilm of Numbers might have been spawned by (morally) fallen angels after the time of the flood.

You have stated that you don't believe so.

That's fine.

You have stated the reasons why.

You believe that the flood was intended to cleanse the earth of the Nephilim and their corruption. Obviously for God to fail in his intentions is anathema to you. I understand that. However beyond what’s written in the Bible what do we know of God's intentions. So where in the Bible does it say that God's mysterious ways do not allow for a brief post flood resurgence of Nephilim to be wiped out by Gods chosen people, the Hebrews, and finally stopped from happening again by a chaining in Tartarus at around the time of Jesus?

Now it appears to me that your interpretation is different. That prior to, or around the time of the flood the chaining took place. This prevented the offending angels from mating with humans but did not limit their physical presence from roaming earth and heaven. The only wrinkle in that interpretation is that is the appearance of the Nephilim in Numbers which you put down to exaggeration by the spies.

I don't doubt that this is a suitably self consistent interpretation of events. I just suggest th