Nephilim -Mark 12:25

[Mallz]

Would like this part of my worldview challenged. I know it's been talked on here before, but this thread is for me.

I don't see the sethite view being plausible. I only see fallen spirits having sex with women being plausible. I know the arguments and views. A lot of the sethite view, when it comes to it, falls on Mark 12:25. Which I don't see applicable in any way. As we are being compared to angels, not fallen spirits.

Can someone give me a reason to believe Mark 12:25 is applicable to the conversation?

[RickD]

Just something to think about...why are there only two options? Why does it have to be the Sethite view or fallen spirits?

And, it seems you are making a distinction between fallen angels and fallen spirits.

And I agree with you that Mark 12:25 really doesn't have much, if any, bearing on the topic.

[PaulSacramento]

Would like this part of my worldview challenged. I know it's been talked on here before, but this thread is for me.

I don't see the sethite view being plausible. I only see fallen spirits having sex with women being plausible. I know the arguments and views. A lot of the sethite view, when it comes to it, falls on Mark 12:25. Which I don't see applicable in any way. As we are being compared to angels, not fallen spirits.

Can someone give me a reason to believe Mark 12:25 is applicable to the conversation?

Mark 12:25 is a statement on what happens in Heaven, nothing more.
That said, Rick is right, there is no reason to think there are only 2 options here.

[DBowling]

Would like this part of my worldview challenged. I know it's been talked on here before, but this thread is for me.

As Rick and Paul have pointed out, I do not follow either the human/angel hybrid theory or the 'sethite' view.

I think the fatal flaw in the human/angel hybrid theory has little to do with Mark 12:25. The flaw in the human/angel hybrid theory is that it directly contradicts what both the Old and New Testament Scriptures teach about what it means to be a "son/child of God".

The human/angel hybrid theory asserts that fallen angels and even fallen Satan himself are "sons of God". Despite the assertions and circular reasoning of some, there is not a single place in either the Old Testament or New Testament Scriptures that refers to fallen angels or a fallen Satan as "sons/children of God".

The clincher for me is the direct contrast that Jesus draws between 'children of God' and 'children of the Devil' in John 8:41-47.

So I reject as fundamentally unScriptural any premise that asserts that fallen angels and/or a fallen Satan are 'sons/children of God".

So if I reject both the human/angel hybrid theory and 'sethite' view. What view do I embrace?

I refer to my view as the 'Adamite' view.
Since Scripture never refers to fallen angels as 'sons of God", is there another candidate that Scripture does in fact refer to as a "son of God"?
The answer to that question is yes.
Luke 3:38 explicitly refers to Adam as "the son of God".

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion based on Luke 3:38, that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 refer to the family line of Adam, the son of God.

[Mallz]

Thanks for the replies. Should have posted this next week when I'd have more time to give a response defended from scripture (selling my house and finding a place to live, gotta be out in a little over 2 weeks).

RickD, The distinction I would make would be between fallen spirits vs non-fallen spirits. What view do you lean towards?

DB, I don't see much difference between the Sethite and Adamite view. Isn't it saying the same thing?

And I'll have to dig into it all again. Believing the human/angel theory I was seeing sons of God to be a term to reflect what was brought forth from God, not necessarily one of allegiance. I know that distinction was made in the NT, but was it evident with spiritual creatures in the OT?

Assuming sons of God refers to the line of Adam.. Would it then be assumed those sons of God fell? How were they sons of God to begin with? Doesn't the same problem follow with angels vs Adams line? And since the context is in the days of Noah (which would span centuries), wouldn't that also show that only Noah was a son of God as only he and his family were saved? And the nephilim were being produced pre and post flood?

[DBowling]

DB, I don't see much difference between the Sethite and Adamite view. Isn't it saying the same thing?

I think the Adamite view has a more solid Scriptural basis.
Adam (not Seth) was the first person to have relationship with God.
Adam (not Seth) was the first person in God's line of covenant people.
Adam (not Seth) is explicitly referred to as a "son of God" in Scripture.

So for the purpose of this conversation I think it is important to acknowledge that the line of God's Covenant people (ie "children of God") begins with Adam, not Seth (See Luke 3)

And I'll have to dig into it all again. Believing the human/angel theory I was seeing sons of God to be a term to reflect what was brought forth from God, not necessarily one of allegiance. I know that distinction was made in the NT, but was it evident with spiritual creatures in the OT?

The Old Testament uses the term sons/children of God in two ways.
1. The most frequent use is to refer to God's Covenant people, (Which is how I believe the term is being used in both Gen 6:2 and Luke 3:38.)
2. The OT also occasionally refers to angelic beings who are in service to God as sons/children of God.

Most importantly, the OT and NT never use the term sons/children of God to refer to fallen angels or a fallen Satan which is an important premise for the angel/human hybrid theory.
As I've noted elsewhere, the angel/human hybrid theory is a function of Intertestamental tradition which came into being thousands of years after the time of Noah and Enoch and therefore is not even close to contemporary with the historical events of Genesis 6.

Assuming sons of God refers to the line of Adam.. Would it then be assumed those sons of God fell? How were they sons of God to begin with?

The Scriptural story of God's covenant people intermarrying with an ungodly indigenous population and being corrupted by that ungodly indigenous population is not unique to Genesis 6. This pattern that we see in Genesis 6 is repeated multiple times throughout the OT, when God's Covenant people intermarry with the ungodly inhabitants of "the Land", become corrupted, and then are punished by God. God then continues his line of Covenant People (ie children of God) through a faithful remnant. In the case of Genesis 6-9, the faithful remnant who carries on the line of God's Covenant People is Noah and his family.

[RickD]

Mallz wrote:
RickD, The distinction I would make would be between fallen spirits vs non-fallen spirits. What view do you lean towards?

Yes, that's the distinction that's relevant to this topic. I just want to be clear about your meaning of "fallen spirits". I believe spirits is another term for angels. I don't see any difference. Spiritual beings are angels, fallen or non-fallen. In other words, I can't make a case, biblically or otherwise, that suggests there are some other spirits besides angels. And furthermore, I don't think I've ever used the term "spirits" to refer to anything except fallen angels.

I think the clarification is important in this topic because some that believe nephilim are angel/human hybrids, also believe the souls or spirits of dead nephilim are still wandering the earth, and those are called demons. And again, I believe demons is another name for fallen angels.

[neo-x]

There is some precedent to call angels sons of God from the book of Job. Apparently Job was written before Moses wrote Genesis. So if the term was a common understaood reference# it can be likely that the Author may have been saying that Angels committed a sin by taking human wives for them and thus created abominations, which prompted the flood.

[RickD]

There is some precedent to call angels sons of God from the book of Job. Apparently Job was written before Moses wrote Genesis. So if the term was a common understaood reference# it can be likely that the Author may have been saying that Angels committed a sin by taking human wives for them and thus created abominations, which prompted the flood.

It seems you missed this discussion in the other thread.

While I think all here would agree that there is some precedent in scripture, to call Angels "sons of God", there is no, none, nada, zilch, bupkis, precedent in scripture, to call fallen angels "sons of God".

So, unless you are saying that angels that haven't fallen, are the ones sinning, then there's no scriptural basis for the Nephilim being angel/human hybrids.

[DBowling]

There is some precedent to call angels sons of God from the book of Job. Apparently Job was written before Moses wrote Genesis. So if the term was a common understaood reference# it can be likely that the Author may have been saying that Angels committed a sin by taking human wives for them and thus created abominations, which prompted the flood.

Yes, the OT does occasionally refer to angels as 'sons of God".
But what kind of angels does the OT refer to as "sons of God"?

This is where the Scriptural principle of allegiance comes into play for those who are "children/sons of God". The OT does refer to angels who are serving the one true God as "sons of God".
However, Scripture never refers to fallen angels as sons of God.

This is the fatal flaw of the human/angel hybrid theory.
By definition, any angel who would consider procreating with humans (and there is no Scriptural support for the premise that human/angel procreation is even possible) would be a fallen angel in rebellion against God.
Therefore, the Scriptural understanding of what it means to be a "child of God" by definition excludes any fallen angels.

[RickD]

Do I hear an echo?

[DBowling]

Do I hear an echo?

lol... looks like it...
I guess you hit submit before I did

[PaulSacramento]

There is some precedent to call angels sons of God from the book of Job. Apparently Job was written before Moses wrote Genesis. So if the term was a common understaood reference# it can be likely that the Author may have been saying that Angels committed a sin by taking human wives for them and thus created abominations, which prompted the flood.

Yes, the OT does occasionally refer to angels as 'sons of God".
But what kind of angels does the OT refer to as "sons of God"?

This is where the Scriptural principle of allegiance comes into play for those who are "children/sons of God". The OT does refer to angels who are serving the one true God as "sons of God".
However, Scripture never refers to fallen angels as sons of God.

This is the fatal flaw of the human/angel hybrid theory.
By definition, any angel who would consider procreating with humans (and there is no Scriptural support for the premise that human/angel procreation is even possible) would be a fallen angel in rebellion against God.
Therefore, the Scriptural understanding of what it means to be a "child of God" by definition excludes any fallen angels.

Any yet, the angel that resists Gabriel in Daniel IS referred to as a "prince", just like Michael is referred to as a "(chief) prince".
We know that the prince of Persia referred to can't be a human figure because no human figure can hold back a divine messenger of God, nor would it be consistent with the text:

Daniel's Terrifying Vision of a Man
10 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict.[a] And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision.

2 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. 3 I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. 4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude. 7 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength. 9 Then I heard the sound of his words, and as I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground.

10 And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 And he said to me, “O Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he said to me, “Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. 13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, 14 and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”

15 When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was mute. 16 And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, “O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. 17 How can my lord's servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.”

18 Again one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. 19 And he said, “O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.” 20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. 21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.

[RickD]

I'm sorry Paul. Could you explain the connection you're making? I completely missed it.

[DBowling]

Yes, the OT does occasionally refer to angels as 'sons of God".
But what kind of angels does the OT refer to as "sons of God"?

This is where the Scriptural principle of allegiance comes into play for those who are "children/sons of God". The OT does refer to angels who are serving the one true God as "sons of God".
However, Scripture never refers to fallen angels as sons of God.

This is the fatal flaw of the human/angel hybrid theory.
By definition, any angel who would consider procreating with humans (and there is no Scriptural support for the premise that human/angel procreation is even possible) would be a fallen angel in rebellion against God.
Therefore, the Scriptural understanding of what it means to be a "child of God" by definition excludes any fallen angels.

Any yet, the angel that resists Gabriel in Daniel IS referred to as a "prince", just like Michael is referred to as a "(chief) prince".
We know that the prince of Persia referred to can't be a human figure because no human figure can hold back a divine messenger of God, nor would it be consistent with the text:

However, Daniel nowhere refers to the Prince of Persia as a "son/child of God".

So, Daniel 15 does nothing to contradict the principle of allegiance inherent in Scripture's use of the term "son/child of God".