Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/1/2006 5:40:48 PM EDT
Who are the Nephilim from Genesis 6:4? Any theological scholars or theories?
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 5:42:30 PM EDT
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 5:44:22 PM EDT
theres a lot of interesting reading, at least to me, on the web about them..if you havent already found it.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 5:44:43 PM EDT
I concurr from my layman's perspective.


Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.

Link Posted: 1/1/2006 7:46:13 PM EDT
politically powerful and renown men of their days.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:34:56 AM EDT
Hebrew scholars debate whether the root for Nephalim should be nepel or napal. If nepel then nephilim is related to the word "miscarriage" and indicates a superhuman monstrosity the result of the sons of God intermarrying with the sons of man. If napal is the root then it is related to the words "strong, mighty, wonderful" and could reference any fierce warriors or heroes.

see Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament vol. 2 p. 1395

The majority of scholars would go with napal and would interpret the sons of God as a reference to believers (The godly line of Seth) and sons of man as a reference to unbelievers.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:13:21 AM EDT
The Nephillim are the Hebrew version of the Sumerian Anunnaki. As they were able to interbreed with humanity, they were, by definition, human. The interbreeding of the Nephillim with the indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia is recorded were Eve tells Adam that she has, "gotten a man from the Lord". The Lord, in this case, is the father of Cain, Samael, and Cain is thus a member of the Nephillim by birth and an ancestor of the later royal line and race.

The Nephillim were more advanced as a race, but if one reads the Book of Enoch one discovers that their advances in civilization were in areas like cosmetology, pharmacology, weaponry, and the science that earned them the name 'Watchers' astrology and astronomy, all areas that are hardly angelic in nature, but quite human.

As a race, they probably looked different to the indigenous people of Mesopotamia who described them as Serpents. The term 'serpent' may also have been a sort or racial term of derision that the indigenous people applied to the advanced invaders from the east but in actuality they were no more serpents than Buffalo Soldiers were buffalo.

For their own part, the Nephillim would have recognized their advanced status relative to the indigenous Mesopotamians and as 'Sons of God' would have used this as part of their justification for their Divine right to rule. Having come to Mesopotamia from the east they would adopt as their symbol the Eastern Star. The Sumerian king's lists would place pentacles, the symbol of the appearent path of Venus as seen from Earth, next to the names of the kings. Later, Venus would still be watched closely as a sign of the birth of an especially powerful king and kings, being anointed as such, would be Messiahs. The Temples would be built on hilltops to facilitate unobstructed astrological observations and east-west orientations would dominiate to track the movement of the Eastern Star. A Jewish Messiah might spend the night to the east of the Jerusalem Temple on the mount of olives, returning to the Temple to teach in the early morning with the rising of the Eastern Star. Such a Messiah might claim, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. " Revelation 22:16
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:30:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:
Hebrew scholars debate whether the root for Nephalim should be nepel or napal. If nepel then nephilim is related to the word "miscarriage" and indicates a superhuman monstrosity the result of the sons of God intermarrying with the sons of man. If napal is the root then it is related to the words "strong, mighty, wonderful" and could reference any fierce warriors or heroes.

see Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament vol. 2 p. 1395

The majority of scholars would go with napal and would interpret the sons of God as a reference to believers (The godly line of Seth) and sons of man as a reference to unbelievers.



That's probably because the majority of Bible scholars are very definitely secularists.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:49:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 8:17:08 AM EDT by Shaffer]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



He is correct, but it’s even deeper than that as they were the offspring of those angels that rebelled against God because Satan wanted to destroy the blood line that which Christ would come. They were the cause of much of trouble for early flesh man for they were evil to the core and lead God to flood much of the world to destroy them.


And RikWriter is correct on this also, the majority of Bible scholars are very definitely secularists.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 8:22:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 8:29:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ToddB:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?



Well, I personally am no longer a believer, so don't ask me why the Bible isn't logically consistent---you won't like the answer I have. But according to my father, who was a believer, there isn't sufficient information given about angels in the Bible to state unequivocally that they are sexless.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 8:58:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 9:07:33 AM EDT by Shaffer]

Originally Posted By ToddB:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?




Ok, this is one of the most important subjects/studies of the Bible for it deals with Satan’s methods of operating. I do not like going in to much detail because the subject is huge and because by quoting scripture it become a pissing match in this forum, but Adam was not Cain’s father and GOD himself said so. If not Adam then who else was in the garden? All spiritual bodies are masculine/male in the image of our heavenly FATHER. Woman is a new creation for this FLESH WORLD to bring forth all souls that were created so they may make the choice "with out knowledge of the past" whether to love God or not.

Please obtain a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance for your studies and look up angels.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:02:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 10:14:32 AM EDT by Wdsman]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:
Hebrew scholars debate whether the root for Nephalim should be nepel or napal. If nepel then nephilim is related to the word "miscarriage" and indicates a superhuman monstrosity the result of the sons of God intermarrying with the sons of man. If napal is the root then it is related to the words "strong, mighty, wonderful" and could reference any fierce warriors or heroes.

see Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament vol. 2 p. 1395

The majority of scholars would go with napal and would interpret the sons of God as a reference to believers (The godly line of Seth) and sons of man as a reference to unbelievers.



That's probably because the majority of Bible scholars are very definitely secularists.



I'm impressed! Your simple statement managed to contain both a logical fallacy and a factual error.

1. To discount a statement because of the source is called the "source fallacy." If a drunk tells you the building is on fire. It may or may not be on fire. The fact that he is a drunk does not matter.

2. Actually, the secularists tend to (thought not all of them) equate the sons of God with angels. They then write the whole section off as an example of the Bible borrowing from ANE mythology. It is those who interpret this as a historical event who usually believe sons of God is a reference to the line of Seth. See [i]International Standard Bible Encyclopedia vol. 3 p. 518-519. I personally first heard this (the view that sons of God = line of Seth) from Dr. James E. Smith, PhD. Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Florida Christian College. He is definitely NOT a secularist. Moody Press the pulbisher of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is also not a secularist organization.

3. The reason the scholars choose the interpretation is based on their understanding of the Hebrew Language and Jesus' statement that angels do not marry (implying sexless) in Matthew 22:30.

Edited for clarification
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:05:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kundry:
The Nephillim are the Hebrew version of the Sumerian Anunnaki. As they were able to interbreed with humanity, they were, by definition, human. The interbreeding of the Nephillim with the indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia is recorded were Eve tells Adam that she has, "gotten a man from the Lord". The Lord, in this case, is the father of Cain, Samael, and Cain is thus a member of the Nephillim by birth and an ancestor of the later royal line and race.

The Nephillim were more advanced as a race, but if one reads the Book of Enoch one discovers that their advances in civilization were in areas like cosmetology, pharmacology, weaponry, and the science that earned them the name 'Watchers' astrology and astronomy, all areas that are hardly angelic in nature, but quite human.

As a race, they probably looked different to the indigenous people of Mesopotamia who described them as Serpents. The term 'serpent' may also have been a sort or racial term of derision that the indigenous people applied to the advanced invaders from the east but in actuality they were no more serpents than Buffalo Soldiers were buffalo.

For their own part, the Nephillim would have recognized their advanced status relative to the indigenous Mesopotamians and as 'Sons of God' would have used this as part of their justification for their Divine right to rule. Having come to Mesopotamia from the east they would adopt as their symbol the Eastern Star. The Sumerian king's lists would place pentacles, the symbol of the appearent path of Venus as seen from Earth, next to the names of the kings. Later, Venus would still be watched closely as a sign of the birth of an especially powerful king and kings, being anointed as such, would be Messiahs. The Temples would be built on hilltops to facilitate unobstructed astrological observations and east-west orientations would dominiate to track the movement of the Eastern Star. A Jewish Messiah might spend the night to the east of the Jerusalem Temple on the mount of olives, returning to the Temple to teach in the early morning with the rising of the Eastern Star. Such a Messiah might claim, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. " Revelation 22:16



References??
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:08:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:
Hebrew scholars debate whether the root for Nephalim should be nepel or napal. If nepel then nephilim is related to the word "miscarriage" and indicates a superhuman monstrosity the result of the sons of God intermarrying with the sons of man. If napal is the root then it is related to the words "strong, mighty, wonderful" and could reference any fierce warriors or heroes.

see Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament vol. 2 p. 1395

The majority of scholars would go with napal and would interpret the sons of God as a reference to believers (The godly line of Seth) and sons of man as a reference to unbelievers.



That's probably because the majority of Bible scholars are very definitely secularists.



Really? I have never seen stats on that. Could you link your source?

I can only go on personal experience, and the majority of people I have met with degrees in religious studies (or something similar) are religious.

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:14:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ToddB:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?



Today, well read Jude 1:6.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:16:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
That's probably because the majority of Bible scholars are very definitely secularists.



Really? I have never seen stats on that. Could you link your source?

I can only go on personal experience, and the majority of people I have met with degrees in religious studies (or something similar) are religious.




I don't have stats in front of me, but I have read polls and studies of the profession. And by secularists I don't mean irreligious, I mean that they tend to favor the least miraculous explanation for any religious question. My personal experience, which echoes the studies I've read, is that your typical Bible scholar thinks of the Bible as Truth rather than Fact.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:24:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
That's probably because the majority of Bible scholars are very definitely secularists.



Really? I have never seen stats on that. Could you link your source?

I can only go on personal experience, and the majority of people I have met with degrees in religious studies (or something similar) are religious.




I don't have stats in front of me, but I have read polls and studies of the profession. And by secularists I don't mean irreligious, I mean that they tend to favor the least miraculous explanation for any religious question. My personal experience, which echoes the studies I've read, is that your typical Bible scholar thinks of the Bible as Truth rather than Fact.



Ahh ok, yes then I agree with that. Your use of secularist in that sense confused me :)

I'm used the arfcome code that secularist = atheist (usually follow by communist hehe)

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:24:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 9:47:19 AM EDT by Shaffer]
Wdsman, angels can not marry because they are all male. And that would be an abomination before God, not because their is no form. Also no need of marriage in Heaven we are all Gods children, Brothers in Christ. Those words have much greater meaning than some would like to believe.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:28:37 AM EDT
Read my thread on this subject here:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=135&t=410086
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 10:12:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:
Wdsman, angels can not marry because they are all male. And that would be an abomination before God, not because their is no form. Also no need of marriage in Heaven we are all Gods children, Brothers in Christ. Those words have much greater meaning than some would like to believe.



Since Jesus says that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels does that mean we will all be male in the resurrection?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 10:19:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
politically powerful and renown men of their days.



___

Generally, this would be the more accepted stance. Nice job, WildBoar! Despite the literal text of the Bible the idea of angels mating with humans as distasteful have suggested more figurative interpretations of the nephilim, such as the idea that they were the offspring of men possessed by demons.

In Hebrew ( אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵׁם ) . In rabbinic literature, these names where provided to them: Irad, Mechuiael, Methushael, who were so named because of their destruction, for they were wiped out (מְחוּיָאֵל from נִמוֹחוּ) and uprooted (מְתוּשָׁאֵל from הוּתָּשׁוּ). Another explanation: men of desolation (שִׁמָמוֹן), who made the world desolate. — [from Gen. Rabbah 26:7]


http://forums.torah.org/viewtopic.php?t=993&highlight=nephilim


Ed



Link Posted: 1/2/2006 10:53:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By ToddB:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?




Ok, this is one of the most important subjects/studies of the Bible for it deals with Satan’s methods of operating. I do not like going in to much detail because the subject is huge and because by quoting scripture it become a pissing match in this forum, but Adam was not Cain’s father and GOD himself said so. If not Adam then who else was in the garden? All spiritual bodies are masculine/male in the image of our heavenly FATHER. Woman is a new creation for this FLESH WORLD to bring forth all souls that were created so they may make the choice "with out knowledge of the past" whether to love God or not.

Please obtain a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance for your studies and look up angels.




Where did you get the idea that Adam was not Cain's father? Certainly not from Genesis.

Genesis 4:1 "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain."
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 11:29:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Originally Posted By Shaffer:
Wdsman, angels can not marry because they are all male. And that would be an abomination before God, not because their is no form. Also no need of marriage in Heaven we are all Gods children, Brothers in Christ. Those words have much greater meaning than some would like to believe.



Since Jesus says that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels does that mean we will all be male in the resurrection?



Yes, in our fathers image. No need for marriage, brothers one and all.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 11:57:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By ToddB:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?




Ok, this is one of the most important subjects/studies of the Bible for it deals with Satan’s methods of operating. I do not like going in to much detail because the subject is huge and because by quoting scripture it become a pissing match in this forum, but Adam was not Cain’s father and GOD himself said so. If not Adam then who else was in the garden? All spiritual bodies are masculine/male in the image of our heavenly FATHER. Woman is a new creation for this FLESH WORLD to bring forth all souls that were created so they may make the choice "with out knowledge of the past" whether to love God or not.

Please obtain a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance for your studies and look up angels.




Where did you get the idea that Adam was not Cain's father? Certainly not from Genesis.

Genesis 4:1 "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain."




Eve took of the fruit, it was SEX, not a silly apple, and Adam did like wise with Eve (good) and then the other one Satan (bad). Why then did Adam and Eve cover their genitals with fig leaves? Do not stop at Genesis 4:1 as Genesis 4:2 revels that she continued in labor. You do understand that many of Christ’s parables deal with this subject. Parable of the fig tree for one.

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 12:10:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By ToddB:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
My father thought they were the offspring of human women and fallen angels.



According to what is written about angels in the Bible, I have been lead to believe they were sexless beings, certainly not capable to breed with humans. If they are able to, what are they not doing so today?




Ok, this is one of the most important subjects/studies of the Bible for it deals with Satan’s methods of operating. I do not like going in to much detail because the subject is huge and because by quoting scripture it become a pissing match in this forum, but Adam was not Cain’s father and GOD himself said so. If not Adam then who else was in the garden? All spiritual bodies are masculine/male in the image of our heavenly FATHER. Woman is a new creation for this FLESH WORLD to bring forth all souls that were created so they may make the choice "with out knowledge of the past" whether to love God or not.

Please obtain a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance for your studies and look up angels.




Where did you get the idea that Adam was not Cain's father? Certainly not from Genesis.

Genesis 4:1 "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain."




Eve took of the fruit, it was SEX, not a silly apple, and Adam did like wise with Eve (good) and then the other one Satan (bad). Why then did Adam and Eve cover their genitals with fig leaves? Do not stop at Genesis 4:1 as Genesis 4:2 revels that she continued in labor. You do understand that many of Christ’s parables deal with this subject. Parable of the fig tree for one.





Where do you get this stuff?? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the forbidden fruit = sex. Nowhere does it indicate any contact with Satan (sexual or otherwise) between 4:1 when Adam sleeps with Eve and when Cain is born ALSO in 4:1. 4:2 has to do with the birth of Abel. If as you said "Adam did like wise with (good) and then with Satan (bad)." Then it would make sense that Cain was Adam's child and Abel was Satan's. There is no evidence that any of Christ's parables have anything to do with Eve having sex with anyone.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 12:37:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 12:43:15 PM EDT by scuba_ed]
Sex is mentioned frequently in the Hebrew Bible. It has, and always will be the source of tests for us all. These are lessons to be learned from; both the downfall of King David to the exalting beauty found in the Psalms.

To confuse biblical references and entwine physical sexual relations between humans, angels or the Hebrew G-d - created beings is, from my perspective, unseemly and distasteful, and incorporates many of the Greco-Roman pagan myths from which little is added to the idea of spirituality.

There are those who seem to believe that pagan-god worship has this attraction. Many may find this abstract totally or in part the ideal; though at its heart is an inheritance of idolatry of the ancients.

The G-d of the Hebrews made the world and mankind without any sort of mating. Though what has been inferred, read-into, adulterated, and detracted from the Hebrew Bible is the idea of humankind born without the concept of the Greco-Roman phallus-oriented god-culture which inspires such poor reasoning of the nature of the Hebrew G-d.

Separation of Church and State?

Better would be a separation of the idea of a Creator and Lawgiver to humankind without a phallus or other intermediary. That concept is demeaning to both Creator and creation.

Ed
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 12:43:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 12:44:15 PM EDT by Shaffer]
Eve was beguiled=seduced wholly by Satan in Genesis 3.6. Not only dose Genesis tell us this but also Cor II 11.3. Cain was Satan’s offspring with Eve; Abel was Adams offspring with Eve, you just have to study the word a bit deeper and, in order, to understand this. Christ’s parables for what happened in the garden are very important, and are not taught in the churches like it should.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 12:57:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 1:01:31 PM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By Shaffer:
Eve was beguiled=seduced wholly by Satan in Genesis 3.6. Not only dose Genesis tell us this but also Cor II 11.3. Cain was Satan’s offspring with Eve; Abel was Adams offspring with Eve, you just have to study the word a bit deeper and, in order, to understand this. Christ’s parables for what happened in the garden are very important, and are not taught in the churches like it should.



___

What was going through your mind re: Cain being born of "satan"?. Irrespective of your biblical references, though with a nod to your study(), Shaffer, any effort to lay any, any blame upon a woman for what could only be figuratively understood as a male's desire (like the snake), is untoward, unseemly to the sufferage of women.

As there was a male (Adam) around...I wouldn't make Eve the scapegoat as in your analogy.

Re:

"Cain was Satan’s offspring with Eve; Abel was Adams offspring with Eve, you just have to study the word a bit deeper and, in order, to understand this"

I would instead search within yourself as to why you seem to believe it important that deities would mate with humans.



Ed

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 12:59:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:
Eve was beguiled=seduced wholly by Satan in Genesis 3.6. Not only dose Genesis tell us this but also Cor II 11.3. Cain was Satan’s offspring with Eve; Abel was Adams offspring with Eve, you just have to study the word a bit deeper and, in order, to understand this. Christ’s parables for what happened in the garden are very important, and are not taught in the churches like it should.



Eve was "decieved." II Cor. 11.3 uses the word exepatesen from exapataomai "to decieve or delude." There is no indication or implication of intercourse in either the Corinthian passage or the Genesis text. Genesis 3 descirbes a fruit growing on a tree and it is contrasted with all the other fruits in the garden. There is nothing in the text to indicate that the forbidden fruit = sex.

You have simply restated that Cain was Satan's offspring with Eve, but have still given no reference to support it. You say to study the word a bit deeper. If you mean the Bible in general, I have a B.S, M.A. and MDiv all in Biblical Studies. I have been preaching for about 14 years. If you mean the particular words of the Genesis passage or the Corinthian passage, I've read them in the original languages. What you say is there, simply isn't.

Again, where do you find any indication that any of Christ's parables are about what happened in the garden. Give me chapter and verse of the parable and how you see it as referring to the garden. If it's not taught in the churches as it should be, then by all means, teach us!

Again where are you getting this stuff?

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 1:13:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 1:16:49 PM EDT by Headlice]
WTF is all of this sex with satan garbage???

I knew a girl that had a pretty good foundation in the Bible. Most of my Bible school friends knew her to. One summer she came up with this really bizzare teaching and she was talking about it to everyone (the same goofy teachings that are going on in this thread). Everyone that knew her all agree that she went off the deep end.....
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:11:46 PM EDT
King James 1611

2Cor.11
[3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

beguiled=seduced wholly, from Strongs 1818.

You folks due understand that the tree represents the body and the fruit the reproductive organs don`t you. Simple stuff. Christ taught about the serpents seed, and the fig tree, the garden is where it started from.

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 4:43:14 PM EDT
The forbidden fruit is not sex, it is knowledge, absolute knowledge...that is for G*d only.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:57:16 PM EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By Kundry:
The Nephillim are the Hebrew version of the Sumerian Anunnaki. As they were able to interbreed with humanity, they were, by definition, human. The interbreeding of the Nephillim with the indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia is recorded were Eve tells Adam that she has, "gotten a man from the Lord". The Lord, in this case, is the father of Cain, Samael, and Cain is thus a member of the Nephillim by birth and an ancestor of the later royal line and race.

The Nephillim were more advanced as a race, but if one reads the Book of Enoch one discovers that their advances in civilization were in areas like cosmetology, pharmacology, weaponry, and the science that earned them the name 'Watchers' astrology and astronomy, all areas that are hardly angelic in nature, but quite human.

As a race, they probably looked different to the indigenous people of Mesopotamia who described them as Serpents. The term 'serpent' may also have been a sort or racial term of derision that the indigenous people applied to the advanced invaders from the east but in actuality they were no more serpents than Buffalo Soldiers were buffalo.

For their own part, the Nephillim would have recognized their advanced status relative to the indigenous Mesopotamians and as 'Sons of God' would have used this as part of their justification for their Divine right to rule. Having come to Mesopotamia from the east they would adopt as their symbol the Eastern Star. The Sumerian king's lists would place pentacles, the symbol of the appearent path of Venus as seen from Earth, next to the names of the kings. Later, Venus would still be watched closely as a sign of the birth of an especially powerful king and kings, being anointed as such, would be Messiahs. The Temples would be built on hilltops to facilitate unobstructed astrological observations and east-west orientations would dominiate to track the movement of the Eastern Star. A Jewish Messiah might spend the night to the east of the Jerusalem Temple on the mount of olives, returning to the Temple to teach in the early morning with the rising of the Eastern Star. Such a Messiah might claim, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. " Revelation 22:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




References??

Fair enough. Here's a few.

The first point is that the Nephilim were human. This can be established by noting that according to the accounts in both Genesis and the Book of Enoch, the Nephilim were able to reproduce with humans. The ability to interbreed is one of the definitions of the biological term ‘species’,species ((biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed).

The second point is that the skills the Nephilim taught to the humans they interacted with were decidedly human, rather than angelic or supernatural skills. On a parchment fragment 4Q201(En ara) copied ca. 200-150 B.C.E. found at Qumran:
13. [They (the leaders) and all ... of them took for themselves] wives from all that they chose and [they began to cohabit with them and to defile themselves with them]; and to teach them sorcery and [spells and the cutting of roots; and to acquaint them with herbs.] And they become pregnant by them and bo[re (great) giants three thousand cubits high ...]
- Book of Enoch (from Translation by J. C. Greenfield
Very disappointing skills for angelic beings I must say.

For a further translation of the Book of Enoch I’d suggest this site which also explains some of the history of those translations . http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

The source of Cain’s paternity in Samael, rather than Adam, comes from the Jewish Zohar which is a collection of ancient Jewish teachings on the Talmud. "The sons of God were the sons of Cain. For when Samael mounted Eve, he injected filth into her, and she conceived and bare Cain. And his aspect was unlike that of the other humans and all those who came from his side were called sons of God." Here is a link to some relevant quotations from the Jewish midrash and Zohar. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/samael.html
This http://james.jlcarroll.net/symbolism/pentagram.html site probably has more on the pentagram than you’d ever care to know, but from that site the following is relevant.
“The earliest known use of the pentagram dates back to around the Uruk period around 3500BC at Ur of the Chaldees in Ancient Mesopotamia where it was found on potsherds together with other signs of the period associated with the earliest known developments of written language.”
“In later periods of Mesopotamian art, the pentagram was used in royal inscriptions and was symbolic of imperial power extending out to "the four corners of the world".
“Amongst the Hebrews, the symbol was ascribed to Truth and to the five books of the Pentateuch. It is sometimes, incorrectly, called the Seal of Solomon though it's usage was in parallel with the hexagram.”

“Early Christians attributed the pentagram to the Five Wounds of Christ and from then until medieval times, it was a lesser-used Christian symbol.”
"The Hexagram is often called the Pentacle or Solomon's Seal, but it is a mistake to do so; the true form of the Pentacle is ... to all intents and purposes a five pointed star. It is first seen on pottery from Ur of the Chaldees." (E. A. Wallis Budge, Amulets and Superstitions, p. 433)
The association of Venus and the city of Jerusalem with the Pentacle is to be found in this source: http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefspentagram.htm
“Found scrawled in caves of ancient Babylonia, the five pointed star was copied from the star shaped pattern formed by the travels of the planet Venus in the sky. The emblem remained popular through many cultures and time periods- it was called the pentalpha by the Greeks, who believed it had magical properties. For a time, it was the official seal of the city of Jerusalem:”


The association of Jesus with the ‘bright and morning star’ is from the book of Revelation.

Besides the above, I would recommend;

Collins, Andrew From the Ashes of Angels

Sitchen, Zecharia http://www.crystalinks.com/sitchen.html Let me be quick to add that I definitely do not buy into his theory that the Sumerian Anunnaki were extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru. As I stated, I think they were nothing more than relatively advance humans. One doesn’t have to go extraterrestrial to find historical instances of culturally and technologically advanced races establishing themselves in positions of control over less advanced races, and where simple explanations will suffice extraordinary explanations are not necessary.

Gardner, Laurence, Genesis of the Grail Kings: The same caveat that applies to Sitchen applies to Gardner in my opinion. Gardner continues where Sitchen leaves off and accepting Sitchen’s extraterrestrial thesis, runs the hereditary bloodline of Cain on through Jesus and beyond through modern royal families. Again, I would say there’s nothing extraterrestrial or divine about these folks. Their distant ancestors got a lucky break in the distant past and they just want to continue what they consider their divine right of rule, for our own good you understand. I recommend anyone reading Gardner replace the E.T. theory with migrating humans. After that, everything will be quite credible.

Knight, Christopher & Lomas, Robert The Book of Hiram: In The Book of Hiram, Knight & Lomas look at the symbolism of Venus as the Eastern Star from their perspective as Freemasons. Part of what they consider is the nature of the Jerusalem Temple and its east-west orientation as a sort of observatory for the apparent cycles and motions of Venus.

Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:16:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:
King James 1611

2Cor.11
[3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

beguiled=seduced wholly, from Strongs 1818.

You folks due understand that the tree represents the body and the fruit the reproductive organs don`t you. Simple stuff. Christ taught about the serpents seed, and the fig tree, the garden is where it started from.



1. At the time the King James Version 1611 was written beguiled did not imply anything to do with sex and even seduced wholly just meant "completely decieved."

2. Even if that is what the King James Version meant, the original Greek (referenced in my previous post) DOES NOT mean that.

3. You have stated multiple times that you believe the tree, fruit etc. are linked to sexuality. You have yet to give one reference in the Old or New Testament or any extrabiblical literature from the time to indicate this.

4. You have stated AGAIN that Christ taught this doctrine of yours. I AGAIN ask for a reference. You know what a reference is don't you? Book, Chapter, Verse.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:34:29 AM EDT


The first point is that the Nephilim were human.


OK, on this we agree.




The second point is that the skills the Nephilim taught to the humans they interacted with were decidedly human, rather than angelic or supernatural skills. On a parchment fragment 4Q201(En ara) copied ca. 200-150 B.C.E. found at Qumran:
13. [They (the leaders) and all ... of them took for themselves] wives from all that they chose and [they began to cohabit with them and to defile themselves with them]; and to teach them sorcery and [spells and the cutting of roots; and to acquaint them with herbs.] And they become pregnant by them and bo[re (great) giants three thousand cubits high ...]
- Book of Enoch (from Translation by J. C. Greenfield Very disappointing skills for angelic beings I must say.



OK, hadn't read that part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And while I agree that this supports our position that the Nephelim were human, we need to be careful since the DSS are actually closer to our time than the events (if not the writing) of Genesis 3.




For a further translation of the Book of Enoch I’d suggest this site which also explains some of the history of those translations . http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm



Thanks for the link.



The source of Cain’s paternity in Samael, rather than Adam, comes from the Jewish Zohar which is a collection of ancient Jewish teachings on the Talmud. "The sons of God were the sons of Cain. For when Samael mounted Eve, he injected filth into her, and she conceived and bare Cain. And his aspect was unlike that of the other humans and all those who came from his side were called sons of God." Here is a link to some relevant quotations from the Jewish midrash and Zohar. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/samael.html


This is where I disagree. The English and Hebrew are both clear in Genesis 4:1 that Adam was the father of Cain. Zohar disagrees with the clear teaching of Genesis. As a Christian I would take Genesis over the teaching of any Rabbi. I would think most Jews would take the clear teaching of the Torah over any Rabbi. Simply from a historical perspective I would take Genesis over Zohar since Genesis is an older source. Without going into the dates involved the simple fact that Zohar is commenting on the passage means that he wrote later.


Let me be quick to add that I definitely do not buy into his theory that the Sumerian Anunnaki were extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru. As I stated, I think they were nothing more than relatively advance humans.


Agreed


where simple explanations will suffice extraordinary explanations are not necessary.


Definitely agreed.


Gardner, Laurence, Genesis of the Grail Kings: The same caveat that applies to Sitchen applies to Gardner in my opinion. Gardner continues where Sitchen leaves off and accepting Sitchen’s extraterrestrial thesis, runs the hereditary bloodline of Cain on through Jesus and beyond through modern royal families.


I have the same problem with Gardner I did with Zohar. Genesis traces the bloodline of the Messiah through Seth, NOT Cain. Genesis is older (and in my view more authoritative). Why not just accept it. How does he go beyond Jesus with tracing this bloodline?

1. There is no record from the time that Jesus ever married or fathered Children?

2. Even later claims of a relationship with Mary Magdalene don't include a genealogy do they?

In any event, we are agreed on the nature of the Nephelim, which was the original subject of this thread. They were human.



Link Posted: 1/3/2006 6:29:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 6:31:22 AM EDT by QShok]
    KJV Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    NIV Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

    Vulgate Gen 6:4 Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis postquam enim ingressi sunt filii Dei ad filias hominum illaeque genuerunt isti sunt potentes a saeculo viri famosi


נפילים nepîlîym “assailants, fellers, men of violence, tyrants."


Why does the NIV use the untranslated word nephilim? It also does this in Matthew 2 using Magi instead of wisemen. Its annoying, I don't like the NIV.

To say "there were giants/nephilim on the earth in those days" is a time stamp. Its like saying "covered wagon days". It clues in the reader to what era this even occured and it had more significance then it does now. Giant/nephilim are also mentioned in Numbers. Since the flood destroyed every creature that crawls upon the earth, except Noah's family, we know that this is not a race or family. Giant/nephilim is a physical and/or behavioral characteristic, nothing more.

Now we see that "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" is a seperate event and unrelated to the giants/nephilim. With that in mind we can now ask who or what are "sons of God". Angles are not given in marriage (Matt 22:30) and do not ahve the capacity to reproduce. The sons of God must be righteous men who corrupted themselves with daughters of men. The other plausable idea is that fallen angels possessed men and then had children with the daughters of men.

The point of Gen 6:1-7 is that man's wickedness quickly grew and displeased God greatly.

Shok
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 3:08:43 PM EDT
Question...........anyone think Goliath of Gath could have been an offspring of the Nephilim?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:50:02 PM EDT

OK, hadn't read that part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And while I agree that this supports our position that the Nephelim were human, we need to be careful since the DSS are actually closer to our time than the events (if not the writing) of Genesis 3.


I believe the Books of Enoch and Noah are allegedly older than the Pentateuch which was allegedly written by Moses. Of course the copies found at Qumran are later copies of earlier originals, but all we have of Moses’ alleged writings are copies as well. This leaves us asking what was the oldest original given that all we have are copies. Without the original manuscripts I don’t know of any way to definitively answer that question. If the Books of Enoch and Noah were written well before the Pentateuch, then they are much closer to the events than Noah’s book of Genesis. In any case, we have the Sumerian and Babylonian epics which we know are older than the Pentateuch and, as concerns the Anunnaki/Nephilim and other events such as the flood, they seem quite similar suggesting that the books of Enoch and Noah share a common source or were derived from the Sumerian and Babylonian epics.


Simply from a historical perspective I would take Genesis over Zohar since Genesis is an older source. Without going into the dates involved the simple fact that Zohar is commenting on the passage means that he wrote later.


You are correct that the Zohar is a commentary on the older Pentateuch, but it is a title, not the name of the author. The term ‘Zohar’ means “ Book of Splendor or Brightness”. It was first put into written form in about the year 1290 but before that existed in oral form and it was prohibited that it be put into writing.

Regardless of its antiquity -- or lack thereof -- the Zohar became the central work in the literature of the Kabbalah and is considered the holiest book of this body of texts. The term "Kabbalah" is used to designate Jewish mystical teachings and derives from a three- letter Hebrew root -- kbl -- meaning "to receive". This refers to the fact that Cabalistic teachings were considered secret and were communicated only by word of mouth, a practice initiated to ensure that each generation of the chosen would receive the teachings from the foregoing generation.

Because the Kabbalah -- and, thus, the Zohar also -- is rooted in oral tradition, it is extremely difficult to determine when this mystical Jewish doctrine originated. Although the Zohar was not made public until l290 and, as previously stated, not written until shortly before that time, the stories and teachings contained within had indeed been gestating through oral tradition for centuries.

The Zohar itself draws on a number of literary sources as well as oral ones, including the Babylonian Talmud, the complete Midrash Rabbah, and a number of smaller Midrashim, including the Alphabet of Ben Sira. While the Zohar attempts to conceal its referral to such real literary sources, it contains a vast fictitious library of pseudo-sources which it emphasizes as the source of its information, likely in order to help establish a false antiquity.


I have the same problem with Gardner I did with Zohar. Genesis traces the bloodline of the Messiah through Seth, NOT Cain. Genesis is older (and in my view more authoritative). Why not just accept it. How does he go beyond Jesus with tracing this bloodline?

1. There is no record from the time that Jesus ever married or fathered Children?

2. Even later claims of a relationship with Mary Magdalene don't include a genealogy do they?

In any event, we are agreed on the nature of the Nephelim, which was the original subject of this thread. They were human.



Gardner gives VERY detailed genealogies tracing the Messianic bloodline, maybe too detailed for credibility’s sake, but then the Bible’s genealogies are almost as detailed in places as well. The purpose of all genealogies, in my opinion, is to justify somebody’s position against someone else’s claim so I take them all as more than a bit self-serving but here goes anyway.

Page 239 of Genesis of the Grail Kings shows the first generation as being Antu, Anu, Ki, Hish and Nidaba. These folks are Anunnaki/Nephilim, right off the ‘ol spaceship. From Antu and Anu is descended Enki. From Anu and Ki are descended Nin-khursag and Enlil. From Hish and Nidaba is descended Ninlil. Enki, also a pure blood Anunnaki/Nephilim otherwise known as Samael, interbreeds with an unnamed human female with Nin-khursag as the surrogate mother to produce The Adama (Adam) who is ½ Anunnaki/Nephilim and Khawa(Eve) who is also ½ Annunaki/Nephilim. Lilith, of whom you may have heard, is pure bred Annunaki/Nephilim and is of their generation by other Anunnaki/Nephilim parents who I won’t mention at this time. Enki (Samael), who seems to be a rather prolific Anunnaki/Nephilim, hooks up with Lilith to produce Luluwa and then hooks up with Khawa (Eve) to produce Qayin (Cain), Luluwa being pure blood Anunnaki/Nephilim and Qayin (Cain) being 3/4 Anunnaki/Nephilim . The Adama and Khawa, meanwhile, produce Hevel (Able), Lebhudha, Noraia, and Satnaal (Seth) all of these persons being ½ Anunnaki/Nephilim like their parents.

As Cain has the most Anunnaki/Nephilim blood of any of the males of that generation, his line is the royal line while Hevel’s (Able’s) blood is “lower than dirt”. No, according to Gardner, Cain did not actually kill Able, he simply ruled over him and his bloodline. Continuing the begatting, Qayin (Cain) hooks up with the 100% Anunnki/Nephilim princess Luluwa to produce Atun (Etana) known as the Shepherd King of Kish and Enoch. From Qayin (Cain) are descended the Kings of Kish, the Pharoahs of Egypt and ultimately Jesus. The genealogy from Qayin (Cain) to Jesus is quite involved and takes many, many pages. Being too lazy to follow it all out, I’ll simply refer you to Gardner’s books, Genesis of the Grail Kings and Bloodline of the Holy Grail with the caveat that while I think Gardner has some very valid points, I also believe he overplays his data, especially regarding extraterrestrials. Here’s a link to his lecture on Genesis of the Grail Kings: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2546/kings.html

In his next book, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Gardner takes the bloodline from Jesus and Miriam the Magdalene through to the Merovingians and Stuarts. Yep, he has very detailed genealogical charts to illustrate who begat whom from Jesus and Miriam on. So what’s his inside scoop that gives him all the details of this genealogy? Well, he maintains that the folks who cared, the royalty, did keep records of all their begettings and that he, as the Jacobite Historiographer Royal, and an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist has had access to these ancient records thus allowing him to prepare a genealogy from Antu, Anu, Ki, Hish and Nidaba to the present. Ummm, maybe, then again maybe not.

What do we have for comparison? Well, there’s the Bible genealogy. It differs from Gardner’s in that it isn’t so clear (at least in the canonical texts) about Qayin’s (Cain’s) paternity by Enki (Samael) though the Zohar and midrash seem to agree on this interpretation of Khawa (Eve) having, “gotten a man from the Lord”. Again this is rabbinical interpretation of the text, but my experience is that rabbis don’t make interpretations without much, much study and debate. Gardner recognizes that his line differs from the line given in the Bible, but he claims that it is the Bible lineage that has been altered to favor certain claims. Without DNA or some other type of testing we may have no way of proving which lineage is correct. But.... DOES IT MATTER?!!!

It is my opinion that it doesn’t matter unless we believe it matters. The Anunnaki/Nephilim were neither space aliens, supernatural nor divine beings. Whatever historical Jesus there may have been, even if descended from the Anunnaki/Nephilim, was still just as human as they were and the rest of us are in my opinion. Any descendants of Jesus, Cain, Enki or Lilith on the earth today have no special claim to our allegiance in my opinion though they may believe their descent gives them ‘divine right’ and others may agree.

Today, in Jerusalem, there is a rabbi who can allegedly prove descent from King David to the satisfaction of genealogists world wide. A group claiming to be the reconstituted Sanhedrin of Jerusalem claims this fellow to be the rightful King of Israel, but the Israeli people and government don’t seem to care to give him the time of day. This, in my opinion, is good, for when we start following Messiahs it seems bad things happen. Besides, the claim of ‘special’ descent as a ‘divine right’ to rule has yet to be proven in my eyes.




Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:51:26 PM EDT
Uh... Sounds like Angel spawn.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 7:12:08 PM EDT
Nephilim is an older name for Neanderthal, like Leviathan is an old name for Dinosaur/Dragon.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 8:13:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Since Jesus says that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels does that mean we will all be male in the resurrection?



Yes, in our fathers image. No need for marriage, brothers one and all.



Wow, Shaffer, that sounds like what the Gnostics preached. They stated that women couldn't enter Heaven unless they became men. Read the Gospel of Thomas, have you?

Is that where you're getting all of your other off-the-wall ideas? From ancient heresies?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 9:05:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Originally Posted By Shaffer:
Wdsman, angels can not marry because they are all male. And that would be an abomination before God, not because their is no form. Also no need of marriage in Heaven we are all Gods children, Brothers in Christ. Those words have much greater meaning than some would like to believe.



Since Jesus says that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels does that mean we will all be male in the resurrection?



Yes, in our fathers image. No need for marriage, brothers one and all.



How does a father get to be a father?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 9:09:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Parable of the fig tree for one.




Hmmm.... all this time I thought the parable of the fig tree was about signs of the 2nd Coming....

Link Posted: 1/3/2006 9:29:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:
Nephilim is an older name for Neanderthal, like Leviathan is an old name for Dinosaur/Dragon.



hehe

the accepted meaning of the terms are "great men" and "hippo"

I've heard the dinosaur for Leviathan before, but that is the first time I've heard the Nephilim equated with the Neandertals.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:46:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:
Nephilim is an older name for Neanderthal, like Leviathan is an old name for Dinosaur/Dragon.



That is an interesting interpretation for the Nephilim, but I understand that Neanderthal DNA has been recovered and analyzed and, according to the researchers, "Neanderthals went extinct without contribution to the present mtDNA of modern humans." That would present a contradiction of the Genesis account that Nephilim, if the were Neanderthals, were able to interbreed with humans.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:06:08 AM EDT
Well, consider that post a hit and run, am headed out of town....
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:17:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 4:20:27 PM EDT by Shaffer]
Wdsman, I am at a loss as to where you came up with exepatesen / exapataomai? In the Septuagint the Greek word is exapatao, from Strong`s 1537 and 538; to seduce wholly: - beguile, deceive. The Companion Bible a 1611 KJ also makes reference to exapatao for this verse.

Ok, I’ll give you two.

God is speaking to Satan, who is symbolized in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in the garden.

Genesis
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel.

Seed: Strong’s 2233 zera`; posterity: child.

Who was Satan’s child? Cain, his actions alone will identify who his father was. Think about what God told him after he murdered Abel.

Christ is identifying who the tares are, and who their father is.

Matt.13
[36] Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
[37] He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
[38] The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
[39] The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
[40] As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Sowed: from Strong’s 4687 speiro; to scatter. Ok, follow along, if you look up seed Strong’s 4690 as used in verse 37 you will find it from 4687, sperma; something sown, i.e. seed, including the male “sperm” by implying offspring. So Satan has earthly children from his seduction of Eve. Now I do not expect anyone to accept that right away, but just chew on it for a while. Check it out. If you do not agree that is fine by me, I do not wish to argue with fellow Christians.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:48:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:01:09 PM EDT by Shaffer]

Originally Posted By loonybin:

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

Since Jesus says that our resurrection bodies will be like the bodies of angels does that mean we will all be male in the resurrection?



Yes, in our fathers image. No need for marriage, brothers one and all.



Wow, Shaffer, that sounds like what the Gnostics preached. They stated that women couldn't enter Heaven unless they became men. Read the Gospel of Thomas, have you?

Is that where you're getting all of your other off-the-wall ideas? From ancient heresies?




Never did I state that those souls that inhabit the female form of this flesh world could not enter Heaven. I said that the new body that which all those that inherit the kingdom heaven are given, will most likely be of masculine form as it is referred to with the emphasis of the male gender of the angelic body. Please obtain a Strong’s, you will see this pointed out in the definitions of those words which this deals with this like "sons of god". Flesh woman was a new form created from man, not the direct image or pattern of the angels or God.



Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:57:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cyclone:
Question...........anyone think Goliath of Gath could have been an offspring of the Nephilim?



Yes he was, so was Anak, and also the Og king of Bashan. A short study of this subject is in the appendix of The Companion Bible.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:07:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By grommet:

Originally Posted By Shaffer:

Parable of the fig tree for one.




Hmmm.... all this time I thought the parable of the fig tree was about signs of the 2nd Coming....





Mostly, but it started in the garden. Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves. In the middle of a fig grove. Just something to think about.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top