Sons Of God, Daughters Of Men, & Giants

[prisonchaplain]

We've hit on this topic before, but I found an intelligent couple of article that happen to support my argument that the Sons of God and Nephilim (Giants) had demonic origins. At the same, there is some recognition given to the view that they could have been the descendents of Seth marry the those of Cain.

It might also be interesting here to discuss what lessons we might draw from the different interpretations.

Here are the reference articles:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Nephilim.html

Argues that the Nephilim, or giants, “men of renown” were the offspring of fallen angels who had either directly had relations with human women, or who had possessed men, who then had relations with women.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

Argues that the sons of God were mostly likely fallen angels.

[Jason]

The only way to know for sure is to find the original myths behind the Hebrew texts, and compare.

I'd check Babylonian and early Canaanite sources for this.

[BenRaines]

PC, a friend of mine discussed the same idea with me. He said, and I will have to get back with him for his reference.

His theory is that fallen spirits, those that had followed Satan in rebellion, had taken over bodies of men. We know that possible by those recorded in NT as being possessed. Example the spirits that were cast from the man and in to the swine. The evil spirits recognized the Savior due to recollection of pre-existence an preferred a body of a swine than none at all.

Spirits had taken over human forms and was so common that God chose to destroy almost all mankind to wipe them out.

My viewpoint has always been. "Is this knowledge essential to my salvation" No so I don't worry about it but interesting speculation.

[Jason]

Other view points, including that the verse should be translated:

"...The sons of gods (bene ha-elohim') saw the daughters of men that they were fair..." - Genesis 6:2a

Source

And while Im at it, maybe we should include the possibility that the "sons of god/s" were the famed "mothmen"?

Source

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by BenRaines@Jan 4 2006, 11:58 AM

Spirits had taken over human forms and was so common that God chose to destroy almost all mankind to wipe them out.

My viewpoint has always been. "Is this knowledge essential to my salvation"  No so I don't worry about it but interesting speculation.

←

This string qualifies as more of a biblical studies one, than one requiring debate or apologetics. You're certainly right that no one's salvation rests on this issue. However, some possible different lessons depending on viewpoint:

1. If the Sons of God were demons, lessons against relying on astrology, dabbling in the occult, consulting fortune tellers, horoscopes etc. might be bolstered. Additionally the worldview of God and his people vs. Satan and the evil ways of this world is strengthened. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and principalities...

2. If the Sons of God were the righteous line of Seth, then teachings on strong families, raising up godly children, providing godly family examples to a wayward world, etc would be bolstered.

3. If the Sons of God were powerful leaders, then the "setting our eyes on things above" "Seeking first the kingdom of God" "Not be snared by the worries of this world"--such lessons that demonstrate that even the powerful cannot avoid God's righteous judgment against their wicked ways could be highlighted.

[Jason]

Chap,

#4. None of the above.

What ramifications do you see if we accept #4?

[LionHeart]

Who were the "Mothmen"? I have seen the movie 'The Mothmen Prophecies' but that is all I have heard about them. This movie was supposedly based on a true story.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Jason@Jan 4 2006, 02:08 PM

Chap,

#4.  None of the above. 

What ramifications do you see if we accept #4?

←

Guess we'd have to go with God being upset about some wrongdoings or nonrightdoings that the people of that era knew about. Therefore, we should make sure God doesn't get upset with us about stuff we know we ought not be doing (or that we ought to be doing but aren't).

[Jason]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Jan 4 2006, 04:42 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Jan 4 2006, 02:08 PM

Chap,

#4.  None of the above. 

What ramifications do you see if we accept #4?

←

Guess we'd have to go with God being upset about some wrongdoings or nonrightdoings that the people of that era knew about. Therefore, we should make sure God doesn't get upset with us about stuff we know we ought not be doing (or that we ought to be doing but aren't).

←

What Im saying is what if "god" has nothing to do with it. What if it's something else?

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Jason@Jan 4 2006, 03:59 PM

What Im saying is what if "god" has nothing to do with it.  What if it's something else?

←

Sorry...I was staying in the context of my string here.

Are you asking what would be the ramifications of God having nothing to do with the sons of God coming together with the daughters of men to produce giants, nephilim, men of renown? Well...if the word of God really isn't the word of God (which is sort of what your getting at, me thinks) then I probably wouldn't be concerned with who Genesis 6 referred to.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Jan 4 2006, 10:44 AM

We've hit on this topic before, but I found an intelligent couple of article that happen to support my argument that the Sons of God and Nephilim (Giants) had demonic origins.  At the same, there is some recognition given to the view that they could have been the descendents of Seth marry the those of Cain.

It might also be interesting here to discuss what lessons we might draw from the different interpretations.

Here are the reference articles:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Nephilim.html

Argues that the Nephilim, or giants, “men of renown” were the offspring of fallen angels who had either directly had relations with human women, or who had possessed men, who then had relations with women.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

Argues that the sons of God were mostly likely fallen angels.

←

Often in scripture there is a reference that begins with “sons of”. It is my understanding (from studies of the Dead Sea Scriptures and other ancient documents – including scripture) that anciently this nomenclature is a reference to a covenant and the proctor of the covenant. So that the sons of Zadok referenced in Ezekiel is an indication of a covenant in righteousness. The term “sons of G-d” is an explicit reference of those that have covenanted with G-d. (See also Romans 8:14 and 2Cor 6:18)

The reference to “sons of G-d” taking the “daughters of men” in Genesis should not be that hard to understand. Several men that had entered into covenants with G-d turned from their covenants with G-d and took to themselves women that were adversarial to G-d’s covenants. The confusion in this matter stems from the resultant offspring of giants. Some Bible readers jump to the conclusion that mortal men could not produce giants and therefore these “sons of G-d” must be something other than mortal men. I see no logic or scriptural support of such a notion.

In general I find two concepts prevalent in scripture and necessary to understanding scripture. First is the concept of making and proving loyal to a covenant (perfect) and second, the concept of refusal or accepting a covenant and not proving loyal (not perfect) to that covenant. Trying to interpret scripture outside of the context of covenant not only leads to false conclusions but misunderstanding of sacred obligations (refusal or dismissal of covenants or not understanding the requirement to prove one’s self loyal to one’s divine covenants.)

The Traveler

[Jason]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Jan 4 2006, 05:20 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Jan 4 2006, 03:59 PM

What Im saying is what if "god" has nothing to do with it.  What if it's something else?

←

Sorry...I was staying in the context of my string here.

Are you asking what would be the ramifications of God having nothing to do with the sons of God coming together with the daughters of men to produce giants, nephilim, men of renown? Well...if the word of God really isn't the word of God (which is sort of what your getting at, me thinks) then I probably wouldn't be concerned with who Genesis 6 referred to.

←

Not where Im going. What Im saying is what if these "sons of god/s" are demons in the Christian sense, but actually like the Mothmen of West Virginia? What if these are a phenonomon that have been witnessed throughout the history of mankind, but have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian understanding?

[BenRaines]

Since we are playing what if we could go back to GRR8's idea and maybe they were little green men who came down to visit from the moon of Saturn.

[Jason]

Originally posted by BenRaines@Jan 4 2006, 06:09 PM

Since we are playing what if we could go back to GRR8's idea and maybe they were little green men who came down to visit from the moon of Saturn.

←

Funny, but actually plausable.

Naughty astronauts. Apparently they never heard of Star Trek's "Prime Directive".

B)

[Fiannan]

Yeah, even with the "Prime Directive" Kirk was busy spreading his seed to all corners of the galaxy.

However, in reality I suppose it is a point that humans from other planets could mix with people here. Now since the Old Testament does imply a condemnation of racial mixing then one could say that interplanetary mixing would really be against the rules.

[Setheus]

According to every other Christian religion and non demominational church I've ever attended it is taught that Demons are spirit. And the LDS church teaches that those who kept not their first estate and fell with Satan did not recieve bodies of flesh. That to recieve a body of flesh one had to keep their first estate and come into mortality.

What Ben's friend says makes the most sense if there was any demonic involvement in Gen 6. Afterall how can a man with no body impregnate a woman in the flesh? Spiritual sperm? And if you come back with "Well God place His Son in Mary I will reply that the LDS church teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone also. After all if one could have a fullness of joy without a body, why are the devils so eager to get into one?

The sons of God were men, be they rulers, rightious, or possessed. They were men. And Nephilim is something created by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. They're good at making stuff up. Look at Mary M. who hung out with Mary and the other Mary. For centuries she was branded a harlot who came to repentance....the Catholic church has only recently renounced that bit of false teaching.

[Jason]

Ignorance Alert!

Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 08:55 AM

The sons of God were men, be they rulers, rightious, or possessed.  They were men.    And Nephilim is something created by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  They're good at making stuff up. 

The Nephilim were the product of early Mesopotamian cultures. They were adopted by the early Jews. The RCC had nothing to do with it.

[Setheus]

Thank you Jason for your tactful and overly graceful post. I should have said "Taught" by the RCC not "created". I am aware of the Mesopotamian origins of the Nephilim.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Jan 5 2006, 03:40 AM

Now since the Old Testament does imply a condemnation of racial mixing then one could say that interplanetary mixing would really be against the rules.

←

Even Bob Jones University has disavowed this interpretation. The Old Testament had repeated warnings against the Jews intermarrying with the Canaanites, who might not even have been of a different race. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition was that the Canaanites worshipped false gods and were immoral--not because of racial issues.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 09:19 AM

Thank you Jason for your tactful and overly graceful post.  I should have said "Taught" by the RCC not "created".  I am aware of the Mesopotamian origins of the Nephilim.

←

I did a quick check and the NIV, NRSV, and NAS translations all use the word NEPHILIM in Genesis 6:4. Additionally in Numbers 13:33 the word is used. So, apparently, while the Catholic church may have taught about it, there is at least some grounds in Scripture itself.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 10:19 AM

Thank you Jason for your tactful and overly graceful post.  I should have said "Taught" by the RCC not "created".  I am aware of the Mesopotamian origins of the Nephilim.

←

That and you shouldn't have said: "They're good at making stuff up."

Just admit you had a brain fart, and move on already.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by Jason+Jan 5 2006, 11:42 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 10:19 AM

Thank you Jason for your tactful and overly graceful post.  I should have said "Taught" by the RCC not "created".  I am aware of the Mesopotamian origins of the Nephilim.

←

That and you shouldn't have said: "They're good at making stuff up."

Just admit you had a brain fart, and move on already.

←

LOL Absolutley not. After all the Catholic church holds a conclave where some old men get together and cast ballots on who they think should be the next pope and when the talley is read *sometimes after many many attempts at reaching a majoity vote* they claim its "inspired of God". And by judging by the resume of several former Popes one can see just how "inspired" those men were....

Yes the RCC does make up a lot of stuff. Such as the Tobit with the angel Raphiel.... And the claim to draw their priesthood authority from a direct line back to Peter......And how about the very title of "Pope". Where is that office named in the OT or the NT? Why not Prophet? ....How about praying to Mary, mother of Jesus for a repentance? ....etc etc etc.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 02:52 PM

After all the Catholic church holds a conclave where some old men get together and cast ballots on who they think should be the next pope and when the talley is read *sometimes after many many attempts at reaching a majoity vote* they claim its "inspired of God".  And by judging by the resume of several former Popes one can see just how "inspired" those men were....

Or they could adopt the even less inspired "whoever's outlived everyone else, gets to be god's mouthpiece" policy.

That's way more inspired, huh? No prayer required.

Yes the RCC does make up a lot of stuff.  Such as the Tobit with the angel Raphiel....

You do realize that the RCC did not "write" the deutrocannonical books, right? They just sat around rather uninspired like and voted on which books should be in the Bible. Apparently they must of had some inspiration, since your prophet said they were all ok (except Songs).

And the claim to draw their priesthood authority from a direct line back to Peter......

Depends on what you think a "direct line" actually means. Certainly no less credible than the "Peter, James and John showed up and ordained me" bit.

And how about the very title of "Pope". Where is that office named in the OT or the NT?

Pope means "father". That's it. It's an honorary title given to the head Bishop of the RCC. The title "bishop" is found in the NT.

Why not Prophet? ....

Because it's not an office, it's a function. Go ahead, see if you can find someone being ordained with the title or office of a "prophet".

How about praying to Mary, mother of Jesus for a repentance? ....etc etc etc.

Whoa, someone's never studied Catholicism very much.

Seriously, Mary is not worshipped nor asked for forgiveness. If you ever bother to read the Catechism of the RCC, you'll find out just what they do believe.

Unless of course you'd prefer living out the rest of your life being ignorant of RCC doctrine.

[Setheus]

I've been to Rome. I've been to Vatican City. I've sat 8 rows back from Pope John Paul II. I know Catholics. I'm Italian. I know what I mean. "Hail Mary " ring any bells? I know what I'm talking about. Book knowledge and street knowledge are two very different animals Jason.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 06:11 PM

I've been to Rome. I've been to Vatican City. I've sat 8 rows back from Pope John Paul II.  I know Catholics.  I'm Italian.  I know what I mean.  "Hail Mary " ring any bells?  I know what I'm talking about.  Book knowledge and street knowledge are two very different animals Jason.

←

Big deal. Your information is wrong. But you don't know the difference between "latria" and "dulia", do you?

Officially, worship of Mary is wrong. Do some catholics cross the line? Yes. Does that make it official doctrine? No.