Nephilim -Mark 12:25

[Mallz]

Ok. I could find this real fast. Explain sons of God in this:

Job 38:
4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you [a]have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Context is in creation events, this is before the fall.

Edit* Before man

[RickD]

I think if you do some searching for scripture that refers to fallen angels as sons of God, it'll help you see what DBowling and I are saying.

And did you say that sons of God, in scripture, never refers to people?

No, no, no. Sons of God refers to people. I also put forward it refers to spiritual beings.
I truly know what you and DB are saying. I know that view in and out. What I need is for you two to get into my view and take me by the hand and either lead me out of it, or I'll lead you into mine, or we'll find a new revelation together. Try to understand my view, if you want to convince me it's wrong. My questions remained unanswered. Simple questions about the adamite view if I were to believe it. And I'm totally fine with believing it! I just need to be reasoned into it, if it's true! I don't need the adamite view repeated again. Or the history of the OT people. We all know that (I'm assuming). If the adamite view is correct, please answer what I see to be logical contradictions in it being true?

Ok good. So we are in agreement that scripture can refer to both humans and spiritual beings as sons of God. We disagree about the Nephilim. I'm open to seeing that Nephilim could be human/angel hybrids, if I can be shown from the text of scripture that it's possible.

With that said, I don't see any way that sons of God in Genesis 6:2, is referring to anything other than humans, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the biblical text doesn't support the belief that fallen angels are sons of God. In fact, as DBowling has pointed out numerous times, the biblical text contradicts the belief that fallen angels are sons of God.
I'm not completely convinced of DBowling's adamite view, but it fits the text better than anything else I've seen so far.

So, I guess I'd ask you to list any logical contradictions you may have with the Nephilim being human, and we can go from there.

[DBowling]

Ok. I could find this real fast. Explain sons of God in this:

Job 38:
4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you [a]have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Context is in creation events, this is before the fall.

Edit* Before man

The sons of God in question are shouting in joy at Gods work of creation.
These are Angels in service to God that I've previously referred to.

[RickD]

Ok. I could find this real fast. Explain sons of God in this:

Job 38:
4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you [a]have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Context is in creation events, this is before the fall.

Edit* Before man

I'd say that both "morning stars" and "sons of God", refer to angels(spiritual beings, not fallen angels).

As that seems pretty obvious from context, was there something else you were looking for with that passage?

[Mallz]

So, you admit that sons of God can refer to spiritual beings?

The sons of God described in Genesis 6, in order and context (not how it was just re-pieced together earlier), is referring to sons of God (angels) that fell by that action and are referred to in Jude.
I see this as a much more plausible explanation, than the adamite view. Which would consist of sons of God, who fell by that specific sin, who were not saved from the flood (how were they sons of God if they aren't saved[faith?]? Same way spiritual beings can be..?). This was going on in Noahs day; not some remnant of previous sins, but an accumulation of it. I got to be honest, I never read Genesis any other way. And I was raised Roman Catholic!! I don't see the onus on me..? But that doesn't mean I won't want to try and explain.

The Nephilim are as human as you, me and Jesus is. They are human/fallen spirit, we are human, Jesus is human/Divine.

[RickD]

Mallz wrote:
So, you admit that sons of God can refer to spiritual beings?

Absolutely! I haven't said otherwise. In scripture, I see the term "sons of God" as either humans, or heavenly angels that serve the Lord(not fallen angels).

The sons of God described in Genesis 6, in order and context (not how it was just re-pieced together earlier), is referring to sons of God (angels) that fell by that action and are referred to in Jude.

That's already been discussed in the other thread. Without going into it again, I'll just say that if you just keep with what the text actually says, it's quite a leap to say that. Reread the text in Jude 1:6. It takes quite a leap from the text to assume that angels leaving their first estate, means "angels that not only took on the appearance of humans,but miraculously had working human male reproductive systems, had sexual relations with human women, and had giant human/angel hybrid offspring." I'd say the onus is definitely on you, if you're making that Evil Kneivel snake canyon sized leap.

I see this as a much more plausible explanation, than the adamite view. Which would consist of sons of God, who fell by that specific sin, who were not saved from the flood (how were they sons of God if they aren't saved[faith?]? Same way spiritual beings can be..?).

I'm not sure I'd be so adamant that when sons of God is referring to humans, it always means those saved by faith. From what I can see, human sons of God are simply some that God has set apart for His purpose.

The Nephilim are as human as you, me and Jesus is. They are human/fallen spirit, we are human, Jesus is human/Divine.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. If you think Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and human women, then wouldn't they be half human, half angel? That's pretty much the justification for those of that view saying Nephilim are giant in size. Small human plus giant angel, equals giant half human, half angel.

[DBowling]

I think if you do some searching for scripture that refers to fallen angels as sons of God, it'll help you see what DBowling and I are saying.

And did you say that sons of God, in scripture, never refers to people?

No, no, no. Sons of God refers to people. I also put forward it refers to spiritual beings.
I truly know what you and DB are saying. I know that view in and out. What I need is for you two to get into my view and take me by the hand and either lead me out of it, or I'll lead you into mine, or we'll find a new revelation together. Try to understand my view, if you want to convince me it's wrong. My questions remained unanswered. Simple questions about the adamite view if I were to believe it. And I'm totally fine with believing it! I just need to be reasoned into it, if it's true! I don't need the adamite view repeated again. Or the history of the OT people. We all know that (I'm assuming). If the adamite view is correct, please answer what I see to be logical contradictions in it being true?

Well... if it helps, I'm thoroughly familiar with the human/angel hybrid theory as well.

For me it comes down to the singular issue that I have been beating like a dead horse here (and elsewhere).
How does Scripture use the phrase "sons/children of God"?

The two competing premises are...
1. "sons/children of God" refers to God's Covenant People
2. "sons/children of God" refers to fallen angels and a fallen Satan.

Re #1: There are multiple places in both the OT and NT where "sons/children of God" refers to God's covenant people.

Re #2: There is not a single place in Scripture where "sons/children of God" refers to fallen angels or a fallen Satan.

So when presented with a choice that is supported by multiple Scriptures vs a choice that has no Scriptural support (and is contradicted by the teaching of Jesus in John 8 ) then I am compelled to go with the premise that is supported by multiple Scriptures in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

That is the logical reason that I cannot accept the human/angel hybrid theory.

I have tried to answer all the questions that you've put forth on my view from Scripture. If for some reason I've missed some, I'm willing to try again.

[Mallz]

That's already been discussed in the other thread. Without going into it again, I'll just say that if you just keep with what the text actually says, it's quite a leap to say that. Reread the text in Jude 1:6. It takes quite a leap from the text to assume that angels leaving their first estate, means "angels that not only took on the appearance of humans,but miraculously had working human male reproductive systems, had sexual relations with human women, and had giant human/angel hybrid offspring." I'd say the onus is definitely on you, if you're making that Evil Kneivel snake canyon sized leap.

I don't see anything extraordinary, here. Angels have took on human form and ate food. There's more reason to believe, than not, that angels have the capability to take on a human form. And taking that form would include all it entails (including their type of spirit which isn't human). And twisting this, what sense does it make that humans that believed in God would make super offspring with sinful women? Or it happening continually throughout human history? If anything, the violent line of Cain would produce more ferocious offspring than a son of God (human) marrying a sinful woman whose into demon worship.

And reading Genesis 6, you see the category of men separated from sons of God which is introduced after men and women. I see a new category introduced, the sons of God, who are not men.

Can you show me some scriptures that refer to men as sons of God pre-flood?

I'm not sure I'd be so adamant that when sons of God is referring to humans, it always means those saved by faith. From what I can see, human sons of God are simply some that God has set apart for His purpose.

Ok, so we have a growing definition of sons of God. Which I think is accurate. [/quote]

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. If you think Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and human women, then wouldn't they be half human, half angel? That's pretty much the justification for those of that view saying Nephilim are giant in size. Small human plus giant angel, equals giant half human, half angel.

It's that they are fully human and fully angelic. Like how Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. If memory serves, the Giants of old were like 10ft max? I might be going too far? And peoples heights were shorter then. Demons that take on a form that has the ability to reproduce. It won't produce a human soul. The soul is something else but the body is human. The something else being the production of a human/angelic soul. But this also goes into the belief of the gift of reproduction. I see that all kinds were given the ability to reproduce after their own kind. I see that angels that fell took on a human form to produce their own offspring. Human body, spiritual hybrid.

[Mallz]

Well... if it helps, I'm thoroughly familiar with the human/angel hybrid theory as well.

For me it comes down to the singular issue that I have been beating like a dead horse here (and elsewhere).
How does Scripture use the phrase "sons/children of God"?

The two competing premises are...
1. "sons/children of God" refers to God's Covenant People
2. "sons/children of God" refers to fallen angels and a fallen Satan.

Re #1: There are multiple places in both the OT and NT where "sons/children of God" refers to God's covenant people.

Re #2: There is not a single place in Scripture where "sons/children of God" refers to fallen angels or a fallen Satan.

So when presented with a choice that is supported by multiple Scriptures vs a choice that has no Scriptural support (and is contradicted by the teaching of Jesus in John 8 ) then I am compelled to go with the premise that is supported by multiple Scriptures in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

That is the logical reason that I cannot accept the human/angel hybrid theory.

I have tried to answer all the questions that you've put forth on my view from Scripture. If for some reason I've missed some, I'm willing to try again.

I see our problem I think. And it's due to me not being clear. I don't hold to that view. Although it's very similar. I see that sons of God refer to angels that will fall. And even shown in one sentence. I refer to Genesis 6: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

I'm very curious. Does anyone have a good explanation as to why God limited humans life span right after the sons of God married any women they chose?

[DBowling]

I'm very curious. Does anyone have a good explanation as to why God limited humans life span right after the sons of God married any women they chose?

I have a theory... I believe the theory is consistent with Scripture, but I'm not going to be dogmatic about my theory.

According to Scripture, Adam's family line (the sons of God) had lifespans of around 900 years (see Genesis 5).
I believe that the average lifespan of the "daughters of men" was probably around 40 years.

Therefore it makes sense (at least to me) that the lifespan of the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men would be greater than the average lifespan of the "daughters of men" (40 years) but smaller than the average lifespan of Adam's family line (around 900 years).

[DBowling]

So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

It's not consistent with how He dealt with humanity pre-flood. Why didn't He deal with them the same way? I didn't really see an answer to his question.

Mallz makes a point that others have asked:
Why was there such a difference in what God did to those people in Genesis 6 compared to how He deals with, arguably, others that did as bad or worse?
What was so atrocious that God wiped them off the face of the land?

I guess I fundamentally disagree with the premise that there is a big difference with how God punished the people "in the land" in Genesis 6-9 and how he has responded to wickedness elsewhere in Scripture. One particular example that comes immediately to mind is how God responded to the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Assyrians and Babylonians destroying and taking wicked Israel and Judah into captivity also comes to mind.

But in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, there was a faithful remnant that God saved just like he saved Noah and his family in Genesis 6-9.

[DBowling]

I see that sons of God refer to angels that will fall. And even shown in one sentence. I refer to Genesis 6: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Let me specifically address what you said above.

Here's what I think you are saying...
The angels were not yet fallen when they saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful.
But they fell when they actually married the "daughters of men".
Am I understanding that correctly?

Here's the problem I see with trying to parse the text that way.
I think we would both agree that physical sexual desires by angels towards humans is, at the very least, not natural... especially for spirit beings (and we aren't even addressing the issue of whether or not procreation between angels and humans is even possible).
Therefore, if an angel were to have unnatural sexual desires for a human being, those unnatural desires would be evidence that the angel manifesting those desires towards humans is already fallen and in rebellion against God.

Which brings me back again to my fundamental premise that Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons/children of God".

[DBowling]

One more quick comment...

Can you show me some scriptures that refer to men as sons of God pre-flood?

Luke 3:38
Adam is explicitly referred to as a "son of God"

[PaulSacramento]

So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

It's not consistent with how He dealt with humanity pre-flood. Why didn't He deal with them the same way? I didn't really see an answer to his question.

Mallz makes a point that others have asked:
Why was there such a difference in what God did to those people in Genesis 6 compared to how He deals with, arguably, others that did as bad or worse?
What was so atrocious that God wiped them off the face of the land?

Look at what the text says is the cause for the flood:

Genesis 6New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Corruption of Mankind
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 [a]beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, [c]because he also is flesh; [d]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.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved [e]in His heart.

Verse 5 says that every intent of the thoughts of man was only continually evil. Save Noah and his family, every intent was only continually evil.

Well...Not sure if we can go there because then are we supposed to believe that God was "sorry" also?
I think that, like the rest of the passages that state "ALL" the land and the "WHOLE" world and so forth, the writer was "exaggerating" to make a point.

[PaulSacramento]

Well... if it helps, I'm thoroughly familiar with the human/angel hybrid theory as well.

For me it comes down to the singular issue that I have been beating like a dead horse here (and elsewhere).
How does Scripture use the phrase "sons/children of God"?

The two competing premises are...
1. "sons/children of God" refers to God's Covenant People
2. "sons/children of God" refers to fallen angels and a fallen Satan.

Re #1: There are multiple places in both the OT and NT where "sons/children of God" refers to God's covenant people.

Re #2: There is not a single place in Scripture where "sons/children of God" refers to fallen angels or a fallen Satan.

So when presented with a choice that is supported by multiple Scriptures vs a choice that has no Scriptural support (and is contradicted by the teaching of Jesus in John 8 ) then I am compelled to go with the premise that is supported by multiple Scriptures in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

That is the logical reason that I cannot accept the human/angel hybrid theory.

I have tried to answer all the questions that you've put forth on my view from Scripture. If for some reason I've missed some, I'm willing to try again.

I see our problem I think. And it's due to me not being clear. I don't hold to that view. Although it's very similar. I see that sons of God refer to angels that will fall. And even shown in one sentence. I refer to Genesis 6: the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

I'm very curious. Does anyone have a good explanation as to why God limited humans life span right after the sons of God married any women they chose?

120 years was how much time they had left before His judgment, not their max life span.