Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[DBowling]

On a side note Db, what are your views on the "other gods" in the bible?

I guess my starting point is that the clear teaching of Scripture is that there is one true God.

I wanted to do a quick search before I answered, and Scripture generally uses the term "gods" in reference to false gods or idols created by men.
I guess demons could fall under the category of false gods.

Then there is Psalm 82:6 where some men are referred to as "gods". When Jesus quotes this passage, he is evidently referring to men to whom the word of God came.

In summary, even though we have the Psalm 82:6 example quoted by Jesus which refers to men as "gods", the overwhelming majority of Scriptures use the term "gods" to refer to the false gods created by man (Psalm 96:5).

False gods doesn't mean they don't exist though.

Agreed...
As I noted above I think demons can be included under the category of false gods

Not sure why you would interpret Psalm 82 as being humans when the scene takes place in heaven, that the "gods" on trial will die like mortals is kind of a weird thing to say when that is what humans do regardless.

There are a number of reasons that I think Psalm 82 is referring to humans.
- Verses 1-4 set the context of who God is addressing, and these verses look to me like God is addressing human rulers. In verses 3-4 God is telling these rulers to "Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked."
These are similar to the instructions that God gives to those in power elsewhere in scripture.
- I personally don't see anything weird about verse 7. I think God is simply pointing out to those in power that they are just men and they will die like any other man.
- Finally in verse 8 God is telling these these rulers that God is true ruler and judge of the nations.

In John 10 Jesus appears to confirm that Psalm 82 is referring to men.
- In verse 33 the Jews accuse Jesus of the following:
"You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
Note the accusation being made against Jesus is that a "man" (ie human) is claiming to be God.

Jesus responds to this accusation with the following quote from Psalm 82
"Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?"
The context of the Jews accusation and Jesus' response appears (to me at least) to be dealing with men being referred to as God or gods.

Finally in verse 35 Jesus says the following about those who are called gods in Psalm 82:
"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came"
In the OT God's word was sent to humans, and in the NT, Jesus (who was the Word made flesh) was also sent to humans.

So the context of Psalm 82 itself appears to indicate that those who are referred to as gods are human rulers.
And in John 10 Jesus quotes Psalm 82 within the context of humans being referred to as gods.

What about the division of the nations between the 70 sons of God?

Here is the NASB translation of Deut 32:8-9

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
When He separated the sons of [c]man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
9 “For the Lord’s portion is His people;
Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

As I noted in an earlier post, I personally don't see any conflict between the two terms "sons of Israel" (Masoretic) and "sons of God" (Septuagint) because I think both terms refer to God's people, Israel.

My "go to" translations (NASB and NRSV) both use "sons of Israel". But again I do not see any conflict between the term "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" when referring to Israel, so I don't really have a super strong opinion either way.
I'm happy to say that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint translation are both right.

Do you agree that this has to do with the Tower of Babel story?

I do not think it is just a coincidence that Genesis 10-11 lists 70 nations and that according to Exodus 1:5
"All the persons who came from the loins of Jacob were seventy [c]in number"
This is consistent with Deut 32:8 which says that
"He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel."

I'm unaware of any other place in Scripture (other than Exodus 1:5) where the number 70 is associated with the number of either the "sons of Israel" or "sons of God"

Who then was the Prince of Persia in Daniel?

I believe that the Prince of Persia in Daniel 10 refers to a fallen angel who was active in Persia at the time of Daniel.

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks for your views DB

How to you address that Israel did NOT exist at the time of the division of nations so how could they be allotted to the "sons of Israel" ?

If the Prince of Persia is a fallen angel, how did he "get" Persia? The passage in Daniel seems to imply that He was designated the "prince of Persia".

Your point about John 10 was discussed in one of my classes and he professor asked this:
If Jesus was being accused of making Himself equal to God, which He was and never disputed, why would He quote a passage like that IF the passage simply meant that some humans are "Gods" ?

I don't agree that the context of Psalms 82 implies humans since, it states, that:
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

If they were humans it would mean they are IN HEAVEN and part of God's heavenly council.

[RickD]

How did I come to this conclusion:

In the spellings and grammar of the Hebrew word translated wife. woman used in the OT. The Strong's Number is H-802. This word is spelled so many different ways that one cannot read into its meaning as wife or wives in all cases it is used. this word is used in 267 verses in the Torah alone and spelled so many different ways it would make your head spin

The word is spelled differnt in Gen 6:2 than it is in Gen 6:18. Verse 18 denotes wives, wife. Verse two does not. Spelling...very important thing along with context to see the correct meaning of words as well as look at other verses where the word is used - spelled the same way as well as with prefix or suffix added in.

Look at: Gen 2:25 ויהיוH1961 שׁניהםH8147 ערומיםH6174 האדםH120 ואשׁתוH802 ולאH3808 יתבשׁשׁו׃H954

802 is traslted as what? Wife... it is not spelled the same way in Gen 6:2

Gen 6:2 ויראוH7200 בניH1121 האלהיםH430 אתH853 בנותH1323 האדםH120 כיH3588 טבתH2896 הנהH2007 ויקחוH3947 להם נשׁיםH802 מכלH3605 אשׁרH834 בחרו׃H977

In Gen 6:18 והקמתיH6965 אתH853 בריתיH1285 אתךH854 ובאתH935 אלH413 התבהH8392 אתהH859 ובניךH1121 ואשׁתךH802 ונשׁיH802 בניךH1121 אתך׃H854

Wives and wife have prefix and suffix letters used in grammar so one reads wife and son's wives the root of 802 is spelled:

אשּׁה - 'ishshâh

Gen 2:23 and Gen 6:18 contain that root word in their spellings. In Gen 6:18 there is another spelling that also denotes wife too and context points that out.

Gen 6:2 spelling root is is used in Gen 18:11 and translated as childbearing in KJV

Here is what the bottom line translation of Genesis 6:2 after investigating the spelling of the word wives used in that verse..

Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters (Young girls entering their youthful prime) of men were beautiful (Functionally good, fair, for something); and they took (Grasped seized) wives (Childbearing ones) for themselves, whomever they chose (Required, tried, tested to select) ....

That is it. It flies in the face of the norms of what many say about this verse. My point is this: You cannot translated the word 'ishshâh in all its varied spellings to mean wife, wives in all cases. Spelling is important...and the context...

Gen 6:1 mentions that what was seen, young girls entering and of childbearing age on the EARTH.

The sons of god in verse two saw them on looking down at the earth - watchers - angelic beings. They hatched a plot to corrupt the genetic code of human beings, animals, and plants.

Rev 12:4, His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. NASB

I/3rd of the fallen ones were cast to the earth by Satan before he came...

Gen 3:1-6,15 reveal what to you in light of Rev 12:4 ?

Why would the Devil's tactics change in Gen 6...

Genesis 6:2 contians the Aleph and TaV (H853) and is not translated in the verse - know also in Greek in Rev 1:8 as this: "I am the Alpha and the Omega..."

Gen 6:2 that the sons of God (Watchers-fallen from YHWH) saw that the daughters (Young girls entering their youthful prime) of men were beautiful (Functionally good, fair, for something); and they took (Grasped seized) wives (Childbearing ones - [not wives) for themselves, whomever they chose (Required, tried, tested to select)

The result was this:

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

This is not saying what many traditionally think it says - they took willing wives. They did not get willing women - they seized them because they were functionally good for something - prime of life childbearing young women - and that was to stop Gen 3:15 from happening.

Enoch explains they leaders of men of that era gained forbidden knowledge as a result of this...in exchange for their daughters...

I do not know how the watchers - fallen ones - manipulated the DNA but that is not important. You do not need to have sexual relations to alter DNA - you need biological science and skill - that is all.

Human beings today are modifying DNA. China, if report is true, has perfected it DNA altered dogs. These look monstrous and are not for Chinese grocery store but for War Dogs. They are seeking to beef up Humans into super warriors, military service personnel, so the report goes

Plants are now GMO so are animals ...

We are doing it and it would be stupid to think fallen angels cannot have done so, or taught people long ago to do so, so they can finish there plans, is really ignorant...

Luke 17:26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
Luke 17:27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:28 "It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
Luke 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. NASB

1 Peter 3:19,20 - 2 Peter 2:5,6 Jude 1:6

That is why I say what I mentioned earlier Gen 6:2 is about fallen angels not having literal sex but instead somehow altering DNA. And that the Sethite view is invalid because Sehites were on the earth not above the earth nor were they on a tall mountain. They were corrupted by by sin like everyone else.

Rahab was called a what in the Bible? She was of mixed Canaanite blood, yet, also became part of Jesus Family Tree. For the Sethite view to be true - this could not have happened to retain a pure line...

Blessings and no hard feelings...
-
-
-

With all this said, you still haven't addressed the issue that I brought up.

Perhaps you'd like to address the issue I'm actually referring to. Again, let's look at Genesis 6:4:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

The text says that they bore(yalad) children to them. Where is the justification from scripture, or from Hebrew, for you to say that yalad means "manipulated their DNA, causing an immaculate conception of a half-human, half-demon hybrid"?

Where is the warrant for that, FROM THE TEXT?

And of course, no hard feelings. It's just frustrating when the issues brought up which go against the DNA manipulation, or demon/human hybrid theories, aren't addressed, and things that have nothing to do with those issues, are addressed instead.

[PaulSacramento]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

[RickD]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

Comparing the two, demon DNA manipulation, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, there's a huge issue with one of the two. One is so clear from scripture, that it's a universal belief among Christians. And the other has absolutely no basis from scripture.

I hope you can see that clear difference.

[PaulSacramento]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

Comparing the two, demon DNA manipulation, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, there's a huge issue with one of the two. One is so clear from scripture, that it's a universal belief among Christians. And the other has absolutely no basis from scripture.

I hope you can see that clear difference.

Hence me saying NOT to EQUATE them.

[DBowling]

Thanks for your views DB

No Problem... I'm learning a lot here!

How to you address that Israel did NOT exist at the time of the division of nations so how could they be allotted to the "sons of Israel" ?

I don't believe the text says that they were allotted to the sons of Israel.

NASB says (Deut 32:8)
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.

I think the text is telling us that the number of the nations corresponds to the number of the "sons of Israel" (see Exodus 1:5).

If the Prince of Persia is a fallen angel, how did he "get" Persia? The passage in Daniel seems to imply that He was designated the "prince of Persia".

Demons are not omnipresent (which is also true of Satan BTW), so I agree that the fallen angel in Daniel 10 was assigned to Persia at the time of Daniel.

Your point about John 10 was discussed in one of my classes and he professor asked this:
If Jesus was being accused of making Himself equal to God, which He was and never disputed, why would He quote a passage like that IF the passage simply meant that some humans are "Gods" ?

I don't know why Jesus responded the way he did.
My guess is he was using Psalm 82 to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the reaction of the Jews.

Whatever the reason, I do consider Jesus statement in John 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came" to be a pretty definitive statement that Psalm 82:6 is referring to humans.

Which is consistent with how I understand the contextual implications of Psalm 82:3-4, 7.

[RickD]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

Comparing the two, demon DNA manipulation, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, there's a huge issue with one of the two. One is so clear from scripture, that it's a universal belief among Christians. And the other has absolutely no basis from scripture.

I hope you can see that clear difference.

Hence me saying NOT to EQUATE them.

I understand that. But you did compare them. And were talking about interpreting scripture to come up with these theories. One, Christ's conception, is a doctrine based on scripture. And the other, Demon DNA manipulation, or human/demon hybrids, has no basis in scripture.

[PaulSacramento]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

Comparing the two, demon DNA manipulation, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, there's a huge issue with one of the two. One is so clear from scripture, that it's a universal belief among Christians. And the other has absolutely no basis from scripture.

I hope you can see that clear difference.

Hence me saying NOT to EQUATE them.

I understand that. But you did compare them. And were talking about interpreting scripture to come up with these theories. One, Christ's conception, is a doctrine based on scripture. And the other, Demon DNA manipulation, or human/demon hybrids, has no basis in scripture.

I references the wording not compared the events.
In no way does Mary baring a child from the HS equate to sexual intercourse with the HS BUT yet the wording is the same because there is the no other wording possible.

[RickD]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

Comparing the two, demon DNA manipulation, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, there's a huge issue with one of the two. One is so clear from scripture, that it's a universal belief among Christians. And the other has absolutely no basis from scripture.

I hope you can see that clear difference.

Hence me saying NOT to EQUATE them.

I understand that. But you did compare them. And were talking about interpreting scripture to come up with these theories. One, Christ's conception, is a doctrine based on scripture. And the other, Demon DNA manipulation, or human/demon hybrids, has no basis in scripture.

I references the wording not compared the events.
In no way does Mary baring a child from the HS equate to sexual intercourse with the HS BUT yet the wording is the same because there is the no other wording possible.

Then show me some kind of precedence, anywhere from scripture, or Hebrew lexicons, that says the word translated as baring, could even have the remote possibility of meaning "a demon manipulated DNA, which resulted in giant demon half-breeds".

There's no possible way you can get that from the text. B. W. is taking is DNA manipulation idea, and is trying to read it back into scripture, with absolutely no basis to do so.

[PaulSacramento]

I am not disagreeing with you Rick.
There is no scriptural basis to get DNA manipulation from any passage.
I was simply pointing out WHY you can't, because even if it happened ( not saying it did), the writers wouldn't be able to understand it as such.

[SoCalExile]

You will never get DNA manipulation from ANY test in the bible since such things were unheard of.
BW's point is that,perhaps, what the writer understood as "bore" (since there was no other way to conceptualize it) was really genetic manipulation.

Not to equate one thing with another but we know that the HS did not have sex with Mary and yet she bore a child from God.

Sheepherders certainly understood the concept of breeding different lines to produce a superior genetic line. That argument fails right there.

Fact is, the Hebrew is very clear that Noah was pure among those who lived with him in that time - as in he was a man of faith.

You're trying to remove what is actually said, by ignoring it, just to insert your own meaning.

[RickD]

I am not disagreeing with you Rick.
There is no scriptural basis to get DNA manipulation from any passage.
I was simply pointing out WHY you can't, because even if it happened ( not saying it did), the writers wouldn't be able to understand it as such.

How do we know whether or not they would understand?

Apparently the morons who wrote the gospels, knew enough to convey Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, without confusing that with God having sex with Mary.

[PaulSacramento]

I am not disagreeing with you Rick.
There is no scriptural basis to get DNA manipulation from any passage.
I was simply pointing out WHY you can't, because even if it happened ( not saying it did), the writers wouldn't be able to understand it as such.

How do we know whether or not they would understand?

Apparently the morons who wrote the gospels, knew enough to convey Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, without confusing that with God having sex with Mary.

And yet, what words did they use?

Not sure why you are harping on this to be honest since I already agreed with you that the view is not based on what scripture says.

[RickD]

I am not disagreeing with you Rick.
There is no scriptural basis to get DNA manipulation from any passage.
I was simply pointing out WHY you can't, because even if it happened ( not saying it did), the writers wouldn't be able to understand it as such.

How do we know whether or not they would understand?

Apparently the morons who wrote the gospels, knew enough to convey Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, without confusing that with God having sex with Mary.

And yet, what words did they use?

Not sure why you are harping on this to be honest since I already agreed with you that the view is not based on what scripture says.

It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.