Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[DBowling]

Actually Job 1:6 is a proof text that demonstrates that Satan is excluded from the "sons of God".

Job 1:6 identifies two sets of angelic beings that presented themselves to the Lord.
1. The first set of angelic beings to present themselves before the Lord in Job 1:6 are identified as the "sons of God"
2. The other being who "also" presented himself before the Lord in Job 1:6 is Satan.

Note that Satan "also" presented himself before the Lord.
Satan is not part of the "sons of God" in Job 1:6
Job 1:6 tells us that Satan is "also" there... in addition to the "sons of God".

Look through the passages you posted that use the phrase "sons of God" again.
None of them refer to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God.

Which brings us back to my earlier point.
Using the term "sons of God" to describe fallen angels is diametrically opposed to how the term "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture... including Job 1:6.

In Christ

Technically I am correct. Technically, Satan is classed with the sons of God as I explained earlier. He fell as Ezekiel 28:12,15 reveals. Those are fallen sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 and the ones who shouted for joy over God creating everything before they fell.

Actually you are not correct, technically or otherwise...

You assert that Satan is classed with the "sons of God", but there is no Scripture to support that assertion.
You assert that Satan is identified with the "sons of God" in Job 1:6, but Job 1:6 actually draws a distinction between Satan and the "sons of God"
You assert that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels, but that assertion is based on extrascriptural traditions that developed thousands after the events of Genesis 6 actually took place.

In your posts, you have yet to list a single Scripture where the phrase "sons of God" refers to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God. And no one else has been able to do that in this thread either for a very simple reason... such a Scripture does not exist.

This means, technically, in Job 38:7, that Satan is classed as one of the sons of God who shouted for joy when God created everything some time before he fell.

Accepting your premise that Job 38:7 takes place before Satan fell, then of course Lucifer would be considered one of the "sons of God" before he rebelled against God. I have no problem with that premise.

Job 38:7 actually reinforces the point that I have been repeatedly making.
The "sons of God" in Job 38:7 are worshipping and rejoicing in God, not acting in rebellion against God.
Job 38:7 cannot be used to justify the assertion that fallen angels in rebellion against God are ever referred to as "sons of God" in Scripture.

Also.. Job 1:6 takes place after (not before) the fall of Satan. At the time of Job 1:6, Satan is in rebellion against God, which is why through the use of the word "also" Job 1:6 specifically excludes Satan from the "sons of God" when he is in open rebellion against God.

Therefore, it still stands, sons of god, indeed can refer to fallen angels as Rev 12:7 clearly points outs: Michael and his angels and Satan his angels...period.

You are wrong again...

Here is the text of Revelation 12:7-9

7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Nowhere in this passage are fallen angels referred to as "sons of God".

Again, the fact of the matter is plain and straightforward...
Scripture never refers to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God as "sons of God"

Assertions to the contrary are a function of extrascriptural tradition, not Scripture itself.

[Philip]

[DBowling]

Certainly in English, Job 1:6 seems clear. "Also" means, "in addition".

So, we have the sons of God. And "in addition", or "also", we have Satan.

Maybe someone fluent in Hebrew can tell us if "also" is proper in this translation.

I'm not fluent in Hebrew, but Bible Gateway can shed some light on your question...

NASB

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

ESV

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

NIV

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.

NRSV

6 One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

NKJV

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

"also" appears to be the common English translation of the Hebrew gam across a variety of English translations of Job 1:6

[RickD]

Actually Job 1:6 is a proof text that demonstrates that Satan is excluded from the "sons of God".

Job 1:6 identifies two sets of angelic beings that presented themselves to the Lord.
1. The first set of angelic beings to present themselves before the Lord in Job 1:6 are identified as the "sons of God"
2. The other being who "also" presented himself before the Lord in Job 1:6 is Satan.

Note that Satan "also" presented himself before the Lord.
Satan is not part of the "sons of God" in Job 1:6
Job 1:6 tells us that Satan is "also" there... in addition to the "sons of God".

Look through the passages you posted that use the phrase "sons of God" again.
None of them refer to fallen angels who are in rebellion against God.

Which brings us back to my earlier point.
Using the term "sons of God" to describe fallen angels is diametrically opposed to how the term "sons of God" is used everywhere else in Scripture... including Job 1:6.

In Christ

Technically I am correct. Technically, Satan is classed with the sons of God as I explained earlier. He fell as Ezekiel 28:12,15 reveals. Those are fallen sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 and the ones who shouted for joy over God creating everything before they fell.

This means, technically, in Job 38:7, that Satan is classed as one of the sons of God who shouted for joy when God created everything some time before he fell. So I am correct, along with a long line of scholars and early church fathers, and as the historical evidence we still have points out. Satan can be classed along with the sons of God in Job 1 and 2 without any violation to the bible.

Here is more:

In Job 1 and 2 - Satan is not excluded but is included along with them as as the chief of the fallen ones called the accuser of the brethren... He is also called in Eph 2:2 NASB "...in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

Add also called the god of this world's system too. His minions are defined as what in Eph 6:12?

Now look at...Rev 12:9,10, "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night." NASB

Job chapter 1 and 2 indeed strongly support that Satan was the leader of the fallen sons of God - an angelic being as Ezekiel 28:11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 points out as does Rev 12:4,7 NKJV helps explains the plot which fits the role of an accuser and Isaiah 14:12-15 explains his demise mentioned that is defined clearly when this happens in Revelation chapter 20.

So., Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 places Satan along with the sons of god as a fallen one - the leader of the sons of pride - who presents himself to accuse Job because he found something in Job to accuse. It does not matter, Satan is still an angelic being who became the king over the sons of pride, who before he fell, shouted for joy at God's act of creation too as one of the sons of God.

Therefore, it still stands, sons of god, indeed can refer to fallen angels as Rev 12:7 clearly points outs: Michael and his angels and Satan his angels...period.

God created the angelic beings and gave them life so technically that makes them 'sons of God' as I explained earlier. Ezekiel 28:12,15 explains the same thing - he and his fallen one as classed as 'sons of God' albeit fallen ones so there is no injustice telling in Gen 6:1-4 that they were 'sons of God' and their plot and crime that later defines them as fallen rebels.

Look again...

...At Gen 6:1,2 and notice that there are two separate species of beings mentioned in verses one and two. Verse one MEN is mentioned, next sons of God who saw daughters of MEN. In no way does this imply anything with Cain's family line or Seth's as both are classed as MEN.

If the sons of God refer to mere mortal men, then, how could that happen before the Messiah Jesus came? In fact, the text would have said the ‘sons of men saw the daughters of other men and took them and bore Nephilim’ if the text actually meant that so as also to remain grammatically correct and clear..

However, we have men, ha'adam, who had daughters born unto these men, Ha'adam. Next the 'sons of god, angelic beings, are taking females and having them give birth to a new species of supermen called Nephilm who are in their image and likeness. Context points out how a new species of supermen types appeared.

Gen 6:1,2,4 deals three different beings: Human beings, next sons of God/angelic beings, and then a new breed called Nephilim. This describes the plot and crime of the sons of God whom fell. Therefore, it is appropriate to name them as such in Gen 6:1-4 so we can see their crimes more clearly.

The beings somehow played with Human DNA and made a new species. It appears that they taught the leaders of men how to do this to as the ancient text related to this event actually-show grammatically correct, I might add.

Jesus did warn of a sign to look for when he warned – ‘as it was in the days of Noah...’

Look at this 8/10/2017 article:

Humanity is gearing up nowadays with gene spicing / editing and on the verge of making new types of animals and using mixed DNA for what? read the article...

Gene Editing Spurs Hope for Transplanting Pig Organs Into Humans

This makes the meaning to 'Pig Out' without harmful consequences have a deeper meaning...

Oink, Oink,
-
-
-

And this post, boys and girls, is what is commonly known as circular reasoning.

[RickD]

Certainly in English, Job 1:6 seems clear. "Also" means, "in addition".

So, we have the sons of God. And "in addition", or "also", we have Satan.

Maybe someone fluent in Hebrew can tell us if "also" is proper in this translation.

I'm not fluent in Hebrew, but Bible Gateway can shed some light on your question...

NASB

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

ESV

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

NIV

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.

NRSV

6 One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

NKJV

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

"also" appears to be the common English translation of the Hebrew gam across a variety of English translations of Job 1:6

Yes, I noticed that quite a lot of translations use "also". I just wasn't sure if that's enough to show that "also" was meant in the original Hebrew. It certainly seems that way.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Wow this thread is still going. Keep it up.

[RickD]

Wow this thread is still going. Keep it up.

As soon as someone comes up with scripture that shows "sons of God" refers to fallen angels, then the thread may keep going. Otherwise, there's really nothing new to discuss.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Wow this thread is still going. Keep it up.

As soon as someone comes up with scripture that shows "sons of God" refers to fallen angels, then the thread may keep going. Otherwise, there's really nothing new to discuss.

Well we've shown here about Gen. 6 but others have argued against. I'd say if there was a passage that showed the sons of God as including fallen ones then that'd be it.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Wait, even if the Nephilim were fully human (not sure but in the context of Gen. 6 they might not be, tho they could be so) could they and the Sumerian mythical kings be related? The two cultures grew up in the same place and the bible uses some ideas around the Near East to teach the Hebrews, partly Gen. 1-11 is this way, and they kings or some of them seem to be fully human as well. In fact they decrease the life span after the flood dramatically as in the Bible for some reason.
Btw, do other cultures have a drop in human lifespan after the flood? Ik some like the Norse myth don't since humans came after it, instead giants were affected by the flood, but most involve humans.

[RickD]

I've got proof that giants, at least 14 feet tall, have lived. Just watched GOT season 4 when giants attacked the wall.

Must've been Nephilim.

[abelcainsbrother]

There is no scipture any where that tells us "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels. We can play this game too. So we can't really know either way since the bible does not say "sons of God" does or does not refer to fallen angels therefore nobody can say either way.We cannot claim we are right either way based on scripture. Is that what ya'll are really wanting? A check mate situation just because you ignore what is implied by scripture.Do you see what this causes when you ignore what scripture implies? It is sad some people cannot read english and cannot pick up on when something is being implied. It is amazing to me how people can deny what scripture reveals to us.

[RickD]

There is no scipture any where that tells us "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels. We can play this game too. So we can't really know either way since the bible does not say "sons of God" does or does not refer to fallen angels therefore nobody can say either way.We cannot claim we are right either way based on scripture. Is that what ya'll are really wanting? A check mate situation just because you ignore what is implied by scripture.Do you see what this causes when you ignore what scripture implies? It is sad some people cannot read english and cannot pick up on when something is being implied. It is amazing to me how people can deny what scripture reveals to us.

I think I just lost 50 IQ points by reading this.
So now we base our beliefs on things that scripture DOES NOT say.

There's no where in scripture that tells us that Jesus Christ DIDN'T come from the cloning facility on Kamino, therefore he must have.

I'm sorry ACB, but that has to be the single dumbest way to make an argument.

[abelcainsbrother]

There is no scipture any where that tells us "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels. We can play this game too. So we can't really know either way since the bible does not say "sons of God" does or does not refer to fallen angels therefore nobody can say either way.We cannot claim we are right either way based on scripture. Is that what ya'll are really wanting? A check mate situation just because you ignore what is implied by scripture.Do you see what this causes when you ignore what scripture implies? It is sad some people cannot read english and cannot pick up on when something is being implied. It is amazing to me how people can deny what scripture reveals to us.

I think I just lost 50 IQ points by reading this.
So now we base our beliefs on things that scripture DOES NOT say.

There's no where in scripture that tells us that Jesus Christ DIDN'T come from the cloning facility on Kamino, therefore he must have.

I'm sorry ACB, but that has to be the single dumbest way to make an argument.

Sorry but instead of just repeating the same ol things already explained I'm trying to show how absurd it is to make an argument that scripture does not say "sons of God" refers to fallen angels because it does'nt say it does not either.I mean it is like those who reject this expect scripture to come right out and say "sons of God" does refer to fallen angels or else they won't accept it when it does not say it does'nt either. So it is a check mate situation if we look at it like that where we cannot say either way going by scripture.

[B. W.]

There is no scripture any where that tells us "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels.

We can play this game too.

So we can't really know either way since the bible does not say "sons of God" does or does not refer to fallen angels therefore nobody can say either way.We cannot claim we are right either way based on scripture.

Is that what ya'll are really wanting?

A check mate situation just because you ignore what is implied by scripture.

Do you see what this causes when you ignore what scripture implies? It is sad some people cannot read english and cannot pick up on when something is being implied. It is amazing to me how people can deny what scripture reveals to us.

ACB, you are correct.

This is where there is a need go back to the historical documents I referenced as well as the ancient Jewish commentaries written before 70 AD in order to do a proper and correct study of the Genesis 6 text. For some reason,some people will not accept this, unless written by St. Augustine that blindly supports the Sethite view.

No where does the bible say that sons of God cannot imply the fallen angels especially when speaking of there crimes committed as the sons of God - that is in the bible clearly.

Next, any created being God directly made can be considered sons of God, all angelic beings (and fallen ones) were directly created by God, Adam was classed also as a son of God being directly created by God - but Adam's offspring cannot be so classed in any ways because of human procreation. We are sons and daughters of Adam - not God.

The only time when we can be classed as such, is by the New Birth when we are adopted into God's household as his child. Before that time, all Humanity according to scripture (book of Romans for example) makes it plain that we all were considered enemies of God, alienated from the life of God, unless God directly intervened like he did in Enoch, Noah's and Abraham's life by their faith in God. All of Seth's line was not saved in the ark and classed as sinners. This alone disproves a pure line of Seth theory.

The larger issue is this: Giants - Titans - people cannot except this. However, some people like Robert Pershing Wadlow
was tallest man in medical history who measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 8 ft 11.1 in tall. There are photos of even taller people than this.

Despite the evidence, some folks think Nephilim were mixed with angels DNA. This too is not correct as there is not traceable angel DNA ever found, even in the tallest of people.

What this means is that fallen angels manipulated Human DNA and made a new race of Human made in their likeness - character traits. The evidence for this is before our eyes today. WE have scientist desiring to make new humans free of all defects, a perfect race, they are mixing different species together altering species and plant through gene spicing.

Jesus said - as it was in the days of Noah - so shall it be in one of his days...

This genetic stuff is a big giant warning sign that some folks for reasons of pride alone simple want to ignoer. As for me, I will do what Jesus mentioned and pray that my wife and I are counted worthy to escape all these things that will befall man and stand before the Lord.

Readers can decide for themselves what they want to do. Hide , mock , make fun of, agree, whatever.
-
-
-

[Philip]

Not only a dumb way, but an unScriptural way, to make a point! Not to mention, people have personal motivations for wanting to embrace whatever scenario that Scripture doesn't clearly say. That's exactly how most Bible-related cults work - reading into the text whatever their desired theology requires.