dawn of light
10-06-2006, 11:53 AM
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

This isn't the only place the Bible refers to giants. Who were they? What made them mightly (other than their size) and why were they famous? I'm assuming Goliath probably descended from them.

Why does v4 talk about sons of God and daughters of men?

Does anyone have any theories and/or done any research on this?

Tromos
10-06-2006, 12:08 PM
While I haven't heard anything regarding the average size of the people in the years after Eden, I know that the average Hebrew man stood about 5'4". Not a large race.

Depending on which Biblical translation you use, Goliath was either about 6'6" ("four cubits and a span") or over 9 feet tall ("six cubits and a span"). There's been some debate over the proper translation since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Either way, I would agree that Goliath (and perhaps the Philistines in general) were descended from these Genesis giants.

If Goliath was only 6 1/2 feet tall (a bit shorter than me, actually) then the giants things may have just been a matter of perspective. If Goliath really was over 9 feet tall then he was larger than anyone in the Guiness Book and it does make one wonder what happened to this race of giants.

skynes
10-06-2006, 12:25 PM
what happened to this race of giants.

Look a couple of chapters later. Big flood, everyone dies.


There's a few differing views on this passage:

some say these Sons of God were righteous men tempted by lust for women.
I'm not too sure about that one, because just after God laments that He created man cause every intent of their heart is evil all the time.
Doesn't fit.

The other main view is that these Sons of God were Angels, fallen or otherwise. Who found these women so beautiful (God did make man in His own image, so naturally they'd be beautiful) that they took them as wives and had angel/human hybrid children.

Which was why they were giants and men of renown.
I've thought about stories like ancient vikings, hercules, titans etc. and considered there may be some truth to it given this scripture.

Saying that Goliath descended from them is hard to prove. Only Noah's family survived the flood, so Goliath would be descended from Noah, just like David was.

----

Everything here after is thought and theory.

If an angel and a human mated and created a hybrid. It's possible that this child might be more angellic than human or vice versa. So a flood might not actually kill him! If they do not have the 'breath of life' i.e. breath oxygen with lungs etc. Then a flood wouldn't harm them.

They would probably also have a very long lifespan, so they might have lived long enough to find another wife, have more kids and spawn the group that became the Philistines.


On a history note the Philistines originated in Greece, they were kicked out of Greece and then went their separate ways. One group went East and founded the Philistines.
--> Story of the titans?

dawn of light
10-06-2006, 12:41 PM
I hope you weren't trying to quote me there! (I never said "what happened to them").

I knew you'd have something to say about this Skynes. Good point about Goliath, I obviously didn't think too hard about that part. But it is possible that Goliath enherited a rare recessive gene from both parents, that made him so large. (the gene being passed down from these "giants" through Noah.

Tromos
10-06-2006, 12:46 PM
Look a couple of chapters later. Big flood, everyone dies.


Oh. Yeah. :-[

Um... who were we talkin about? ;D

dawn of light
10-06-2006, 12:55 PM
Oh that was you he was quoting. I get it.

skynes
10-07-2006, 08:57 AM
I'm not sure if Noah was descended from this lot or not.

From what I can gather these people were pretty evil and twisted (hence God wiped them out)

But Noah was considered righteous.

I know it isn't 'fair' so to speak to place the parents flaws upon the child, but to go from a parent of extreme extreme evil to a righteous son is a stretch.

Like I said I'm not sure since we don't know how long was between the birth of the Nephilim (as it's put in some Bibles instead of Giants) and the birth of Noah.

Why wouldn't Noah have been a giant like them if his Genes were so much closer to theirs than Goliaths?

dawn of light
10-07-2006, 09:27 AM
I don't know. It would have to have been a recessive gene that Noah would only have one of. Like two brown eyed parents could have a blue eyed kid. But I'm not really too concerned with where Goliath came from. I was mostly just wondering who the Nephilim were and where they came from (well if they're fully human they obviously came from Adam and Eve) etc.

NightCrawler
10-07-2006, 10:55 AM
Umm... Nephillim?

skynes
10-07-2006, 02:33 PM
Yeah Nephilim. Some versions use Nephilim, Some use Giants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

This has a lot of information.

amodman
10-08-2006, 01:12 PM
Yeah Nephilim. Some versions use Nephilim, Some use Giants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

This has a lot of information.

Well...yeah. This isn't the first time I've discussed Nephilim on the boards. They were in fact a primary cause of the Flood.

From the NASB (you can cross-reference other translations, some use the word Nephilim, some don't, but the NASB is supposed to be as word for word as possible, if not as eloquent)

Gen 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

Notice, right here, God numbered the days of man for this act (currently 120 years before the Flood) before passing judgement over their spiritual condition.

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore {children} to them. Those were the mighty men who {were} of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen 6:7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

So abhorring the physical corruption and breeding of angels and man, God examined man himself and was sorry he ever made them it was so disgusting.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are {the records of} the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.
Gen 6:10 Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The records? What do we need the records of the generations of Noah for (aka, more than just who his sons were)? Could it be...

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

Noah was blameless in his time. His flesh had not corrupted it's way with the rest. He was spiritually and physically clean. His seed was free from the seed of Angels.

However, just because God sent a Flood to destroy the world's wickedness and corruption, did that end it? No. Did that end the Angels'? Again, probably not. While it may be debatable whether or not the previous Nephilim, who were born of Angels fallen after the initial 1/3 who went with Satan mind you, survived the Flood or were killed, we might at least assume their spirits still roam the spiritual realm until God specifically locks them in Hell, considering their souls were neither created nor originally condemned as the souls of man and are partially spiritual beings. Lesser demons?

Furthermore, it is more than likely (evidenced), that either Angels continued to fall after the Flood, or pysical demons continued to breed with humans to create their monstrous offspring. And contnuing on this note, let me put forth this idea. Do no angels posess knowledge of nature and science that man has yet to achieve, besides being of a seemingly greater spiritual essence to have an unguarded soul see and feel what it wants? Demons could be responsible for more than the occult, people, it's called "extra-terrestials." The great lords from the sky that archeologists are always trying to prove ruled over several extinct tribes/nations of people. I've seen reports on tv and such within "Alien" documentaries of the people who claim to have birthed the offspring of aliens to have seen giant type humans with six digits on their hands within the spaceships...just saying.


Mat 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
Mat 24:38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Simple statement of the un-expectedness of Christ's second coming, or meaningful warning of the end days?

lamb_servant72
10-08-2006, 05:06 PM
Well...yeah. This isn't the first time I've discussed Nephilim on the boards.

True, we discussed it last year in Scott's favorite thread.;D

dawn of light
10-09-2006, 08:58 AM
heh...:-[ oops. I didn't know. I actually got 5 pages into the Creation/Evolution thread but had to go study. Again, I gotta go study!

lamb_servant72
10-09-2006, 01:19 PM
You've only been here since June, Rachel. Don't worry, you won't have to take the manditory quiz on the Creation/Evolution thread for two more months.

I did try to look it up for you, but we kindof jump around alot on that thread. I think Scott and Amos have covered the high points. It's nice to have it all concise here.;D

planet_kosmos
10-11-2006, 03:01 AM
Quoting from my study bible -
"Who were the Nephilim...the heroes of old?
Nephilim may refer to persons of great physical stature, giants (see Num. 13:32-33).But here it probably means princes or aristocrats - men of political stature. Nephilim is linked to another term that indicates a heroic person with both power and influence."

Your Opinions?

weebird20
10-11-2006, 03:54 AM
i been following along with this thread...i've always been interested in who the 'Sons of God' actually were...

Isaiah 26:13-14
LORD our God, masters besides You
Have had dominion over us;
But by You only we make mention of Your name.
They are dead, they will not live;
They are deceased, they will not rise.
Therefore You have punished and destroyed them,
And made all their memory to perish.

i found this verse in Isaiah and wondered if it was tied to the Nepilim...in that they have not been given the same offer of salvation we have...in that when we (believers) die we shall not sleep forever but be raised up again...but they cannot share in that...

i looked it up and found a website that really looks at this all in depth...seems quite interesting...though a lot to read through....so i've picked out some points below...


The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29).


there is a lot of info on that site....some things mentioned there we have already talked about here...and verses are used to backup the theories put forward...

WAS NOAH IMMUNE?
Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from this great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man." He stood out as an example of righteousness and godliness in a perverse age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with God." But there was another reason why Noah was spared, one that seems to have escaped most commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was "perfect in his generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual perfection? Hardly. Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection. What, then, does the Bible mean by calling him "perfect"? The Hebrew word is "tamiym" and comes from the root word "taman." This means "without blemish" as in Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as the sacrificial lamb had to be without any physical blemish, so Noah's perfection. In its primary meaning, it refers not to any moral or spiritual quality, but to physical purity. Noah was uncontaminated by the alien invaders.

He alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. (15)

And again:

Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)

This implies, of course, that all the other families on Earth had been contaminated by the Nephilim. It also proves that the assault of Satan on the human race had been far more extensive than realized. It is no wonder that God pronounced such a universal fiat of judgment.

site link http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

skynes
10-11-2006, 04:35 AM
Quoting from my study bible -
"Who were the Nephilim...the heroes of old?
Nephilim may refer to persons of great physical stature, giants (see Num. 13:32-33).But here it probably means princes or aristocrats - men of political stature. Nephilim is linked to another term that indicates a heroic person with both power and influence."

Your Opinions?

Nonsense. The term for Nephilim is only used twice in all of scripture. Once here in Genesis 6 and another later in reference to a Philistine clan (I think it was philistine).

If it was term for political power why was Ahab not called a Nephilim? Or the King of Egypt? Or any other of the great princes and kings.

I'd call it grasping at straws.

I did like what you posted Laura, I'll look at it later.

lamb_servant72
10-11-2006, 12:28 PM
That was really interesting, Laura. What site were you studying that on?

NightCrawler
10-11-2006, 01:54 PM
Nonsense. The term for Nephilim is only used twice in all of scripture. Once here in Genesis 6 and another later in reference to a Philistine clan (I think it was philistine).
Numbers 13:
28 But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there.
[...]
31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are." 32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

planet_kosmos
10-11-2006, 02:36 PM
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.

weebird20
10-12-2006, 05:26 AM
Lisa...i love google....i was just searching through sites that mentioned Nephilim and came across this one http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html....a lot of what the guy says goes along with my own thinking on this...

dawn of light
10-12-2006, 06:10 PM
Great info everyone! I look a quick look at that site Laura, it looks intersting. I've been really busy studying lately so I haven't had time to read the whole thing.

NightCrawler
10-14-2006, 11:35 PM
Yo, about whether they are remotely angelic... check the hebrew.

Seraphim
Cherubim
Nephilim. ... all -im's. reason?

alorian
10-15-2006, 01:23 PM
Lisa...i love google....i was just searching through sites that mentioned Nephilim and came across this one http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html....a lot of what the guy says goes along with my own thinking on this...


Extremely extremely interesting. I read the whole thing everyone else should do the same. It's very very interesting. I'm not sure whether I believe it right now, but it seems to make sense. I'll have to pray about it. It's a good sound theory though, and the entire article is quite fascinating. Thanks Laura :)

weebird20
10-16-2006, 04:27 AM
i thought how the guy uses a lot of scripture and references it to other scripture was really good...it wasn't just his own opinions...though i agree Seth...praying about it is important...

about the term Nephilim does it change depending on the Bible translation? and about what Jonathan said of those words being related... i never thought about that before...

Seraphim
Cherubim
Nephilim. ... all -im's. reason?

do you think they were angels Jonathan?

skynes
10-16-2006, 07:18 AM
The word Nephilim is translated either Giants or Nephilim, depended on translation, I've never seen another word used.

amodman
10-16-2006, 02:53 PM
The word Nephilim is translated either Giants or Nephilim, depended on translation, I've never seen another word used.

I thought his point one was they were all stemming from the same root or something...sheesh, make yourself clear man :P. Lol, as for that website, I agreed with most of it. Couple little inconsequential things (a frequent annoyance of mine is when people act like if it wasn't recorded in the Bible it didn't happen...I actually doubt there was a "second" falling post Flood as much as there might have been a continued falling of Angels every now and then, they aren't perfect beings), and some I'm not sure about, but mostly fairly solid I thought.

NightCrawler
10-16-2006, 07:37 PM
Personally, I think they were the spawn of angels (demons?) and humans, Laura.


A few people I chat with on another forum suggested that maybe all those old tales, like of the Titans or false gods, were based on some truth such as supernatural giants (like the Nephilim may have been). A stretch... but it makes me wonder.

amodman
10-16-2006, 08:26 PM
Random Annecdote: I concluded that Satan had made his own race of beings to compete against man based upon Genesis 6:4 when I was like 10. Where in the hell I got my ideas I have no freaking clue...

weebird20
10-17-2006, 03:24 AM
Jonathan...yeah it kinda does fit then with all those old mythical tales of great men who had inhuman strength and such...


amos...i've actually heard that from a few people before...that Satan created another race to compete with God's...though can Satan create? he is only an angel...

amodman
10-17-2006, 08:25 AM
amos...i've actually heard that from a few people before...that Satan created another race to compete with God's...though can Satan create? he is only an angel...

Well I wasn't being serious for now, just that that's when I first encountered this verse and I have no idea how I decided on that ;), lol.

weebird20
10-17-2006, 09:35 AM
its an interesting thought though Amos...Satan wanted to be like God...so he created his own beings...yeah far fetched but still worth putting out there...

skynes
10-17-2006, 12:22 PM
I thought his point one was they were all stemming from the same root or something...sheesh, make yourself clear man

Laura asked:about the term Nephilim does it change depending on the Bible translation?

I answered. sheesh, read the full thread man. LOL!

A few people I chat with on another forum suggested that maybe all those old tales, like of the Titans or false gods, were based on some truth such as supernatural giants (like the Nephilim may have been). A stretch... but it makes me wonder.


You sure that wasn't me you were talking to? Cause I know I've suggested that possibility a couple of times.

Titans though I prefer to link to the Philistines when they were kicked out of Greece.

NightCrawler
10-27-2006, 02:56 PM
You sure that wasn't me you were talking to? Cause I know I've suggested that possibility a couple of times.

Titans though I prefer to link to the Philistines when they were kicked out of Greece.
This guy's name was Michael, he was on http://www.roperisdumb.com/roperboard (the site is down). He is a big latin buff, and enjoys old history and stuph about mythical gods.

skynes
10-28-2006, 04:22 AM
New Info:

Gilgamesh, a great Summerican king, mighty warrior etc etc. around 2600 BC (pre-flood), was said to have been the son of a God.

When I seen that I thought - Nephilim?

amodman
10-30-2006, 04:50 PM
New Info:

Gilgamesh, a great Summerican king, mighty warrior etc etc. around 2600 BC (pre-flood), was said to have been the son of a God.

When I seen that I thought - Nephilim?

Doubt it. The Epic Of Gilgamesh is purely a work of fiction that was so asotundingly popular in the ancient world you can find references to it all over the place as far apart as centuries. Gilgamesh was never believed to have existed. His story was, however, believed to contain both mythcial and actual facts about the world, Ie. the story of the great flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh dates farther back than the first written pieces of the Bible, so some try and use it to show, since the Abraham came from the same area the stories originated, that the Bible is an influenced, yet genious, mythic telling of teh Jews on it. Or more likely Gilgamesh's story and several like it exist because they are all based off of actual events? Hmmm...

Gilgamesh was said to be a god among men, though, him and Enkidu, half god half man (2/3 1/3, actually). But again, he himself wasn't an actual person. You should read the Epic sometime. It's short and sweet.

skynes
10-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Well anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

here's some info on the guy.

Unregistered
10-31-2006, 03:08 PM
Well anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

here's some info on the guy.

Got any ligitimate links??

Wikipedia is the worst site ever for anytihng that should eb taken seriously and factual or historically acurate.
Any man and his dog can edit wikipedia.. (plus if wikipedia was used in University work, it would be laughed at and that piece of work most likely failed)
I doubt that info at wikipedia is completely accurate..

Some sources for Akkadian or Hittite works (poems, tablets etc etc..) would be the best bet to getting ligitimate stuff on Gilgamesh..
But please please dont take wikipedia seriously..

amodman
10-31-2006, 10:26 PM
Got any ligitimate links??

Wikipedia is the worst site ever for anytihng that should eb taken seriously and factual or historically acurate.
Any man and his dog can edit wikipedia.. (plus if wikipedia was used in University work, it would be laughed at and that piece of work most likely failed)
I doubt that info at wikipedia is completely accurate..

Some sources for Akkadian or Hittite works (poems, tablets etc etc..) would be the best bet to getting ligitimate stuff on Gilgamesh..
But please please dont take wikipedia seriously..


Wiki is more accurate and up to date than almost any legitimately accepted encyclopedia. It has its community of editors thank you very much that must "legitimize" every edit made. Most of Wiki's errors are the nature of slight description that encyclopedias have. As for Gilgamesh, I find it lacking in complete information rather than erring...My knowledge of Gilgamesh comes from The Epic I read for school and it's entire first half filled with essays on the subject. It's possible he was a real king, but most of the essayisys acknowledge that he's an even more popular mythic character than actual character. Fact of the matter is we don't know the minds of these ancient people. The Epic and Gilgamesh himself was actually completely unknown to the modern world until early this very past century. It's considered one of the greatest archaeological and historical finds for looking into the ancient world of the century, especially since references have been found to him from all over the world. I'm almost surprised Wiki has so little info...until I remember how little old men and women into this sort of stuff care about the internet ;).

skynes
10-31-2006, 10:55 PM
Got any ligitimate links??

Wikipedia is the worst site ever for anytihng that should eb taken seriously and factual or historically acurate.
Any man and his dog can edit wikipedia.. (plus if wikipedia was used in University work, it would be laughed at and that piece of work most likely failed)
I doubt that info at wikipedia is completely accurate..

Some sources for Akkadian or Hittite works (poems, tablets etc etc..) would be the best bet to getting ligitimate stuff on Gilgamesh..
But please please dont take wikipedia seriously..

Oh really? then please explain that to my lecturers in University who HIGHLY recommend we use Wikipedia as a resource.

It's clear they've read the articles on their subject area and found them to be so accurate they expect us to use it. I had one assignment TELL me to quote Wikipedia as a reference.


Wikipedia follows what an open-source coder said - With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

In other words, the more people you have openly contributing to something, the less mistakes and errors you will have.

Unregistered
10-31-2006, 11:23 PM
Oh really? then please explain that to my lecturers in University who HIGHLY recommend we use Wikipedia as a resource.

It's clear they've read the articles on their subject area and found them to be so accurate they expect us to use it. I had one assignment TELL me to quote Wikipedia as a reference.


Wikipedia follows what an open-source coder said - With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

In other words, the more people you have openly contributing to something, the less mistakes and errors you will have.

So your history professor tells you to use wikipedia and not the actual sources the information comes from??
Would you care to enlighten me with your university so I can ensure i will not go there..
I'll go with actual sources over something ANYONE can edit whenever they want..

When it comes to historical content (even if it is mythological content), the ONLY legitimatacy comes from the actual sources.
(eg.. Plutarch on Roman characters..Caesar, Marius, etc.. Pliny on the Eruption of Vesuvious..)(I hope you get the point.. I can give more detailed examples if you wish..)


Wiki is more accurate and up to date than almost any legitimately accepted enxyclopedia.

I wasnt talking about Encylopedias.. I was talking about sources.. Encylopedias are not sources.. Sure if an encylopedia contains the source then that is good, but it should be the source that is used in an argument on the topic (like this thread) NOT what is written in an encylopedia.
This is what I said (which doesnt mention encylopedias)

Some sources for Akkadian or Hittite works (poems, tablets etc etc..) would be the best bet to getting ligitimate stuff on Gilgamesh..



It has its community of editors thank you very much that must "legitimize" every edit made.


That is simply not true.

Here is the quote taken from wikipedia that proves your comment completely inaccurate.

"Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction



Wikipedia is a community of whoever wants to edit it can.. Which is EXACTLY why it says *anyone* can edit it.

weebird20
11-01-2006, 06:12 AM
excuse me...but this is a discussion about Nepilim...we are sharing thoughts and ideas etc, that may or may not be true...information shared here is not meant to be taken as total truth...but to allow us to share with each other and 'discuss' things...please dont take it personally if someone questions your sources of information...but at the same time if you are questioning where someone got their information please dont insult, use harsh words or try to cause arguments.


Though i have to add that yes a lot of Universities increasingly do use more and more internet sources such as Wikipedia just as much as text books today and they find these to be more accurate as they are more easily updated with the many changes in say the subjects of technology or science...and they do have a community of editors...consisting of people they have found can be trusted to keep a check on things...similar to Panheads.org here were have moderators...

so i would like to ask that we all continue with the discussion and try not turn this into an argument about whether or not a source is viable...if you do not agree with information given and you would like to challenge it please dont hesitate to share any information you have on the subject...but don't use a whole post just to 'put down' the information someone has already given because you do not think it is a viable source...

Unregistered
11-01-2006, 03:08 PM
excuse me...but this is a discussion about Nepilim...we are sharing thoughts and ideas etc, that may or may not be true...information shared here is not meant to be taken as total truth...but to allow us to share with each other and 'discuss' things...please dont take it personally if someone questions your sources of information...but at the same time if you are questioning where someone got their information please dont insult, use harsh words or try to cause arguments.


In my second post I made (which has either been deleted or not approved or something...) I did NOT direct anything at anyone in particular nor did I attack anyone.


I did however address some of the FALSE statemnt contained in this thread concerning both wikipedia and other comments more relevant to the topic.



Though i have to add that yes a lot of Universities increasingly do use more and more internet sources such as Wikipedia just as much as text books today and they find these to be more accurate as they are more easily updated with the many changes in say the subjects of technology or science...and they do have a community of editors...consisting of people they have found can be trusted to keep a check on things...similar to Panheads.org here were have moderators...


I made my points very clear in the second post (the one that was either deleted or not accepted for no real reason) on this issue.

Wikipedia may very well be good for technology or science, but not for history and such things that require actual sources. Which I *clearly* showed in my second post.
I challenge anyone to show a university that favours wikipedia or any other editable information over the "Acutal source" when it comes to anything of a historical nature. (that includes mythological history)

And since this is about historical content, it is relevant to the topic at hand.





so i would like to ask that we all continue with the discussion and try not turn this into an argument about whether or not a source is viable...if you do not agree with information given and you would like to challenge it please dont hesitate to share any information you have on the subject...but don't use a whole post just to 'put down' the information someone has already given because you do not think it is a viable source...

I addressed the issues in my second post (which was deleted or not accepted for no real reason) as to why wikipedia is not viable... It is not even in itself a source when it comes to historical content
Where people get their information from is relevant to the topic due to that information needing to be backed up.
(It is exactly the same as saying something about God, and using the Bible as the source to back up that comment. If some other information is sued it is more often then not not credible compared to the Bible and therefore nulifies the comments made)



I made these posts after reading this thread and wanting to see where the sources for information of the comments being said in this thread came from.
Is that too much to ask??

john316
11-03-2006, 06:10 PM
its an interesting thought though Amos...Satan wanted to be like God...so he created his own beings...yeah far fetched but still worth putting out there...

Who knows what kind of power Lucifer had before the fall?. One thing to keep in mind is the false prophet is given power by satan to give life to the image of the beast in Revelation 13.

skynes
11-04-2006, 01:28 AM
So your history professor tells you to use wikipedia and not the actual sources the information comes from??


I don't do history. So no.

Who knows what kind of power Lucifer had before the fall?. One thing to keep in mind is the false prophet is given power by satan to give life to the image of the beast in Revelation 13.


Didn't Jesus say Satan's purpose is to lie, steal and destroy?

I'm one that doesn't think Satan is capable of innovative creation, he can only manipulate and change what is already there (stealing the idea and making a false copy)

lamb_servant72
11-04-2006, 05:07 AM
That was an interesting point, John. I went back and read Chapter 13.

Verse 15 And there was given to him (second beast) to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast might even speak...

At first, I thought the image of the beast was only able to speak. My computer can speak to me, but that doesn't mean it has life.

However, the word breath used here is pneuma which does mean spirit. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151&version=nas

My question is, who gave the second beast the power to give spirit?

All it says is, "There was given to gim..."

Who gave it to him? The dragon (Satan)?

skynes
11-04-2006, 05:42 AM
However, the word breath used here is pneuma which does mean spirit. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...51&version=nas

My question is, who gave the second beast the power to give spirit?


As it says in the link you gave...


3.c.1. used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men


Could this be a demon inhabiting an inanimate object and making it animate?

lamb_servant72
11-04-2006, 06:09 AM
That was my thought, too. Like someone possessed of an evil spirit. Shines new light on being spirit possessed. How much control they have...

john316
11-04-2006, 11:20 AM
That was an interesting point, John. I went back and read Chapter 13.

Verse 15 And there was given to him (second beast) to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast might even speak...

At first, I thought the image of the beast was only able to speak. My computer can speak to me, but that doesn't mean it has life.

However, the word breath used here is pneuma which does mean spirit. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151&version=nas



All it says is, "There was given to gim..."

Who gave it to him? The dragon (Satan)?


The JKV (my translation of choice) has it...

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

So i guess its all in how you translate "life":-\ ...but the KJV sure sounds like it will be alive and yes from what i get from earlier in the chapter the dragon (satan) gives the power to the false prophet.

NightCrawler
11-08-2006, 06:13 PM
The JKV (my translation of choice) has it...
Just kidding version? ;)

Quadripedman
12-04-2006, 09:01 AM
I'm not sure if Noah was descended from this lot or not.

From what I can gather these people were pretty evil and twisted (hence God wiped them out)

But Noah was considered righteous.

I know it isn't 'fair' so to speak to place the parents flaws upon the child, but to go from a parent of extreme extreme evil to a righteous son is a stretch.

hmmm, well, i mean, i can happen, if your parents were evil, and your good, thats an extreme change. like someone i know's dad was an alchaholic (sp?), and his son has never drunk a drop of alcahol (again, sp...) in his life. thats and extreme change, so it can happen...

skynes
12-04-2006, 10:07 AM
hmmm, well, i mean, i can happen, if your parents were evil, and your good, thats an extreme change. like someone i know's dad was an alchaholic (sp?), and his son has never drunk a drop of alcahol (again, sp...) in his life. thats and extreme change, so it can happen...

Take the extreme of a rapist murderous bloodlusting thief who curses God and everyone daily, drinks nothing but alcohol and beats his family.

To a son who is highly intelligent, skilled at what he puts his hands to, loves God and other people and wouldn't hurt a fly.

Then you're kinda getting close to this extreme. But really this is the kind of evil that had God annihilate a world... It'd have to be way beyond any evils we can think of today.

Quadripedman
12-06-2006, 12:45 PM
Hmmm, lol...Good point...

alorian
12-06-2006, 01:05 PM
What about the possibility of Nephilim today?

NightCrawler
12-08-2006, 02:20 PM
What about the possibility of Nephilim today?
Do demons and angels have any significant differences between then and now? (physical nature, spiritual nature, freewill, etc.?)

And... what about humans?

If nothing significant or relevent is different, I would think Nephilim are probable today.

skynes
12-09-2006, 09:12 AM
Do demons and angels have any significant differences between then and now? (physical nature, spiritual nature, freewill, etc.?)

And... what about humans?

If nothing significant or relevent is different, I would think Nephilim are probable today.

Well... based upon the idea that human genetics has greatly degenerated since the Creation, is it possible that demonic entities have ALSO become more corrupt and twisted, in physical or other ways?

alorian
12-10-2006, 04:56 PM
It makes sense. But, our genetics still work, so why wouldn't their abilities too?

skynes
12-11-2006, 06:30 AM
It makes sense. But, our genetics still work, so why wouldn't their abilities too?

Wasn't saying they wouldn't work. Nightcrawler asked if any significant changes have happened to them, so I was throwing a possibility.