Question for Historians: Giant Nephilites

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babs said:
I see what your saying
Click to expand...

Please know I was not trying to be corrective or abusive to you in any way. Just wanted you to see what the Scriptures actually say.

Sometimes, not referring to you in any way, but sometimes we read the comments or hear others say things and we accept what they say because we know them and respect them. However, no matter who says what, if what they say does not agree with the Scriptures then they are wrong and it is up to all of us to find the truth which can only be found in the Word of God.

John 17:17........
"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."

God bless you my sister and I pray that you will be safe and healthy.
 
Abdicate said:
The word of God is quite clear, the fallen angels mated with the women and created giants. A man from good Seth and a woman of bad Caine still makes a normal human. A man from bad Caine and a woman from good Seth still makes a normal human. That's simple biology. Something was introduced into the woman to produce these giants that was the fallen angels just like the word of God says yet people ignore the word of God even when science backs it up. The most studied structure in the world and man cannot replicate it today. That alone tells you that the monolithics from around the world had been built by superior intellect. Even Paul says we are living in the shadow of reality. Jude confirms want of the men to mix their of DNA (what do you think mating is?) concerning Sodom - and the Greek word is hetero - different, not homo - same.

Even the Septuagint says the giants were the offspring:

Genesis 6:4 (LXXE)
(6:5) Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children] to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.​

A 45 foot man will be well known.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing in any way here. I just can not help but to ask that since man has dug up the bones of animals dead for hundreds of millions of years,
why there has not been one single skeleton found of that 45 foot tall man/thing. Not one single bone has ever been found. That alone should cause us to pause and think.

It is kind of like "big foot". We all know there is such a thing. We have read the magazines, seen the movies and documentaries and read first person eyewitness accounts. We know that no one would embellish a story to sell a book or a movies so we just know that there is a giant creature living in the woods.

Then why has there never been one single body or skeleton ever found???? Think about that for a moment!!!!!

Do they live forever? Does the Sasquatch survivors bury their dead. If they do, why have we unearthed dinosaurs 100 feet underground but not a big foots body? Do they eat the bodies, bones and all when one of them dies. Do other animals eat there bones? If so why do those same animals not eat the bones of the other animals who die.

Do we all see the problem here? Again, I am not being argumitive with my dear brother or anyone else, only speculative and trying to get all of us to think.

One explanation that answers all of those questions is simply that no Sasquatch bodies have ever been found is because there is no such thing as a Sasquatch to begin with. Just thinking out loud.
 
KingJ said:
It is clear, but we are reading into the sons of God equalling fallen angels.

Only one manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) reads angels of God. The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek translations) read sons of God not angels of God in Gen 6:2,4. Therefore one cannot appeal to the Septuagint to support the idea of angels. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_724.cfm
Click to expand...

Correct again!

The term "Sons of God" is used to describe angels and men. To assume that it means only one and not both is incorrect.

Most, if not all who say the "sons of God" are fallen angels point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that “sons of God” refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6. In this case the assumption is the opposite of the one above; that is, these passages must refer to the same thing simply because they use the same terms. This is not necessarily true, however. Words or phrases often mean different things or are used differently in different contexts.

In Job 1:6 the context/scene being described is in heaven. God is in heaven and there were no men in heaven in Job. Therefore "Sons of God"
must refer to angels.

But in Genesis 6:4 is an earthly scene and we know that by reading the verses.

Verse #1....."And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them".

So then, location demands that the men on the earth were men and not fallen angels. Additionally, it seems very unlikely that the expression “sons of God” would be used to refer to fallen angels. This argument incorrectly assumes that the two passages are referring to the same thing simply because they use the same terms.

Allow me to take this a little further to prove my point. Hosea 1:10...........
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God."

Do we believe that the Sons of God in that verse means angels simply because the phrase is used as it is used in Genesis??????

NO! Location........."children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea", demands an earthly scene with humans in view and not angels.
 
KingJ said:
It is clear, but we are reading into the sons of God equalling fallen angels.

Only one manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus) reads angels of God. The critical editions of the Septuagint (as well as two other ancient Greek translations) read sons of God not angels of God in Gen 6:2,4. Therefore one cannot appeal to the Septuagint to support the idea of angels. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_724.cfm
Click to expand...
If I showed you how "sons of God" appear four times in the word of God and all of them clearly show they're talking about angels, fallen or otherwise. Why is it impossible for them to be translated all the same? Why make any distinction when 3 of the 4 explicitly talk about angels? Why is the 1st an exception? Just because it seems impossible? The word of God is filled with the impossible. Our salvation is impossible, but we have it nonetheless, through the Word of God. How much traditional bias is involved in translations or interpretations?
 
Major said:
"How to make a fake skeleton in 5 minutes".
Click to expand...
Indeed, These photoshopped images did the rounds a few months ago and were quickly shown to be hoaxes.
Same thing with aliens and UFOs and gigantic snakes swallowing bikini clad girls. It seems there is no end to deceiving images and video presentations available on the web
This is especially true of false teachers who go to great lengths to show that the world will end or that Christ shall return on this date or that date All that is needed is to google 'end of the world'
The accounts mentioned previously in Job re sons of God is especially illustrative of the danger of wanting scripture to say what a person wants to hear.
The question that a truly inquiring mind might ask is "why , if the sons of God are angels, is the satan mentioned separately? Is it not also an angel and therefore a son of God?"
The answer might lie in the following passage:::
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
"Ohh OKay I get it: the angels in heaven are obedient, whereas fallen angels such as the satan are not, being in rebellion they are seen to be other than sons of God". our hypothetical inquirer might conclude
 
Abdicate said:
If I showed you how "sons of God" appear four times in the word of God and all of them clearly show they're talking about angels, fallen or otherwise. Why is it impossible for them to be translated all the same? Why make any distinction when 3 of the 4 explicitly talk about angels? Why is the 1st an exception? Just because it seems impossible? The word of God is filled with the impossible. Our salvation is impossible, but we have it nonetheless, through the Word of God. How much traditional bias is involved in translations or interpretations?
Click to expand...
You do make a good point, however is it not true that all the 'impossible' things are of/from God and not from or by His mere creatures?
 
calvin said:
You do make a good point, however is it not true that all the 'impossible' things are of/from God and not from or by His mere creatures?
Click to expand...
Impossibility is only defined by man. God Himself said in His word that whatever a man can image he can do.
 
Abdicate said:
Why do you think "science" will say these are fake? Because it throws into the face of Darwinism. Do we believe the word of God or man? Funny.
Click to expand...
Not all science, not all scientists are dishonest.
Are those scientists who support special creation dishonest deceivers?
https://answersingenesis.org/creati...oid/were-giant-skeletons-found-in-the-desert/
I for one will not in anyway vilify Dr. Tommy Mitchel the author of the above linked article.
He would be just one of many science educated persons who should be respected for their stand against false teachings in the secular world.
 
Fish Catcher Jim said:
satan has been trying to make man in his image since the get go.
Click to expand...
I always thought the satan was a dragon::
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
So I wonder what the image of a dragon would look like?
 
calvin said:
I always thought the satan was a dragon::
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
So I wonder what the image of a dragon would look like?
Click to expand...
Come on Bro, can't you be serious at all.
 
Abdicate said:
Why do you think "science" will say these are fake? Because it throws into the face of Darwinism. Do we believe the word of God or man? Funny.
Click to expand...
The problem arises when man believes he knows so much and in Truth he knows less then what he does not have a clue about.

Another words what man is ignorant about concerning God and His word is far more then what he Thinks he knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top