Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[DBowling]

I think Stu's question is where in the bible does it state that Satan ( using him as an example) stopped being a Son of God?
I think we all agree that he was at one point, before his rebellion and fall, but Stu is questioning where in the bible it STATES specifically, that Satan stopped being a Son of God.

I think it is an issue of "title" and what it means to be a Son of God and the "parentage" of God over those that were His Sons and are no more.

Correct, Jesus describes in multiple places what it means to be a child of God, and in John 8 Jesus identifies Satan (the Devil) as the polar opposite of a child of God.

So the Scriptural facts are...
- Pre rebellion Lucifer used to be a "son of God"
- According to Jesus, the Devil is the polar opposite of a child of God

So something changed Satan's status from the time before Lucifer's rebellion to the timeframe of the ministry of Jesus.
Scripture doesn't explicitly tell us when Satan ceased to be a child of God, but when we see how the term son/child of God is used in both the OT and NT, then we can infer that Satan's rebellion against God is what caused him to no longer be a child of God. Which is why Jesus refers to Satan as the polar opposite of a child of God in John 8.

That inference regarding precisely when Satan ceased to be a child of God is nothing compared to the outright distortion of Scripture that is involved in asserting that demons and Satan are sons/children of God.

[RickD]

I think we need to make a distinction between fallen angels and Satan not being Sons of God ANYMORE.
It seems at times that we are stating that they are, and never where, Sons of God, which is in accurate.

They lost their status as Sons of God when they rebelled.

I think that's what's consistent with scripture. And I think that's what some of us have been trying to say. At one point, all angels were sons of God. Then those that fell, lost that title.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

"Fallen angel" is a man-made term, it appears nowhere in the Bible. What does the Bible refer to 'fallen angels' as?

I'm in agreement with PaulS's response here.

[RickD]

I think we need to make a distinction between fallen angels and Satan not being Sons of God ANYMORE.
It seems at times that we are stating that they are, and never where, Sons of God, which is in accurate.

They lost their status as Sons of God when they rebelled.

I think that's what's consistent with scripture. And I think that's what some of us have been trying to say. At one point, all angels were sons of God. Then those that fell, lost that title.

And I think we all agree with that.

When did you change your mind?

[Stu]

I think we need to make a distinction between fallen angels and Satan not being Sons of God ANYMORE.
It seems at times that we are stating that they are, and never where, Sons of God, which is in accurate.

They lost their status as Sons of God when they rebelled.

I think that's what's consistent with scripture. And I think that's what some of us have been trying to say. At one point, all angels were sons of God. Then those that fell, lost that title.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

"Fallen angel" is a man-made term, it appears nowhere in the Bible. What does the Bible refer to 'fallen angels' as?

Are you asserting that demons (a Scriptural term) and Satan (another Scriptural term) are 'sons of God'?

The Bible isn't clear on what fallen angels become/are to be named. There is evidence (Genesis 6, Job) that they are still to be called sons of God.

Demons are different from fallen angels by the way.

Do you agree that the teaching of Jesus in John 8:37-47 directly contradicts the assertion that Satan is a child of God?

Perhaps that is why in Job 2:1 it says "the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also...", I don't know.

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD."

[DBowling]

I think we need to make a distinction between fallen angels and Satan not being Sons of God ANYMORE.
It seems at times that we are stating that they are, and never where, Sons of God, which is in accurate.

They lost their status as Sons of God when they rebelled.

I think that's what's consistent with scripture. And I think that's what some of us have been trying to say. At one point, all angels were sons of God. Then those that fell, lost that title.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

"Fallen angel" is a man-made term, it appears nowhere in the Bible. What does the Bible refer to 'fallen angels' as?

Are you asserting that demons (a Scriptural term) and Satan (another Scriptural term) are 'sons of God'?

The Bible isn't clear on what fallen angels become/are to be named. There is evidence (Genesis 6, Job) that they are still to be called sons of God.

Two quick points... which have already been discussed in this thread
1. There is no Scriptural evidence to indicate that 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 refer to anything other than humans. I believe it was Rick who pointed out that according to Genesis 6 the offspring of the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men' are referred to as humans, not hybrids of some sort.
2. There is no place in Job (or anywhere else in Scripture for that matter) where fallen angels are referred to as "sons of God".

Demons are different from fallen angels by the way.

That's an interesting assertion. What is your Scriptural basis?
I think it is pretty clear that demons is the term that Scripture uses to describe "fallen angels".

Do you agree that the teaching of Jesus in John 8:37-47 directly contradicts the assertion that Satan is a child of God?

Perhaps that is why in Job 2:1 it says "the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also...", I don't know.

Job 2:1 tells us that the "sons of God" came... and Satan also came...
The word 'also' in Job 2:1 (along with how the term 'sons of God' is used everywhere in Scripture) is an indicator that even though Satan was present with the 'sons of God' (angels) in Job 2 he was not considered to be one of the 'sons of God' in Job 2... which BTW is consistent with what Jesus says about Satan in John 8.

[PaulSacramento]

I think we need to make a distinction between fallen angels and Satan not being Sons of God ANYMORE.
It seems at times that we are stating that they are, and never where, Sons of God, which is in accurate.

They lost their status as Sons of God when they rebelled.

I think that's what's consistent with scripture. And I think that's what some of us have been trying to say. At one point, all angels were sons of God. Then those that fell, lost that title.

And I think we all agree with that.

When did you change your mind?

When I understood that what you meant WASN'T that fallen angles were NEVER sons of god but that they lost that status when they rebelled.

[PaulSacramento]

Job 2:1 tells us that the "sons of God" came... and Satan also came...
The word 'also' in Job 2:1 (along with how the term 'sons of God' is used everywhere in Scripture) is an indicator that even though Satan was present with the 'sons of God' (angels) in Job 2 he was not considered to be one of the 'sons of God' in Job 2... which BTW is consistent with what Jesus says about Satan in John 8.

On that I will disagree, simply because the grammer doesn't demand that The Satan NOT be a part of the group.

EX:
The platoon came in and the Captain was also with them.

[RickD]

I think we need to make a distinction between fallen angels and Satan not being Sons of God ANYMORE.
It seems at times that we are stating that they are, and never where, Sons of God, which is in accurate.

They lost their status as Sons of God when they rebelled.

I think that's what's consistent with scripture. And I think that's what some of us have been trying to say. At one point, all angels were sons of God. Then those that fell, lost that title.

And I think we all agree with that.

When did you change your mind?

When I understood that what you meant WASN'T that fallen angles were NEVER sons of god but that they lost that status when they rebelled.

Ok, understood.

[RickD]

Job 2:1 tells us that the "sons of God" came... and Satan also came...
The word 'also' in Job 2:1 (along with how the term 'sons of God' is used everywhere in Scripture) is an indicator that even though Satan was present with the 'sons of God' (angels) in Job 2 he was not considered to be one of the 'sons of God' in Job 2... which BTW is consistent with what Jesus says about Satan in John 8.

On that I will disagree, simply because the grammer doesn't demand that The Satan NOT be a part of the group.

EX:
The platoon came in and the Captain was also with them.

If I understand what DBowling is saying, while using also in your example about the platoon and also the captain, that would be a grammatically acceptable way to write a sentence, in English. But in Hebrew, it doesn't work that way.

[PaulSacramento]

Job 2:1 tells us that the "sons of God" came... and Satan also came...
The word 'also' in Job 2:1 (along with how the term 'sons of God' is used everywhere in Scripture) is an indicator that even though Satan was present with the 'sons of God' (angels) in Job 2 he was not considered to be one of the 'sons of God' in Job 2... which BTW is consistent with what Jesus says about Satan in John 8.

On that I will disagree, simply because the grammer doesn't demand that The Satan NOT be a part of the group.

EX:
The platoon came in and the Captain was also with them.

If I understand what DBowling is saying, while using also in your example about the platoon and also the captain, that would be a grammatically acceptable way to write a sentence, in English. But in Hebrew, it doesn't work that way.

Actually, we discussed in this thread already that and it does according to the semetic experts I asked.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/gam_1571.htm

[DBowling]

Job 2:1 tells us that the "sons of God" came... and Satan also came...
The word 'also' in Job 2:1 (along with how the term 'sons of God' is used everywhere in Scripture) is an indicator that even though Satan was present with the 'sons of God' (angels) in Job 2 he was not considered to be one of the 'sons of God' in Job 2... which BTW is consistent with what Jesus says about Satan in John 8.

On that I will disagree, simply because the grammer doesn't demand that The Satan NOT be a part of the group.

EX:
The platoon came in and the Captain was also with them.

If I understand what DBowling is saying, while using also in your example about the platoon and also the captain, that would be a grammatically acceptable way to write a sentence, in English. But in Hebrew, it doesn't work that way.

From what I know, English and Hebrew function similarly in the use of also.

That is why I used the word 'indicator' as opposed to 'explicit proof' in regards to Job 2:1.
The passage that I use to definitively support the 'indicator' in Job 2:1 is Jesus explicit teaching in John 8.

[B. W.]

Wow, and I was thinking on finally getting around and share on the Sumerian mythical kings as related to the Nephilim thinking all this topic about sons of God has been covered.

Ancient 2 temple Jews and even the early Church fathers understood that Gen chapter six that the sons of God refereed to angelic beings. There documentation is overwhelming!

The Sethite view came later 4 AD and codified by Augustine due to the scholastic mind rejecting the supernatural.

In proper bible study, one must look at other documents which give clues shed light on what the inspired writers wrote down and what they actually meant.

Our modern times, we view the ancient world of Noah's day and before that the people all ignoramus and ignorant and incapable of creating anything accept rubbing sticks together to make fire. Ancient Sumerian/Canaanite about 2000 years before Moses had advanced mathematics and made many varieties of Beer way before the Europeans existed. In some of the clay tablets, discovered recently, describe that there was a great flood and that a certain king still knew the language and secrets of the gods before the flood. So these folks were not simpletons and they new the dark arts well.

The bible tells us they worshiped demons and devils as their idols for a reason. Yet, let's not discuss this because we must take the high road of sola scripture in a manner it was never intended to be stretched.

Maybe someday I might share on these kings... maybe we need to bury the Sethite view again...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Thankfully we will not have to repeat ourselves here and actually explore the topic of this this thread:

Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

To look into this, one needs to know who the Sumerian mythical kings were

Wiki breaks these down in groups for ease of understanding

Before the flood you had these...

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years."
Alulim 8 sars (28,800 years)

Alalngar 10 sars (36,000 years)

En-men-lu-ana 12 sars (43,200 years)

En-men-gal-ana 8 sars (28,800 years)

Dumuzid 10 sars (36,000 years)

En-sipad-zid-ana 8 sars (28,800 years)

En-men-dur-ana 5 sars and 5 ners (21,000 years)

Ubara-Tutu 5 sars and 1 ner (18,600 years)

After the flood per wiki...

After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish."

Jushur 1,200 years historicity uncertain names before Etana do not appear in any other known source, and their existence is archaeologically unverified
Kullassina-bel 960 years
Nangishlishma 670 years
En-tarah-ana 420 years
Babum 300 years
Puannum 840 years
Kalibum 960 years
Kalumum 840 years
Zuqaqip 900 years
Atab (or A-ba) 600 years
Mashda "the son of Atab" 840 years
Arwium "the son of Mashda" 720 years
Etana "the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries" 1,500 years
Balih "the son of Etana" 400 years
En-me-nuna 660 years
Melem-Kish "the son of En-me-nuna" 900 years
Barsal-nuna ("the son of En-me-nuna")* 1,200 years
Zamug "the son of Barsal-nuna" 140 years
Tizqar "the son of Zamug" 305 years
Ilku 900 years
Iltasadum 1,200 years
En-me-barage-si "who made the land of Elam submit" 900 years ca. 2600 BC the earliest ruler on the List confirmed independently from epigraphical evidence
Aga of Kish "the son of En-me-barage-si" 625 years ca. 2600 BC

And the list goes on and on - see - for more info quoted from above came from this wiki link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

You have the Kings before the flood and then more listed after the worldwide flood.

The kings reigned in time periods called SARs and then is translated as years. Recent disscoveries found out the the Sumerians had a more advanced form of mathematics, Geometry, trigonometry...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 10936.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... ths-could/

If you study this out more, one may discover that our years are not theirs at all but maybe our years need to be divided by 60. Thus 28800 years becomes 480 years...

The SAR time to human years is actually not important as they maybe using a decimal point as well reading 28800 as 28.8 years due to advance math they used. We do not know for certain at this time.

So who are these Antediluvian kings?

That is the next thing to explore... more later...

Before we go further later on please take note:

When studying the paganism of the Sumerians/Canaanites the names of deities change to protect the guilty ...

One must look at the character traits and pagan story line of these beings in order to decipher who is who as the names change to protect the guilty.
-
-
-

[DBowling]

Let me follow BW's example and focus a bit on the Sumerian King Lists. (Much of this from Chapter 16 of "Historical Genesis From Adam to Abraham" by Richard Fischer)

In his book, Fischer does a comparison of multiple lists of the pre-Flood Sumerian kings and reconciles them into a single list of ten pre-Flood kings.
1. Alulim
2. Alalgar
3. Enmenluanna
4. Enmengalanna
5. Dumuzi
6. Ensipazianna
7. Enmenduranna
8. Ubartutu
9. Su-Kur-Lam
10. Ziusudra

Scholars have been interested in the possible relationship between the Sumerian kings and the Genesis 5 patriarchs because the Sumerian Kings and Genesis 5 Patriarchs:
- all had extraordinarily long life spans
- lived in Mesopotamia
- lived during the same pre-Flood Period of time

Richard Fischer does not believe that all 10 of the Sumerian pre-Flood kings are the same people as the 10 Patriarchs listed in Genesis 5. But he does believe that there is a possible link between the last 4 pre-Flood Sumerian kings and the last 4 Genesis 5 Patriarchs.
He believes that it is possible or likely that...
Enmenduranna, Ubartutu, Su-Kur-Lam, and Ziusudra from the Sumerian King lists
are
Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah from Genesis 5.

So in answer to the OP, I believe that some of the pre-Flood Sumerian kings do have some potential relationship to some of the Genesis 5 Patriarchs. And the Sumerian King lists potentially provide some corroboration that prior to the Flood there were some people living in Mesopotamia who had extraordinarily long life spans.

So there does appear to be some relationship between the pre-Flood Sumerian kings and the Genesis 5 Patriarchs.

Now to the Nephilim...
Are the Nephilim and the pre-Flood Sumerian kings somehow related?

Let's start with the Scriptural text.
Genesis 6:1-4

6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

The text tells us the following about the Nephilim.
- They appear to be the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men"
- They were mighty men and men of renown
- They appear to have had a life span of 120 years.

I think we can use the life span of the Nephilim to distinguish them from the extraordinarily long lived Sumerian kings and Genesis 5 Patriarchs.
The Patriarchs listed in Genesis 5 had lifespans ranging from the 700s to 900s.
So the life span of the Nephilim (120 years) is significantly less than the life spans of the descendents of Adam listed in Genesis 5.
On the other hand, the median life span of Neolithic humans was between 30-35 years. Even if we take into account the effect of infant mortality on this number, the 120 year life span of the Nephilim was higher than the median life span (30 - 35 years) of Neolithic humans.

All that to say this...
Since the life span of the Nephilim is significantly shorter than the life spans of the Genesis 5 Patriarchs, I think it is unlikely that the extraordinarily long lived pre-Flood Sumerian Kings are related to the Nephilim.
However, I would say that there is a probable relationship of some sort between the pre-Flood Sumerian Kings and the Genesis 5 Patriarchs.

[PaulSacramento]

The text tells us the following about the Nephilim.
- They appear to be the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men"
- They were mighty men and men of renown
- They appear to have had a life span of 120 years.

You are reading into the text I am afraid.
God doesn't say that the nephilim have a life span of 120 years, it is written that God say 'MAN, his flesh, his days will be 120 years".

What does that mean?
It can mean that Man was made to live longer but God decide to limit his life span ( but people live longer than 120 years).
Or could mean that man had 120 years left before God sent the flood.
BUT to narrow it down to only the nephilim is not what the text says.