Question for Historians: Giant Nephilites

[calvin]

Thanks KingJ, for your reply.

Heb 1:7 is not saying angels are winds.

Actually that bit from Hebrews is a quote from:
Psa 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fireKjv)

 

[Abdicate]

Abidcate, the only issue I am fully persuaded on is that they had free will and were not evil from their dna (my three cents ). Otherwise I am truly 50/50 on sons of God being fallen angels. As if it is fallen angels, it is just one hell of a pill to swallow. Not impossible though as I have always maintained and believed that God still loves all the fallen angels.

I have been refreshing my memory by watching videos on this from La Marzulli. There are many interesting facts that tie up. Aztec temples, pyramids, ancient indian ruins all built with huge blocks and used for human sacrifices. Suggesting giants and some very cruel ones in charge. All the cranial deformations of people living by these ruins. An interesting explanation that dinosaurs were from intelligent inbreeding. The fact that sons of God mating, equaled giants....this was never said of others. IE No mention of Cain, Able, Moses's offspring being giants.

I am just wondering what makes all so certain that these were initially fallen angels. Is there not a possibility that the 200 fell at a separate / later time.

There are extra-biblical references that refer to giants from the mating of the women and angels, but I'm trying to keep it biblical. They were "fallen" because their name in Hebrew was Nephalim - from the root meaning to fall. Or the act made them fall. The book of Enoch spoke of how the angles came and gave secrets to mankind.

 

[Abdicate]

This is exactly why Major and I are so committed to putting the truth of scripture out there.

It is noteworthy that Jesus never once talked about fallen angels/demons corrupting flesh.
Not one comment hinting that demonic cohabitation of women will or ever did produce any anomalous hybridized people.
Quite the contrary, He likened the end times to the days of Noah in the context of mankind's complacency up until disaster strikes.

Luk 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
Luk 17:29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—
Luk 17:30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Can we all see that not once are naughty angels mentioned by Jesus in this dialogue? Only the uninterupted 'business as usual' affairs of man are mentioned.

The understanding at that time was just as I said. No one until Calvin had a problem with angels and women mating and producing giants. It was common knowledge. When Jesus said "as in the day of Noah" everyone understood what He meant. You really should reach church doctrinal history. It'll help you understand the fallacy of so many modern beliefs and rejections of the truth by the catholic translations of bibles and dictionaries. They've been at it for more than 1700 years!

 

[Abdicate]

Abdicate in all of your studies....has anyone ever said how a fallen angel can reproduce? Sounds like, and from the evidence of the sculls and hair analysis results that they had taken on human form.

I find it interesting that a spirit being can take on human form and reproduce like man was created to do. I think it's the only thing that puzzles my mind.

Blessings to ya

The Holy Spirit did to Mary. Man can eat angel food (manna) and be sustained. Which begs the question: why do angels need food? If their food sustains us, then that food becomes the building blocks of DNA in humans just like bananas, ice cream and cherries. So if their food does the same as our food, and the word of God said "sons of God" - referring to angels - then angels have DNA. After all, they are created being and we know they can eat our food too. In fact, as Paul says, some have entertained angels and never knew it. So they can take human form just fine. All these clues add up to exactly what the word of God said in Gen 6. The book of Enoch states that they were punished for thier sins. The New Testament says there are angels in chains until the judgement. What did they do? The cannon doesn't say, but other books, mentioned in the word of God and not part of it by man's decision, do explain it. There are seven books mentioned in the word of God that are not part of the collection we have. Peter and Jude quote Enoch. Samuel speaks of Jasher. It's all there. And so this begs one question that no one even talks about: why would the demons do that? Gen 3:15. "Seed" is a gamete. The word of God says gamete and we spiritualize it to not mean what it says. It's the same word used in Gen 38:9.

 

[Cturtle]

The Holy Spirit did to Mary. Man can eat angel food (manna) and be sustained. Which begs the question: why do angels need food? If their food sustains us, then that food becomes the building blocks of DNA in humans just like bananas, ice cream and cherries. So if their food does the same as our food, and the word of God said "sons of God" - referring to angels - then angels have DNA. After all, they are created being and we know they can eat our food too. In fact, as Paul says, some have entertained angels and never knew it. So they can take human form just fine. All these clues add up to exactly what the word of God said in Gen 6. The book of Enoch states that they were punished for thier sins. The New Testament says there are angels in chains until the judgement. What did they do? The cannon doesn't say, but other books, mentioned in the word of God and not part of it by man's decision, do explain it. There are seven books mentioned in the word of God that are not part of the collection we have. Peter and Jude quote Enoch. Samuel speaks of Jasher. It's all there. And so this begs one question that no one even talks about: why would the demons do that? Gen 3:15. "Seed" is a gamete. The word of God says gamete and we spiritualize it to not mean what it says. It's the same word used in Gen 38:9.

For some reason I thought the Bible said that angels could not reproduce. But from what you said and the verses God has brought to my memory....it something one has to after connecting some dots..take by faith. That coupled with the physical facts that are here in the earth, that the devil and God have left.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts And knowledge

 

[Cturtle]

The New Testament says there are angels in chains until the judgement. What did they do?

I thought that the Bible said these angels were the ones that were kicked out of heaven for coming against God in the rebellion with satan.

 

[Abdicate]

For some reason I thought the Bible said that angels could not reproduce. But from what you said and the verses God has brought to my memory....it something one has to after connecting some dots..take by faith. That coupled with the physical facts that are here in the earth, that the devil and God have left.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts And knowledge

Many use this verse about angels not mating:

Matthew 22:30 (KJV)

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

Marriage is a contract, not the act of mating.

 

[Abdicate]

I thought that the Bible said these angels were the ones that were kicked out of heaven for coming against God in the rebellion with satan.

So the book of Revelation is the only place that states the devil and his angels are kicked out of heaven. Job shows they still had access. Yet Jesus said He saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven. So which is it? Future or past? And if in the past, when? He still had access to God's throne in Job's time. I hope this helps. Off to bed. (I passed my test 100%).

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

So the book of Revelation is the only place that states the devil and his angels are kicked out of heaven. Job shows they still had access. Yet Jesus said He saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven. So which is it? Future or past? And if in the past, when? He still had access to God's throne in Job's time. I hope this helps. Off to bed. (I passed my test 100%).

Awesome!!! Another one bites the dust

 

[Cturtle]

I passed my test 100%).

Praise God!

 

[Major]

For some reason I thought the Bible said that angels could not reproduce. But from what you said and the verses God has brought to my memory....it something one has to after connecting some dots..take by faith. That coupled with the physical facts that are here in the earth, that the devil and God have left.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts And knowledge

You are correct. Angels are asexual and were created by God and did not reproduce by themselves.

Matthew 22:30.........
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."

Now each person must consider that in its context. If after praying over it anyone believes that angels can and do have sex then so be it. It is your choice to make.

To me however, that verse says that when we get to heaven we will have glorified bodies and just as the angels, we will not be having sexual relations.

Another verse says the same thing in Luke 20:34-36................
"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Personally, I see no biblical support for such a manifestation of fallen angels in human form that are able to have sex with humans. Would it not be true that if these were good angels in Genesis 6:1-6, they would not commit this sin, and evil angels could never be designated as "sons of God." Also, as we learned, the Bible never specifies that the "giants" were the offspring of such extraterrestrial relations. It just is not there unless you want it to be.

Again, for angels to have mated with humans means other vers than just Matthew and Luke must be thrown away or severely altered. Lets consider 1 Corth. 15:39-40 which clearly say that there were NO extraterrestrial relations..............

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."

How clearer can that be said?

This Scripture passage plainly states that men are men, animals are animals, fish are fish, birds are birds, and angels are angels. There is not one Scriptural reference which would even remotely lead us to believe that angels and humans ever had sex.

Jesus plainly stated in Mark 12:25 concerning the departed saints...
"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

I think this Scripture verse is self-explanatory. Carefully notice that Genesis 6:2 states... "and they took them wives of all which they chose." Mark 12:25 says that angels cannot marry; but Genesis 6:2 says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Clearly there would be a serious contradiction in the Scriptures here IF the sons of God were angels.

 

[Major]

I thought that the Bible said these angels were the ones that were kicked out of heaven for coming against God in the rebellion with satan.

Here is another thought ........ why didn't God mention any punishment for the angels in Genesis? Genesis 6:7 states...
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

"Angels" are NOT mentioned. in any way, good or bad. Surely God would have been very angry with a group of angels that defiled his creation, bringing it to ruin.

 

[Major]

There are extra-biblical references that refer to giants from the mating of the women and angels, but I'm trying to keep it biblical. They were "fallen" because their name in Hebrew was Nephalim - from the root meaning to fall. Or the act made them fall. The book of Enoch spoke of how the angles came and gave secrets to mankind.

Enoch is an extra Biblical source. To a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy. For example: Chapter 40:9........
"seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’

Where in the Word of God Is Raphael and Phanuel?????

The Bible never, ever, in any way whatsoever mentions an angel named Raphael and Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That is blasphemy!!!!! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.

We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel...
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19).

This is just one reason why the book of Enoch was not included in the Scriptures but here is another one..........

We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:8-12...
"And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the,
children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity and until this day."

What ... man's wisdom came from a demon named Penemue? That's crazy! Did ink and paper cause the fall of the human race? Whoa ... I'd better through all my fine-point pens away immediately! It was Adam's sin that brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12); not evil literature. Mankind is inherently evil of himself, prone to the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

Greetings Every One,
It would seem this thread even though very interesting is reaching the place where disagreeing one with another is more then any helpful information being posted.

So I am sending this one in for reviewing by my superiors.
Please think twice before posting any further replies.
Thank You Everyone
God Bless
FCJ

 

[Abdicate]

Enoch is an extra Biblical source. To a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy. For example: Chapter 40:9........
"seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’

Where in the Word of God Is Raphael and Phanuel?????

The Bible never, ever, in any way whatsoever mentions an angel named Raphael and Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That is blasphemy!!!!! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.

We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel...
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19).

This is just one reason why the book of Enoch was not included in the Scriptures but here is another one..........

We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:8-12...
"And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the,
children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity and until this day."

What ... man's wisdom came from a demon named Penemue? That's crazy! Did ink and paper cause the fall of the human race? Whoa ... I'd better through all my fine-point pens away immediately! It was Adam's sin that brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12); not evil literature. Mankind is inherently evil of himself, prone to the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21).

Brother, you really must stop assuming so much and adding to my words and misunderstanding my words.

 

[calvin]

As for myself, I can only think that the evil/unclean/ demonic spirits mentioned in the New Testament are one and the same as fallen angels. If not, then they would be another family of created entities. But it seems to be a bit far fetched to think of the Lord that He would create a whole class of bad guys.
So, if the demons etc. mentioned in the New Testament are in fact fallen angels, it seems significant to me, that they only ever infested the souls of men and did not once procreate via women.
Also I find it significant that Jesus never even hinted that this might be a future issue when He talked about the end times. Indeed His comments were directed exclusively toward mankind
Also thinking along similar lines to major, if, and it is a whopping big if a group of angels were mating with women, they were also 'corrupting their own angelic flesh' yet we hear of no flood in heaven, no angel ark being built to spare the good ones from destruction.

The Holy Spirit did to Mary.

Abdicate, you posted this in apparent response to cturtle's comment...."I find it interesting that a spirit being can take on human form and reproduce like man was created to do. I think it's the only thing that puzzles my mind."

Abdicate, not wanting to twist your words or your intended meanings here, are you saying that like the alleged angels of old, the Holy Spirit took on the flesh of man and had intercourse with Mary?
pardon me if I have drawn the wrong inference from your words, but there it is.

Well it seems to me that the comparison is unsound for the following reasons:
Firstly man is at least the image of God not of angels,
Secondly Jesus is not some kind of freakish hybrid giant.
Thirdly it is just not believable that some angels beat the Lord to the draw so to speak.
Jesus is unique, not an improved human hybrid.

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

Abdicate, not wanting to twist your words or your intended meanings here, are you saying that like the alleged angels of old, the Holy Spirit took on the flesh of man and had intercourse with Mary?
pardon me if I have drawn the wrong inference from your words, but there it is.

Come on now sir,
You know better then that and your reply is just adding fuel to a slow burning fire.
Be nice Please.

 

[Abdicate]

As for myself, I can only think that the evil/unclean/ demonic spirits mentioned in the New Testament are one and the same as fallen angels. If not, then they would be another family of created entities. But it seems to be a bit far fetched to think of the Lord that He would create a whole class of bad guys.
So, if the demons etc. mentioned in the New Testament are in fact fallen angels, it seems significant to me, that they only ever infested the souls of men and did not once procreate via women.
Also I find it significant that Jesus never even hinted that this might be a future issue when He talked about the end times. Indeed His comments were directed exclusively toward mankind
Also thinking along similar lines to major, if, and it is a whopping big if a group of angels were mating with women, they were also 'corrupting their own angelic flesh' yet we hear of no flood in heaven, no angel ark being built to spare the good ones from destruction.


Abdicate, you posted this in apparent response to cturtle's comment...."I find it interesting that a spirit being can take on human form and reproduce like man was created to do. I think it's the only thing that puzzles my mind."

Abdicate, not wanting to twist your words or your intended meanings here, are you saying that like the alleged angels of old, the Holy Spirit took on the flesh of man and had intercourse with Mary?
pardon me if I have drawn the wrong inference from your words, but there it is.

Well it seems to me that the comparison is unsound for the following reasons:
Firstly man is at least the image of God not of angels,
Secondly Jesus is not some kind of freakish hybrid giant.
Thirdly it is just not believable that some angels beat the Lord to the draw so to speak.
Jesus is unique, not an improved human hybrid.

NC

 

[calvin]

Come on now sir,
You know better then that and your reply is just adding fuel to a slow burning fire.
Be nice Please.

It was not meant to be inflammatory.
I was seeking clarification nothing more.

I myself have often been taken out of context, and if asked to explain, I do generally offer an expanded /revised reply.
If as has sometimes been the case that I am just accused out of hand then I generally just ignore.
The very second sentence of reply #61 was one such example.
It is an out and out personal accusation that is simply untrue and unkind.
Now I would ask you to remember that if I or another can take things in an unintended way, perhaps there might be a very large number of passive readers world wide who might be influenced in an unintended way too. Is it not better to take the time to clarify intended meanings rather than not?

 

[Cturtle]

It was not meant to be inflammatory.
I was seeking clarification nothing more.

I myself have often been taken out of context, and if asked to explain, I do generally offer an expanded /revised reply.
If as has sometimes been the case that I am just accused out of hand then I generally just ignore.
The very second sentence of reply #61 was one such example.
It is an out and out personal accusation that is simply untrue and unkind.
Now I would ask you to remember that if I or another can take things in an unintended way, perhaps there might be a very large number of passive readers world wide who might be influenced in an unintended way too. Is it not better to take the time to clarify intended meanings rather than not?

Thank you for explaining and clearing the air
Blessings