Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[RickD]

Paul,

You and I disagree on this, but the more I look at the subject, the more I see it's anything but "very clear", as to what scripture means. There are very good arguments on both sides.

[SoCalExile]

Paul, your own Wiki link on the subject shows it wasn't universally accepted like you want to claim. You're cherry-picking evidence. Ultimately it matters what the Bible says, not men; that's the core disconnect here. You want to defer your understanding to men, I defer my understanding to what's in the text of scripture.

It's the same thing that leads you to discount the bible when it talks very clearly of a global flood, nevermind that it is also the accepted view of past scholars. Again, that doesn't matter in that case but it matters in this case.

As is in this case, usually when someone says that the Bible says something "very clearly", it's not.
Please don't misrepresent people here by saying that they discount the Bible, just because one doesn't believe in a global flood.

If you want to believe the Bible shows a global flood, that's your prerogative. But, do not ever equate your interpretation with scripture itself.

Words mean things. When Genesis 7 says that everything that had breath died except that which was with Noah, and yet that's not convincing to someone, they aren't putting their stock in the Bible. The problem with the word "nephyl" is that Hebrew, being a concrete language, has an entirely different philosophy, which translators are pretty good about. Genesis 6 is one of those sections where the wording doesn't support angel-hybrid theory, as these words and concepts are defined by the rest of the Bible. This isn't a subjective book, it's a book that objectively defines itself. When someone reaches outside the Bible for truth, by definition it means they don't take the Bible as sufficient - whether that's their church, their "prophets", pagan writings, etc.

[SoCalExile]

Rick, don't bother.
Look, this is not a subject we will agree on and it isn't one that has been agreed on since about the 4th century.
We have evidence that it was, at least, the majority view before and during the second temple.
We all stated are cases and the evidence is enough for all 3 sides to claim a degree legitimacy.
I appreciate those that were willing to discuss this rationally and reasonably without insults and immature comments.
That said, I have studied this for quite a few years and have gone back and forth a bit on my position and am at the stage that is LEANING toward the sons of God in genesis 6 being the same sons mentioned in Job and the other passages I have mentioned.
That view, IMO, address the issues of Genesis 6 AND many other through out the OT and NT.
But I am not interested in justifying my opinion to anyone that is rude, condescending and not able to grasp the basis of the actual argument.
So I withdraw from this thread.

Paul, it was just fine for you to be rude and condescending when it suited you. I call it as I see it. What set you off is that i called out a favorite guy of yours for what he is. You guys can't claim to be respectful of all ideas then complain when an Idea (the kooky theories of Heiser) you don't like comes around and you can't respect that, and proceed to abuse your position here. That right there opened it up. Now you want to claim offense? Please. Play that game with someone else.

What's worse about it is that you simply poo-pooed counterpoints and simply ignored were your arguments failed. It is not about what is actually in the text for you. That was simply demonstrated when you ignored the words used to describe Goliath and Og and inserted your own word, which didn't appear at all in that passage, and also when you tried to use Jude and Peter as proof-texts AFTER you told me that the "OT must be read with OT eyes" or some such when the NT contradicted your argument on the meaning of "sons of God". This isn't even intellectually honest - which BTW if you are getting your theology and arguments from Michael Heiser they aren't going to be intellectually honest, and I showed that with his argument against studying prophecy.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul,

You and I disagree on this, but the more I look at the subject, the more I see it's anything but "very clear", as to what scripture means. There are very good arguments on both sides.

That is the point and the only point I was trying to make.
Anyone that says it is clear cut one way or another hasn't done their research.
We may decide to favour one argument over they other BUT you can't say that any one of them is clear cut.

[RickD]

SoCal wrote:
Words mean things. When Genesis 7 says that everything that had breath died except that which was with Noah, and yet that's not convincing to someone, they aren't putting their stock in the Bible...

The key is dry land where?

What does the text say?
Genesis 7:22-24
22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

So where? Earth, or 'erets. And 'erets has more than one literal meaning, as you can see here.

One can certainly believe in the Bible literally, and believe that 'erets, or earth, is referring to specific land, or an area of land, not the entire globe.

So again, for you to say that people who do not subscribe to YOUR literal and concrete interpretation, don't take the Bible seriously, is just flat out wrong, misleading, dishonest, and not something any of us should do to anyone, nevermind our brothers in Christ.

So again, I'm asking you to stop misrepresenting others who hold a different interpretation than you, yet still hold scripture in the highest regard.

[PaulSacramento]

Some of us hold scripture so high that we devote our lives to it, to learning about it though qualified teachers and asking guidance from Our Lord and the Holy Spirit because it means more to us than anything else.

[B. W.]

...Jude is NOT saying the angels had sex with women, it's saying they rejected God's authority and left heaven. THEN it mentions the perversion of S&G and those cities around them that engaged in the same sin. THEN Jude states that the apostates in his day are rejecting God's authority (as the angels had) and are practicing lewdness ( as the Sodomites did). You have to actually ignore what's being said to get this to support the A-H theory.

Then you go right to claims that are not in any scripture.

The false gods of other cultures have no rational basis in this discussion. It is an utter non-sequitur to think "false gods prove angel hybrid theory". For one, for false gods are false. Second, they're the product of the imaginations of sinful men or even deception by fallen angels; it in no way supports that angels had sex and produced offspring with humans. For one, that would mean that angels are in fact, human themselves since God in Genesis 1 made things to reproduce with its own kind.

I highly recommend a book called "Spirit of the Rainforest, a Yanomamo Shaman's Story" for insight in how deceptive fallen angels are.

Agree that Jude is not saying the angels had sex with women - he is pointing out the rebellion which in Book of Enoch describes. The second in command of the rebellion,‛Azā’zēl, was Satan's scapegoat used to avoid direct punishment for destroying the innocent of Humanity, Adam. ‛Azā’zēl taught rebellion... and was sent to the current Hell. That is according to ancient Jewish traditions.

Jesus was slain unjustly, yet without sin, Barabbas, was sent to the wilderness as the scapegoated leader of rebellion. The imagery is striking considering that the work of the cross made a public spectacle of Satan, judging him, etc, and the scapegoat for his rebellion sent into the wilderness is profound considering that in Romans 5 Jesus is call the new Adam who could not be corrupted and died and rose again so we can rise back to God and escape rebellion.

Next, you said, "The false gods of other cultures have no rational basis in this discussion," this is wrong, they do. They mirror the fallen angels as well as the genetically altered offspring who, later in the Book of Enoch became demons roaming the earth...

Bible says what is these verses: Lev 17:7 - Deut 32:16-17 - 2Ch 11:15 - Psalms 106:37-39 and 1Co 10:20 ?

Indeed the Idols and false gods they represent and real and present danger and to review who they are and what the did you find they share the same story line, characteristics, and planet and constellation names midst all the pagan religions in the world. The names change, the story line with little or no variations are constant. knowing this unlocks the mysteries of end time bible prophecy.

Therefore, with due respect, they do indeed have relevance in this discussion...
-
-
-

[SoCalExile]

SoCal wrote:
Words mean things. When Genesis 7 says that everything that had breath died except that which was with Noah, and yet that's not convincing to someone, they aren't putting their stock in the Bible...

The key is dry land where?

What does the text say?
Genesis 7:22-24
22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

So where? Earth, or 'erets. And 'erets has more than one literal meaning, as you can see here.

One can certainly believe in the Bible literally, and believe that 'erets, or earth, is referring to specific land, or an area of land, not the entire globe.

So again, for you to say that people who do not subscribe to YOUR literal and concrete interpretation, don't take the Bible seriously, is just flat out wrong, misleading, dishonest, and not something any of us should do to anyone, nevermind our brothers in Christ.

So again, I'm asking you to stop misrepresenting others who hold a different interpretation than you, yet still hold scripture in the highest regard.

If you totally read your presupposition into the text. Nevermind what your own link overwhelmingly says, and what the actual text says. Yes there is "eratz Israel" meaning the land of Israel, but Israel wasn't even a thing yet. So don't pretend the word of God is just some tool to use for proof-texts. Read what it actually says.

[SoCalExile]

Some of us hold scripture so high that we devote our lives to it, to learning about it though qualified teachers and asking guidance from Our Lord and the Holy Spirit because it means more to us than anything else.

Then discard it when it suits your fancy and tickles your ears.

[SoCalExile]

...Jude is NOT saying the angels had sex with women, it's saying they rejected God's authority and left heaven. THEN it mentions the perversion of S&G and those cities around them that engaged in the same sin. THEN Jude states that the apostates in his day are rejecting God's authority (as the angels had) and are practicing lewdness ( as the Sodomites did). You have to actually ignore what's being said to get this to support the A-H theory.

Then you go right to claims that are not in any scripture.

The false gods of other cultures have no rational basis in this discussion. It is an utter non-sequitur to think "false gods prove angel hybrid theory". For one, for false gods are false. Second, they're the product of the imaginations of sinful men or even deception by fallen angels; it in no way supports that angels had sex and produced offspring with humans. For one, that would mean that angels are in fact, human themselves since God in Genesis 1 made things to reproduce with its own kind.

I highly recommend a book called "Spirit of the Rainforest, a Yanomamo Shaman's Story" for insight in how deceptive fallen angels are.

Agree that Jude is not saying the angels had sex with women - he is pointing out the rebellion which in Book of Enoch describes. The second in command of the rebellion,‛Azā’zēl, was Satan's scapegoat used to avoid direct punishment for destroying the innocent of Humanity, Adam. ‛Azā’zēl taught rebellion... and was sent to the current Hell. That is according to ancient Jewish traditions.

Jesus was slain unjustly, yet without sin, Barabbas, was sent to the wilderness as the scapegoated leader of rebellion. The imagery is striking considering that the work of the cross made a public spectacle of Satan, judging him, etc, and the scapegoat for his rebellion sent into the wilderness is profound considering that in Romans 5 Jesus is call the new Adam who could not be corrupted and died and rose again so we can rise back to God and escape rebellion.

Next, you said, "The false gods of other cultures have no rational basis in this discussion," this is wrong, they do. They mirror the fallen angels as well as the genetically altered offspring who, later in the Book of Enoch became demons roaming the earth...

Bible says what is these verses: Lev 17:7 - Deut 32:16-17 - 2Ch 11:15 - Psalms 106:37-39 and 1Co 10:20 ?

Indeed the Idols and false gods they represent and real and present danger and to review who they are and what the did you find they share the same story line, characteristics, and planet and constellation names midst all the pagan religions in the world. The names change, the story line with little or no variations are constant. knowing this unlocks the mysteries of end time bible prophecy.

Therefore, with due respect, they do indeed have relevance in this discussion...
-
-
-

No, they don't. You can make the case that demons (i.e. fallen angels) are behind the false religions, which I did say, but you can't use this to support the idea of these demons mating with humans in a text that says no such thing. Sorry, it's still a non-sequitur. You're operating with a premise you haven't proven.
ETA: you seem to be using circular reasoning also, since 'false gods prove angel hybrids because angel hybrids are demons which are false gods'.

[RickD]

SoCal wrote:
Words mean things. When Genesis 7 says that everything that had breath died except that which was with Noah, and yet that's not convincing to someone, they aren't putting their stock in the Bible...

The key is dry land where?

What does the text say?
Genesis 7:22-24
22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

So where? Earth, or 'erets. And 'erets has more than one literal meaning, as you can see here.

One can certainly believe in the Bible literally, and believe that 'erets, or earth, is referring to specific land, or an area of land, not the entire globe.

So again, for you to say that people who do not subscribe to YOUR literal and concrete interpretation, don't take the Bible seriously, is just flat out wrong, misleading, dishonest, and not something any of us should do to anyone, nevermind our brothers in Christ.

So again, I'm asking you to stop misrepresenting others who hold a different interpretation than you, yet still hold scripture in the highest regard.

If you totally read your presupposition into the text. Nevermind what your own link overwhelmingly says, and what the actual text says. Yes there is "eratz Israel" meaning the land of Israel, but Israel wasn't even a thing yet. So don't pretend the word of God is just some tool to use for proof-texts. Read what it actually says.

Let's see what the text says:
Genesis 7:21-24:

21 All flesh that moved on the land perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the land,, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out [t]every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the land; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the land one hundred and fifty days.
Looks to me like a perfectly valid interpretation, from a literal reading of the text, would lead to a localized flood, in the area specific to where Noah lived.

You can certainly argue your points without attacking Christians in a dishonest manner.

This is now a warning. Do not discuss this further in this or any thread. If you need to respond, do so via pm to a moderator.

Please get back to the topic of the thread, without attacking the integrity and motivation of members here.

[DBowling]

So we have to ask ourselves this:
What if they were real? so what?

We know via other scripture that divine beings rebelled ( Satan and his followers)

Agreed, I have no problem with that

We know that divine being exist, that demons exist, that there was a war in their realm.

I also agree with that

Why do we have such a hard time believing what so many did during that time ( and we know that many, perhaps most) believed that the Sons of God were divine beings ( we have their writings)?

Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.
Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.

I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.
Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.

As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.

Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.

I mean, what issue do we have with the supernatural element being there? that there are supernatural beings that want to do us harm and destroy us? I mean Jesus said as much.

None at all...
The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.

[SoCalExile]

SoCal wrote:
Words mean things. When Genesis 7 says that everything that had breath died except that which was with Noah, and yet that's not convincing to someone, they aren't putting their stock in the Bible...

The key is dry land where?

What does the text say?
Genesis 7:22-24
22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

So where? Earth, or 'erets. And 'erets has more than one literal meaning, as you can see here.

One can certainly believe in the Bible literally, and believe that 'erets, or earth, is referring to specific land, or an area of land, not the entire globe.

So again, for you to say that people who do not subscribe to YOUR literal and concrete interpretation, don't take the Bible seriously, is just flat out wrong, misleading, dishonest, and not something any of us should do to anyone, nevermind our brothers in Christ.

So again, I'm asking you to stop misrepresenting others who hold a different interpretation than you, yet still hold scripture in the highest regard.

If you totally read your presupposition into the text. Nevermind what your own link overwhelmingly says, and what the actual text says. Yes there is "eratz Israel" meaning the land of Israel, but Israel wasn't even a thing yet. So don't pretend the word of God is just some tool to use for proof-texts. Read what it actually says.

Let's see what the text says:
Genesis 7:21-24:

21 All flesh that moved on the land perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the land,, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out [t]every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the land; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the land one hundred and fifty days.
Looks to me like a perfectly valid interpretation, from a literal reading of the text, would lead to a localized flood, in the area specific to where Noah lived.

You can certainly argue your points without attacking Christians in a dishonest manner.

This is now a warning. Do not discuss this further in this or any thread. If you need to respond, do so via pm to a moderator.

Please get back to the topic of the thread, without attacking the integrity and motivation of members here.

Please point out where I was attacking someone. I was pointing out what they were doing, same as people are making claims against me. I am not being dishonest in the least.

[SoCalExile]

You are dense.
The Septugaint was written BEFORE the NT era, was the bible used by Jesus and His followers and it translates it "giants".
You obviously did not read the article or the footnotes and links and you just going on "confirmation bias".

Honestly, what is wrong with you?
You insult respected scholars, argue with the likes of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, the new american bible, the jerusalem bible, even the ESV.
Dude, you need to get a grip, seriously.

Quoted for Rick.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Also, how did giants come into being then if not through the mating of angels and earth women?

Natural selection or something of the sort? Like how most early human were average height yet some Erectus were 8 feet, called Meganthropus.