The subject on "Nephillum"

[mitzi]

Please if anyone has any info on the subject of Nephillum, let me know


Thanks
Mitzi

[technomage]

Please if anyone has any info on the subject of Nephillum, let me know

Nephilim? The Giants listed in Genesis 6 and Numbers 13? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim)'s a good place to start.

[Faramir]

Please if anyone has any info on the subject of Nephillum, let me know


Thanks
Mitzi

I assume you mean the Nephilim? Interesting you should mention that. My pastor preached his sermon this past week on Gen. 6:1-4. Probably the best exegesis of that text I have ever heard. But he did not give any of the more "popular" sensationalistic interpretations of Nephilim. According to him (and I agree), the Nephilim are just what scripture says, men of renowed, nothing super and/or sub human.

Click here (http://www.gracebiblechurchgbc.org/weeklysermons.html) and then on the sermon for 9-18-05 for an audio recording of the sermon.

[mitzi]

I assume you mean the Nephilim? Interesting you should mention that. My pastor preached his sermon this past week on Gen. 6:1-4. Probably the best exegesis of that text I have ever heard. But he did not give any of the more "popular" sensationalistic interpretations of Nephilim. According to him (and I agree), the Nephilim are just what scripture says, men of renowed, nothing super and/or sub human.

Click here (http://www.gracebiblechurchgbc.org/weeklysermons.html) and then on the sermon for 9-18-05 for an audio recording of the sermon.


Thank you both for the information and I will check it out. Mitzi

[Scruffy]

Thank you both for the information and I will check it out. Mitzi

Mitzi,

Here is an interesting article (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/) about Nephilim.

Here is a page with tons more links (http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html) to articles about them.

[mitzi]

Mitzi,

Here is an interesting article (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/) about Nephilim.

Here is a page with tons more links (http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html) to articles about them.


Good link, along with the other links. I'll be busy today reading.

In Bamidbar (Numbers) 13:33 there is also a mention. Some Nephilim are mentioned in Davarim (Deuteronomy) 2:11; 2:20; 3:11; 3:13; and in the Nevi'im (Prophets) Yehoshua (Joshua) 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16. Shmuel Sheni (2Samuel) 21:22 give a reference to a place called Gath). Gath was the birthplace of Goliath.

Goliath, Nimrod and others were descendants of the Nephilim. When the flood came with Noah, isn't thought that all of them were wiped out?

[technomage]

Mitzi,

Here is an interesting article (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/) about Nephilim.

Here is a page with tons more links (http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html) to articles about them.
Some care does need to be taken with the subject of the Nephilim--there are some folks with some really weird ideas, including some rather racist ideas, involving the Nephilim.

[Bill the Cat]

Goliath, Nimrod and others were descendants of the Nephilim. When the flood came with Noah, isn't thought that all of them were wiped out?

Which leads me to think that it was more of a description than a particular race of people.

[Faramir]

Which leads me to think that it was more of a description than a particular race of people.

That sounds like sound exegisis. Except it is coming from Bill the Cat. :eek:


:wink:

[Conductor42]

Which leads me to think that it was more of a description than a particular race of people.
"Nephillim" simply means "Fallen Ones".

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yoshiyahu,


"Nephillim" simply means "Fallen Ones".

EricVon Daniken seems to think they are Space Astronauts from a distant galaxy(Sirrus). Erwin Lutzer and John DeVries believe them to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels".

And this is just for starters!

[technomage]

EricVon Daniken seems to think they are Space Astronauts from a distant galaxy(Sirrus).

I've ceased being surprised by anythingVonDaniken thinks. The man sees space aliens in everything--heck, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him claim that space aliens are coming out of his butt.


Erwin Lutzer and John DeVries believe them to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels".

Lutzer I know of--the only John DeVries I know is the Canadian NDP politician.

[Scruffy]

Erwin Lutzer and John DeVries believe them to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels".

I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. I believe the Nephilim to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels", and I believe they are behind the modern UFO phenomena.

[Pythagoras]

A Cup of Mystery,






Lutzer I know of--the only John DeVries I know is the Canadian NDP politician.

DeVries is President of mission (21) India, buliding mission fields in India for Western churches and denominations. His Guide to Happiness course is available in all major languages of India and over 15 million copies have been sold!

best wishes,

[mitzi]

Which leads me to think that it was more of a description than a particular race of people.


A listing from the book of Wisdom of Solomon:

14:6 For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation.

[mitzi]

A listing from the book of Wisdom of Solomon:

14:6 For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation.


From what I understand, and according to avodah zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation). So I'm not sure whether it can be discussed on the board? Please reply back

[giantangel]

good morning.

[Xmansmommy]

Howdy giantangel and welcome to TWeb. :smile: Intersting screen name you have. Do you have any thoughts on the Nephilim that you would like to share?

[yonah_mishael]

From what I understand, and according to avodah zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation). So I'm not sure whether it can be discussed on the board? Please reply backTechnically, even the Exodus (יציאת מצרים) occurred "before." The text doesn't say that we should not inquire as to what happened "before creation (מעשה בראשית)," but just "before."


How should we understand this? Does it have to refer to Creation?
Can it refer to something else?


Even if it does refer to מעשה בראשית, the Nephilim appear in the text after the Creation, so it would yet be permissible to discuss who they are and where they came from. I think you might be right, though. It always seemed to me that this reference suggests the futility of inquiring about ETERNITY: "What was there before God. Where does God come from? What existed before our universe? What will there be when this world ceases to exist? Does anything come after God?" These types of questions have always seemed impossible and fruitless to me. What do you think?

שלום
Yonah

.נ.ב - I've always wondered how it says in Joshua that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim if the Flood washed away all life on earth after the Nephilim had already come. How could they have been left descendants? Hmmm...

[SpiritWoman]

Mitzi,

Here is an interesting article (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/) about Nephilim.

Here is a page with tons more links (http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html) to articles about them.

Thanks for the great links. Even though they weren't directed to me, I've been reading them for 2 days. :ahem:

[Xmansmommy]

.נ.ב - I've always wondered how it says in Joshua that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim if the Flood washed away all life on earth after the Nephilim had already come. How could they have been left descendants? Hmmm...

Hello yonah_mishael, just a quick thought on your ponderings here. Genesis 6:4 says it (the sons of God taking wifes of the daughters of men) happened in those days, "and also after that." One popular and possible explanation, is that angels fell on more than one occasion.

[shunyadragon]

Mitzi,

Here is an interesting article (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/) about Nephilim.

Here is a page with tons more links (http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html) to articles about them.

Wierd, I thought they were wookies.

[rmwilliamsjr]

i've been keeping this list at: http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/nephilim.html
i'll update it with more links from here. already got all the ones earlier. thanks for the one long links list.

Nephilim: giants in the land

GEN 6:1-7

A literalistic viewpoint of the verses, short, to the point. a good start for the discussion is at:
companion bible (http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app25.html). Includes the complete text.
(http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app25.html) (off line, last checked 2/27/2006)

First. justification of spending any time with an obscure verse with little apparent practical meaning.

The major discussion I have is concerning the young earth creationists (YEC) and how they use/misuse Scripture in an overly literal way. They attack positions to their left, those positions which do not interpret GEN 1-2 as literally as do the YEC. Those attacks center around issues that the YEC alone take scripture as God designed it, literally, consistently, without fail. My contention is that the church first interprets things literally, the reading that a naive common sense man-in-the-street would do. The church later revisits passages under pressure from the world, at this point a revision in hermenutic takes place, the church kicks the verse's reading upstairs to a different interpretive principle. It de-literalises, it applies some type of more sophisticated reasoning to the verse in order to harmonize it with the forces pushing for the change. My contention is that this is a natural and rightful thing to do; and in doing so the church creates historical theology, which is the study of a changing human conception of an unchanging fixed canon with no opportunity for continuing revelation. This completely defangs and neutralizes the YEC argument of literalistic interpretations, for it is not consistent with the history of the church NOT to try to harmonize Scripture with both it's internal inconsistencies and with forces from the outside.

Second. this verse is problematic from the man in the street literal viewpoint from the very beginning of scriptural analysis.

It doesn't need any outside forces to require analysis. It's inconsistency with pieces of Scripture are apparent in the literal first reading.
Who are the sons of god? And who are the nephilim, the giants in the land? Why are they mentioned both before and after the flood, without being on the ark?
The most literal viewpoint is angels having sex with human women and giving rise to a race of human-angel hybrid giants. This is the intepretation
of the link first given. This viewpoint was discarded long ago, as Calvin writes that it was the unification of the ungodly line of Cain with the godly
line of Seth. This is my understanding of the verse.( I am aware of the history of the verse only because of its usage in LDS theology, however)
Calvin is quoted in: very complete analysis although JDP technic (http://www.logoschristian.org/ufosrevealed/a3gen.htm)
(http://www.logoschristian.org/ufosrevealed/a3gen.htm)

For another reasonable and short link that actually introduces several different ideas see:
macarthur (http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-20-3.htm) the bible answer man.(http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-20-3.htm)
Finally to ldolphin (http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html) (http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html) who in one place brings together several of the best writers on the verses.
As an aside the ldophin.org site is certain worthy of a few hours of browsing. he is a gifted, talented writer who shares his insights freely with us.
But for our purposes here, there is a second benefit of this link, Henry Morris, the author of _the Genesis Flood_ is quoted in a long passage which appears about 1/2 through the book selections

The point of it all is that the verse itself is problematic. As human beings we struggle for consistency between the pieces of the things we believe.
This verse has internal contradictions which drive people to strive for an explanation which fits the passage into their interpretative framework.
Angels having sex with women, the obvious literal interpretation clashes from other clearer texts stating that angels are not given in marriage nor
do they have sex. So from the beginning of the history of these verses you find people struggling with what they mean. An additional problem is the relationship of the book of Enoch to the Bible, Enoch is not canonical, yet any discussion going back to Jude or Peter must go through an analysis with Enoch in mind. How do you do this?

Back to the real argument which is trying to show YECists that their inflexible position on the literalness of GEN 1,2-5 is not traditional or reflective of
how the church as operated in the past with difficult verses whose interpretation was/is under attack from worldly forces or internally inconsistent. Just a cursory reading of a few of the research links below will show any reasonable person that this verse is at best problematic, a literal interpretation is not the only option ie angels having sex with human women and the offspring are hybrid giants. But it is one that more than half of the websites i've read teach. I believe they do this in order to stick to the most literal interpretation that they can, without justification of it in wider terms, although a few of the sites do justify their interpretation in terms that it is supernaturalistic.

This short piece is intended to show that no one who desires to hold to a consistent literal interpretation, can. For you can see from the above analysis links where people struggle to put angels into the text-sons of god, and see the gross internal contradictions. How 'they kick it upstairs' varies. The point being that those who do so are not compromisers, accommodationists, capitulationists to the world. but rather are simply people struggling to come to consistent positions on their reading of Scripture when they have a primary commitment to the reliability of scripture, if not the stronger inerrancy viewpoint at heart. So this ends up being a call for tolerance within the Church for a varying hermeneutic that will both do justice to the Scriptures as the very Word of God and faithfully represent human thought struggling to think God's thoughts after Him.

----

Lastly for forces outside church and the internal responses of the church we need to look at the history of the interpretation of this verse in the context of cults.

both LDS and JW theology have a very specific and peculiar spin on these verses.
from: http://www.nccg.org/NCMM/LDS2-6.html
This "spiritual genetics" gives one the ability to become as God is. It denies the fallen man as truly the sinners that we are, and turns the grace of Christ into and opportunity of choice. It is the counterfeit theology of the LDS Church as well as many other groups such as the "New Age" movements that are now spreading over the earth.
This follows Genesis 6:1-5 and his short analysis of it.

from: http://members.tripod.com/~debbie_pittman/satan.html (http://members.tripod.com/%7Edebbie_pittman/satan.html)
Unbelievably, there is a Christian group that actually teaches Satan is a good guy who was helping Jesus to test everyone. They further hold that the lies Satan told told were actually truth and were thought up by Jesus and his Father. Compare John 8:44. They live their lives hoping to be gods and be able to be bigamists also, marrying people in the lower 2 heavens and on earth as well and producing children with them. (Mormons-LDS hold these doctrines and further teach the doctrine of universal salvation claiming that God is going to make everyone accept their religion eventually.)
With their doctrine of god and jesus as glorified men from the planet Kolbol this verse naturally supports their view of godhood and sex with your wives to populate new planets.

There is one reference below to JW's, that is worth the time to read.
----

I believe it is the connection to angels and particular the sexuality of angels that makes these verses such a magnetic for off-beat, weird and downright loathsome interpretations. People are eager to "have their ears tickled", to think about tintilating subjects and since this is from the Bible after all it seems harmless, maybe even good.

-=research links=-
(it is difficult to make these into live links and still be able to see the website address, which gives me a lot of information.
cut and paste into your browser, sorry about the extra step but it is a compromise)

i looked at several hundred google search hits and chose the ones i found most interesting. (?-i see problems, !-good)
sons of god(bene elohim) were:
men
-----
http://www.scripturessay.com/q333a.html
http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/giants_and_the_bible.html
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/nov2002/edwards.pdf (!!, this is probably the best, most complete analysis i found online)
http://members.aol.com/twarren14/nephils.html (!)

angels
--------
http://www.geocities.com/zaretan/neph.html
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nephilim.html
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/genesis6.htm
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html (http://www.mt.net/%7Ewatcher/enoch5.html) (?) but i found this essay via a link from: .......http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/ReturnOfTheNephilim.html (??)
http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/sonsofgod.htm
http://antesdelfin.com/sonsofgod1.htm
http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/satan/29.htm (http://www.acns.com/%7Emm9n/satan/29.htm)
http://www.precepts.com/Articles/OurRed-CharacterGod.htm
...... (this is a sermon, but what makes it interesting is how easily he dismisses the problems)



doesn't decide
------------------
http://www.jesuscafe.org/resources/scripturesquad/archive_0026.html(!)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/723.html(!)
http://www.struggler.org/Giants.html (!, more a word study, but introduces texts that were new to me)


strange, cultish (all deserve several ? to start with *grin*)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.brotherblue.org/libers/intro.htm (reptilian rape)
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1545 (antisemitic)
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:UeyCJv4KUwgJ:www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0302.pdf+that+the+sons+of+God+saw+that+the+daughters+of+men+were+beautiful%3B+and+they+took+wives+for+themselves,+whomever+they+chose&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet
...this reference is an analysis of the JW teachings, short, to the point, interesting.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:-etQgRbOJHUJ:www11.brinkster.com/code10v2/black/main/demons/demons.html+that+the+sons+of+God+saw+that+the+daughters+of+men+were+beautiful%3B+and+they+took+wives+for+themselves,+whomever+they+chose&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet
...had to use a cached copy, a rant more than a reasoned paper
http://grame4.50megs.com/ (when i see the word 'watchers' i start to watchout)
http://www.piney.com/BabSonsOfGod.html (this is a longish study on angels, lots of new material here)
http://www.alienresistance.org/sons_of_seth.htm (this is the place to start if you want to see how elaborate the ideas can get)
http://www.theseventhtrumpet.com/twatt/twatt4.php (self described gnostic, bene elohim are aliens)http://members.tripod.com/~debbie_pittman/satan.html (space invaders)


my search string at google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&as_qdr=all&q=sons+of+god+saw+daughters+of+men+genesis+angels&btnG=Google+Search

i'll be glad to add to this FAQ, email me at rwilliam2@yahoo.com with a subject heading of nephilim FAQ email (rwilliam2@yahoo.com?subject=nephlim%20FAQ)

from: http://www.christianforums.com/t2669278-the-nephilim.html#post22284971
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP052/ (http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP052/)
mp3 files with several articles to the right:
ARTICLES
The Return of the Nephilim? (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/22/)
Mischievous Angels or Sethites? (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/)
As The Days of Noah Were (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/43/)


http://www.stevequayle.com/
table of contents for a "on sale print book" entitled:
Genesis 6 GIANTS
The Master Builders of the Prehistoric
and Ancient Civilizations
By Steve Quayle™
only chapter one is available online here.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html
short comparison of the 3 main interpretations, a few links at the end

another interesting essay:
http://www.jesuscafe.org/resources/scripturesquad/archive_0026.html

another thread at Tweb
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61785 (showthread.php?t=61785)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html
this is a major, however unsorted links list




details:
contact: rwilliam2@yahoo.com subject=nephilim FAQ
purpose:
to pull together online references on nephilim Gen 6:1-7 and relate to YECist literal hermeneutic
last modified 2/27/2006

[mitzi]

Technically, even the Exodus (יציאת מצרים) occurred "before." The text doesn't say that we should not inquire as to what happened "before creation (מעשה בראשית)," but just "before."


How should we understand this? Does it have to refer to Creation?
Can it refer to something else?


Even if it does refer to מעשה בראשית, the Nephilim appear in the text after the Creation, so it would yet be permissible to discuss who they are and where they came from. I think you might be right, though. It always seemed to me that this reference suggests the futility of inquiring about ETERNITY: "What was there before God. Where does God come from? What existed before our universe? What will there be when this world ceases to exist? Does anything come after God?" These types of questions have always seemed impossible and fruitless to me. What do you think?

שלום
Yonah

.נ.ב - I've always wondered how it says in Joshua that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim if the Flood washed away all life on earth after the Nephilim had already come. How could they have been left descendants? Hmmm...

Shalom:

Your last question was very good but wasn’t this report that was given back to the Israelites listed as being false? And I quote: Since then, the 9th of Av has remained a day of weeping. What was it that caused the spies to sin against G-d, and present a highly negative opinion of the land... Bamidbar 14:11): "And the Hashem said to Moshe, . . . And how long will it be before they believe me, for all the signs which I have shown among them?" The spies did not trust in G-d, and hence they feared the worst would befall them should they enter the land of Israel. Their opinion of the land was colored with lack of faith, which led them to relate only negative aspects of the land. Had their faith in G-d's word been solid, they would have related the unbiased truth: it was a beautiful and desirous land to live in.

http://www.torah.org/learning/yomtov/3weeks/vol5no7.html

I had to search further through Ask.Moses.com & Torah.org and found some interesting articles (which I think) might hit on some ideas. However, there’s an article (now), which I can’t find by Torah.org that indicates to be very careful about discussing the topic of creation, and regarding the approach. . “is called this because it refers to G-d's eternal existence - He was, He is, and He will always be - before anything that was created and after everything was changed into what it is”



http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=279&o=618

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5765/vaera.html

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5759/terumah.html

First, there is His hidden Essence, which gives rise to everything and is in everything, and is as it was before Creation. It includes all forms of perfection and praise and elevation in the most sublime way, and therefore we would be gravely mistaken to assign any praise or elevation to It, because It is His Essence and nothing can be added to His sublime unity which is perfect.

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5765/vaera.html

http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5758/yisro.html

Mitzi


P.S. Baruch atah adonay eloheynu melech ha'olam asher kidshanu
bemitzvotav vetzivanu al sefirat ha'omer

[mitzi]

i've been keeping this list at: http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/nephilim.html
i'll update it with more links from here. already got all the ones earlier. thanks for the one long links list.

Nephilim: giants in the land

GEN 6:1-7

A literalistic viewpoint of the verses, short, to the point. a good start for the discussion is at:
companion bible (http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app25.html). Includes the complete text.
(http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app25.html) (off line, last checked 2/27/2006)

First. justification of spending any time with an obscure verse with little apparent practical meaning.

The major discussion I have is concerning the young earth creationists (YEC) and how they use/misuse Scripture in an overly literal way. They attack positions to their left, those positions which do not interpret GEN 1-2 as literally as do the YEC. Those attacks center around issues that the YEC alone take scripture as God designed it, literally, consistently, without fail. My contention is that the church first interprets things literally, the reading that a naive common sense man-in-the-street would do. The church later revisits passages under pressure from the world, at this point a revision in hermenutic takes place, the church kicks the verse's reading upstairs to a different interpretive principle. It de-literalises, it applies some type of more sophisticated reasoning to the verse in order to harmonize it with the forces pushing for the change. My contention is that this is a natural and rightful thing to do; and in doing so the church creates historical theology, which is the study of a changing human conception of an unchanging fixed canon with no opportunity for continuing revelation. This completely defangs and neutralizes the YEC argument of literalistic interpretations, for it is not consistent with the history of the church NOT to try to harmonize Scripture with both it's internal inconsistencies and with forces from the outside.

Second. this verse is problematic from the man in the street literal viewpoint from the very beginning of scriptural analysis.

It doesn't need any outside forces to require analysis. It's inconsistency with pieces of Scripture are apparent in the literal first reading.
Who are the sons of god? And who are the nephilim, the giants in the land? Why are they mentioned both before and after the flood, without being on the ark?
The most literal viewpoint is angels having sex with human women and giving rise to a race of human-angel hybrid giants. This is the intepretation
of the link first given. This viewpoint was discarded long ago, as Calvin writes that it was the unification of the ungodly line of Cain with the godly
line of Seth. This is my understanding of the verse.( I am aware of the history of the verse only because of its usage in LDS theology, however)
Calvin is quoted in: very complete analysis although JDP technic (http://www.logoschristian.org/ufosrevealed/a3gen.htm)
(http://www.logoschristian.org/ufosrevealed/a3gen.htm)

For another reasonable and short link that actually introduces several different ideas see:
macarthur (http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-20-3.htm) the bible answer man.(http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-20-3.htm)
Finally to ldolphin (http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html) (http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html) who in one place brings together several of the best writers on the verses.
As an aside the ldophin.org site is certain worthy of a few hours of browsing. he is a gifted, talented writer who shares his insights freely with us.
But for our purposes here, there is a second benefit of this link, Henry Morris, the author of _the Genesis Flood_ is quoted in a long passage which appears about 1/2 through the book selections

The point of it all is that the verse itself is problematic. As human beings we struggle for consistency between the pieces of the things we believe.
This verse has internal contradictions which drive people to strive for an explanation which fits the passage into their interpretative framework.
Angels having sex with women, the obvious literal interpretation clashes from other clearer texts stating that angels are not given in marriage nor
do they have sex. So from the beginning of the history of these verses you find people struggling with what they mean. An additional problem is the relationship of the book of Enoch to the Bible, Enoch is not canonical, yet any discussion going back to Jude or Peter must go through an analysis with Enoch in mind. How do you do this?

Back to the real argument which is trying to show YECists that their inflexible position on the literalness of GEN 1,2-5 is not traditional or reflective of
how the church as operated in the past with difficult verses whose interpretation was/is under attack from worldly forces or internally inconsistent. Just a cursory reading of a few of the research links below will show any reasonable person that this verse is at best problematic, a literal interpretation is not the only option ie angels having sex with human women and the offspring are hybrid giants. But it is one that more than half of the websites i've read teach. I believe they do this in order to stick to the most literal interpretation that they can, without justification of it in wider terms, although a few of the sites do justify their interpretation in terms that it is supernaturalistic.

This short piece is intended to show that no one who desires to hold to a consistent literal interpretation, can. For you can see from the above analysis links where people struggle to put angels into the text-sons of god, and see the gross internal contradictions. How 'they kick it upstairs' varies. The point being that those who do so are not compromisers, accommodationists, capitulationists to the world. but rather are simply people struggling to come to consistent positions on their reading of Scripture when they have a primary commitment to the reliability of scripture, if not the stronger inerrancy viewpoint at heart. So this ends up being a call for tolerance within the Church for a varying hermeneutic that will both do justice to the Scriptures as the very Word of God and faithfully represent human thought struggling to think God's thoughts after Him.

----

Lastly for forces outside church and the internal responses of the church we need to look at the history of the interpretation of this verse in the context of cults.

both LDS and JW theology have a very specific and peculiar spin on these verses.
from: http://www.nccg.org/NCMM/LDS2-6.html
This "spiritual genetics" gives one the ability to become as God is. It denies the fallen man as truly the sinners that we are, and turns the grace of Christ into and opportunity of choice. It is the counterfeit theology of the LDS Church as well as many other groups such as the "New Age" movements that are now spreading over the earth.
This follows Genesis 6:1-5 and his short analysis of it.

from: http://members.tripod.com/~debbie_pittman/satan.html (http://members.tripod.com/%7Edebbie_pittman/satan.html)
Unbelievably, there is a Christian group that actually teaches Satan is a good guy who was helping Jesus to test everyone. They further hold that the lies Satan told told were actually truth and were thought up by Jesus and his Father. Compare John 8:44. They live their lives hoping to be gods and be able to be bigamists also, marrying people in the lower 2 heavens and on earth as well and producing children with them. (Mormons-LDS hold these doctrines and further teach the doctrine of universal salvation claiming that God is going to make everyone accept their religion eventually.)
With their doctrine of god and jesus as glorified men from the planet Kolbol this verse naturally supports their view of godhood and sex with your wives to populate new planets.

There is one reference below to JW's, that is worth the time to read.
----

I believe it is the connection to angels and particular the sexuality of angels that makes these verses such a magnetic for off-beat, weird and downright loathsome interpretations. People are eager to "have their ears tickled", to think about tintilating subjects and since this is from the Bible after all it seems harmless, maybe even good.

-=research links=-
(it is difficult to make these into live links and still be able to see the website address, which gives me a lot of information.
cut and paste into your browser, sorry about the extra step but it is a compromise)

i looked at several hundred google search hits and chose the ones i found most interesting. (?-i see problems, !-good)
sons of god(bene elohim) were:
men
-----
http://www.scripturessay.com/q333a.html
http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/giants_and_the_bible.html
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/nov2002/edwards.pdf (!!, this is probably the best, most complete analysis i found online)
http://members.aol.com/twarren14/nephils.html (!)

angels
--------
http://www.geocities.com/zaretan/neph.html
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nephilim.html
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/genesis6.htm
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html (http://www.mt.net/%7Ewatcher/enoch5.html) (?) but i found this essay via a link from: .......http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/ReturnOfTheNephilim.html (??)
http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/sonsofgod.htm
http://antesdelfin.com/sonsofgod1.htm
http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/satan/29.htm (http://www.acns.com/%7Emm9n/satan/29.htm)
http://www.precepts.com/Articles/OurRed-CharacterGod.htm
...... (this is a sermon, but what makes it interesting is how easily he dismisses the problems)



doesn't decide
------------------
http://www.jesuscafe.org/resources/scripturesquad/archive_0026.html(!)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/723.html(!)
http://www.struggler.org/Giants.html (!, more a word study, but introduces texts that were new to me)


strange, cultish (all deserve several ? to start with *grin*)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.brotherblue.org/libers/intro.htm (reptilian rape)
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1545 (antisemitic)
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:UeyCJv4KUwgJ:www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0302.pdf+that+the+sons+of+God+saw+that+the+daughters+of+men+were+beautiful%3B+and+they+took+wives+for+themselves,+whomever+they+chose&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet
...this reference is an analysis of the JW teachings, short, to the point, interesting.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:-etQgRbOJHUJ:www11.brinkster.com/code10v2/black/main/demons/demons.html+that+the+sons+of+God+saw+that+the+daughters+of+men+were+beautiful%3B+and+they+took+wives+for+themselves,+whomever+they+chose&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet
...had to use a cached copy, a rant more than a reasoned paper
http://grame4.50megs.com/ (when i see the word 'watchers' i start to watchout)
http://www.piney.com/BabSonsOfGod.html (this is a longish study on angels, lots of new material here)
http://www.alienresistance.org/sons_of_seth.htm (this is the place to start if you want to see how elaborate the ideas can get)
http://www.theseventhtrumpet.com/twatt/twatt4.php (self described gnostic, bene elohim are aliens)http://members.tripod.com/~debbie_pittman/satan.html (space invaders)


my search string at google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&as_qdr=all&q=sons+of+god+saw+daughters+of+men+genesis+angels&btnG=Google+Search

i'll be glad to add to this FAQ, email me at rwilliam2@yahoo.com with a subject heading of nephilim FAQ email (rwilliam2@yahoo.com?subject=nephlim%20FAQ)

from: http://www.christianforums.com/t2669278-the-nephilim.html#post22284971
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP052/ (http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP052/)
mp3 files with several articles to the right:
ARTICLES
The Return of the Nephilim? (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/22/)
Mischievous Angels or Sethites? (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/)
As The Days of Noah Were (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/43/)


http://www.stevequayle.com/
table of contents for a "on sale print book" entitled:
Genesis 6 GIANTS
The Master Builders of the Prehistoric
and Ancient Civilizations
By Steve Quayle™
only chapter one is available online here.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html
short comparison of the 3 main interpretations, a few links at the end

another interesting essay:
http://www.jesuscafe.org/resources/scripturesquad/archive_0026.html

another thread at Tweb
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61785 (showthread.php?t=61785)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/nephilim.html
this is a major, however unsorted links list




details:
contact: rwilliam2@yahoo.com subject=nephilim FAQ
purpose:
to pull together online references on nephilim Gen 6:1-7 and relate to YECist literal hermeneutic
last modified 2/27/2006

Good Post and yes I agree. You can over dilute the scriptures so much that it take away from the initial (flavor) or message. How does that saying go: "But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?" When mixed with impurities salt can lose its ability to enhance flavor...referring to interpretations on scripture.

[Menachem]

.נ.ב - I've always wondered how it says in Joshua that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim if the Flood washed away all life on earth after the Nephilim had already come. How could they have been left descendants? Hmmm...


Not only that but in Sefer Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] where it says Cain took a wife from the land of Nod. How was he to take a wife from the land of Nod when he and his parents were supposed to be the only ones on the planet?

Things like these really make you think hard about what is going on in the text.

[shunyadragon]

I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. I believe the Nephilim to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels", and I believe they are behind the modern UFO phenomena.

This represents one of the distinct problems with the Bible. Ancient stuff believed today gets wierd, bizarro, and stuff for circus sideshows. Besides it leaves the barn door open for interpretation, long disertations on trivial pursuit, and few are able to agree.

[mitzi]

Not only that but in Sefer Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] where it says Cain took a wife from the land of Nod. How was he to take a wife from the land of Nod when he and his parents were supposed to be the only ones on the planet?

Things like these really make you think hard about what is going on in the text.


I'm going to quote this verse (again) and hopefully get a response:

A race of Giants known as the Nephilim are described in:
Numbers 13:28-33 (NIV)

"But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. (29)The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan." (30)Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, "We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it." (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.


If the reports were false...would the Anakites still be considered as descendents??????? or was this "just" a description of comparison to the Nepilim in order to scare the Israelites?????

Thanks

[mitzi]

Shalom:

Your last question was very good but wasn’t this report that was given back to the Israelites listed as being false? And I quote: Since then, the 9th of Av has remained a day of weeping. What was it that caused the spies to sin against G-d, and present a highly negative opinion of the land... Bamidbar 14:11): "And the Hashem said to Moshe, . . . And how long will it be before they believe me, for all the signs which I have shown among them?" The spies did not trust in G-d, and hence they feared the worst would befall them should they enter the land of Israel. Their opinion of the land was colored with lack of faith, which led them to relate only negative aspects of the land. Had their faith in G-d's word been solid, they would have related the unbiased truth: it was a beautiful and desirous land to live in.

http://www.torah.org/learning/yomtov/3weeks/vol5no7.html

I had to search further through Ask.Moses.com & Torah.org and found some interesting articles (which I think) might hit on some ideas. However, there’s an article (now), which I can’t find by Torah.org that indicates to be very careful about discussing the topic of creation, and regarding the approach. . “is called this because it refers to G-d's eternal existence - He was, He is, and He will always be - before anything that was created and after everything was changed into what it is”



http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=279&o=618

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5765/vaera.html

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5759/terumah.html

First, there is His hidden Essence, which gives rise to everything and is in everything, and is as it was before Creation. It includes all forms of perfection and praise and elevation in the most sublime way, and therefore we would be gravely mistaken to assign any praise or elevation to It, because It is His Essence and nothing can be added to His sublime unity which is perfect.

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5765/vaera.html

http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5758/yisro.html

Mitzi


P.S. Baruch atah adonay eloheynu melech ha'olam asher kidshanu
bemitzvotav vetzivanu al sefirat ha'omer


Shalom Yonah__Mishael:

I hope you had a chance to read some of the articles (pointed out) from Torah.org. I do realize that discussing the subject of pre-creation as appose to the beginning of creation as expression by Maimonides “to know that there is a First Existence rather than to believe” or the basic principle of creation: The foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdoms, [is] to know that there is a First Existence Who brings into being every existence, and all that exist in heaven and earth and between them, exist only by virtue of His existence (Maimonides1). However, there have been some that have approached pre-creation with caution, and with Love and Fear of G-d. In some respect how are we to speculate something that hasn’t been given to us to know, by reading Daniel or Ezekiel (for a few examples) they had given us knowledge of the heavens but did they actually give us knowledge of pre-creation. Some minor and major prophets of the Tanack have given us some information but not alot. Even in the New Testament, which gave us a fraction. I've often thought of the quotes from Kohelet:And I saw all the deed of God, for a person will not be able to fathom the deed that is done under the sun, because though a man toils to seek, he will not fathom [it], and even if the wise man claims to know [it], he will be unable to fathom [it]

Hope you're having a Good Shabbat & weekend
Mitzi


http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/goliath.html

Regarding Nephilim:

Fragments of the almost unknown "Book of Giants" dates from the 2nd century before Christ. This book survives today only in Ethiopic. Many Bible Scholars believe that this might be the original 5'th book of the "Enoch Pentateuch". The "similitude’s" were later put in its place. This lost book of Giants could give us much need information of the existence (and extinction) of the Giants described in the Bible.

Angelfire has always been a good website for info. So.....I thought I cut and past the previous article under Menachem, hope that's alright?

[mitzi]

Shalom Yonah__Mishael:

I hope you had a chance to read some of the articles (pointed out) from Torah.org. I do realize that discussing the subject of pre-creation as appose to the beginning of creation as expression by Maimonides “to know that there is a First Existence rather than to believe” or the basic principle of creation: The foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdoms, [is] to know that there is a First Existence Who brings into being every existence, and all that exist in heaven and earth and between them, exist only by virtue of His existence (Maimonides1). However, there have been some that have approached pre-creation with caution, and with Love and Fear of G-d. In some respect how are we to speculate something that hasn’t been given to us to know, by reading Daniel or Ezekiel (for a few examples) they had given us knowledge of the heavens but did they actually give us knowledge of pre-creation. Some minor and major prophets of the Tanack have given us some information but not alot. Even in the New Testament, which gave us a fraction. I've often thought of the quotes from Kohelet:And I saw all the deed of God, for a person will not be able to fathom the deed that is done under the sun, because though a man toils to seek, he will not fathom [it], and even if the wise man claims to know [it], he will be unable to fathom [it]

Hope you're having a Good Shabbat & weekend
Mitzi


http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/goliath.html

Regarding Nephilim:

Fragments of the almost unknown "Book of Giants" dates from the 2nd century before Christ. This book survives today only in Ethiopic. Many Bible Scholars believe that this might be the original 5'th book of the "Enoch Pentateuch". The "similitude’s" were later put in its place. This lost book of Giants could give us much need information of the existence (and extinction) of the Giants described in the Bible.

Angelfire has always been a good website for info. So.....I thought I cut and past the previous article under Menachem, hope that's alright?

As always another website:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=148261

[Krusader]

I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. I believe the Nephilim to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels", and I believe they are behind the modern UFO phenomena.

Impossible! How could spirit creatures have physical relations with fleshly women? Sounds like Mormonism!

[Menachem]

Impossible! How could spirit creatures have physical relations with fleshly women? Sounds like Mormonism!


Or christianity's virgin birth scenario. same idea G-d, a spiritual being, impregnating a woman! lol.

[Krusader]

Or christianity's virgin birth scenario. same idea G-d, a spiritual being, impregnating a woman! lol.

Actually, you are confusing Mormonism with Christianity. Mormonism teaches that Elohim, their Father god, actually had a sexual relationship with his spirit daughter who had become Mary. The Mormon Jesus was the result. And yes, you have every right to "lol" this.

However, Christians do not believe that any sexual relationship was needed for the Word of God to Incarnate in the womb of Mary. It was purely an act of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't confuse Mormonism (which is a cult) with Christianity!

[Menachem]

Actually, you are confusing Mormonism with Christianity. Mormonism teaches that Elohim, their Father god, actually had a sexual relationship with his spirit daughter who had become Mary. The Mormon Jesus was the result. And yes, you have every right to "lol" this.

However, Christians do not believe that any sexual relationship was needed for the Word of God to Incarnate in the womb of Mary. It was purely an act of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't confuse Mormonism (which is a cult) with Christianity!


Since the Holy spirit is G-d then G-d did impregnate Mary did he not, assuming the events happened at all?

[Krusader]

Since the Holy spirit is G-d then G-d did impregnate Mary did he not, assuming the events happened at all?

The Incarnation is a mystery. It only says, in Scripture that the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary - this has nothing to do with the paganistic view of gods having sex with humans (as we find in Mormonism). God caused an ovum to grow into the human body of Jesus, and the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, took on that additional nature.

This, of course, Christians believe to be a fulfillment of Isa. prophecy. I know you don't.

[mitzi]

From what I understand, and according to avodah zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation). So I'm not sure whether it can be discussed on the board? Please reply back


Found another interesting article:

Question 12.3: Does modern science (e.g., "big bang" theory,
evolution, the age of the world) contradict traditional readings of
the Torah?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-4.html

(Part of the commentary is being posted...Please read the rest) Rejection of a literal read of the Torah. This is much easier, halachically, than it sounds, as there is a long tradition, including the Rambam and the Vilna Gaon, teaching that Genesis 1&2 actually convey deeper truths via metaphor. The gemara, after all, limits the number of students (to 2) that one may teach the secrets of the Act of Creation -- so clearly we can't just take the text at face value. Another commonly sited proof for non-literalness is that the word "day" precedes the creation of the sun. Therefore, it can't be used, at least in this narative, to mean our 24 hour period. 4a-The Maharal (1st intro to Gevuros Hashem) teaches that creation is so alien to human experience that
we don't have a comparison to it. Therefore prophecy, which is transmitted by visions, can not describe it. (The World to Come is similarly explained. This is why it only appears in Tanach as "your days will be prolonged". Continued existance we can understand. The rest of the details, no.) However, creation is also so alien that we can not understand it by extrapolation,either.


Repeating a prior post:

Shalom Yonah__Mishael:

I hope you had a chance to read some of the articles (pointed out) from Torah.org. I do realize that discussing the subject of pre-creation as appose to the beginning of creation as expression by Maimonides “to know that there is a First Existence rather than to believe” or the basic principle of creation: The foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdoms, [is] to know that there is a First Existence Who brings into being every existence, and all that exist in heaven and earth and between them, exist only by virtue of His existence (Maimonides1). However, there have been some that have approached pre-creation with caution, and with Love and Fear of G-d. In some respect how are we to speculate something that hasn’t been given to us to know, by reading Daniel or Ezekiel (for a few examples) they had given us knowledge of the heavens but did they actually give us knowledge of pre-creation. Some minor and major prophets of the Tanack have given us some information but not alot. Even in the New Testament, which gave us a fraction. I've often thought of the quotes from Kohelet:And I saw all the deed of God, for a person will not be able to fathom the deed that is done under the sun, because though a man toils to seek, he will not fathom [it], and even if the wise man claims to know [it], he will be unable to fathom [it]


Emphasizing this sentence:

However, there have been some that have approached pre-creation with caution, and with the Love and Fear of G-d. In some respect how are we to speculate something that hasn’t been given to us to know, by reading Daniel or Ezekiel (for a few examples) they had given us knowledge of the heavens but did they actually give us knowledge of pre-creation. There have been some indications of pre-determination, but is that giving us enough information to tell us about pre-creation. Wasn't there a saying:We're taught that everything -- above, below, and in-between -- is interconnected, root to flower, flower to root.


Even though Torah is a composite of narration, stories, and mitzvos, it is, first and foremost, the revelation of G-d's master plan for creation. Remarkably, Torah is the way the Master of the Universe thinks, and what He thinks about His creation.

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5759/terumah.html
Isn't this want the article is saying?????

Mitzi

[mitzi]

Actually, you are confusing Mormonism with Christianity. Mormonism teaches that Elohim, their Father god, actually had a sexual relationship with his spirit daughter who had become Mary. The Mormon Jesus was the result. And yes, you have every right to "lol" this.

However, Christians do not believe that any sexual relationship was needed for the Word of God to Incarnate in the womb of Mary. It was purely an act of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't confuse Mormonism (which is a cult) with Christianity!


I going to post this comment only once and that should take care of this discussion between the both of you! Get off this subject "Now" because it has nothing to do with the thread.....These recent posts by the both of you are disgusting in a round'bout way! You should have left the comment alone with Scuffy, I believe, the member gave their opinion. Scuffy opinion in the first sentence should have told you something: I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. This was a non argumentive comment.

[Krusader]

I going to post this comment only once and that should take care of this discussion between the both of you! Get off this subject "Now" because it has nothing to do with the thread.....These recent posts by the both of you are disgusting in a round'bout way! You should have left the comment alone with Scuffy, I believe, the member gave their opinion. Scuffy opinion in the first sentence should have told you something: I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. This was a non argumentive comment.

Get off your high horse, chick. You don't own this site, do you? Furthermore, it was only a "disgusting" dialogue if you are processing the information provided in a warped way. The discussion progressed in a logical manner - except, perhaps it was too logical for somebody that is unable to grasp the finer points of theolopgy.

[mitzi]

Get off your high horse, chick. You don't own this site, do you? Furthermore, it was only a "disgusting" dialogue if you are processing the information provided in a warped way. The discussion progressed in a logical manner - except, perhaps it was too logical for somebody that is unable to grasp the finer points of theolopgy.


Get off your high horse, chick??????????????????? :lmbo: Chick? My high horse seems like a pony compared to yours. No I don't own the site, dear, I just started the thread and I believe I might be responsible for it's direction. As for processing the information provided in a warped way....why don't you start a different thread title for the type of discussion, I think it might be a more respectful way to address this topic of Mary.

Quote: Originally posted by Crusader
"The discussion progressed in a logical manner - except, perhaps it was too logical for somebody that is unable to grasp the finer points of theolopgy."

Quote: Originally posted by Mitzi
Care to retinker your steps.......and look at where you entered into the discussion and with whose post! Lets retake those steps with you: (yes, it almost seems....as you said: Logical manner) Next time use some other victim for your attempts to side swipe a thread....Come on!



Quote: Originally posted by Scruffy
I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. I believe the Nephilim to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels", and I believe they are behind the modern UFO phenomena.

Quote: Originally posted by Crusader
Impossible! How could spirit creatures have physical relations with fleshly women? Sounds like Mormonism!

[Krusader]

Get off your high horse, chick??????????????????? :lmbo: Chick? My high horse seems like a pony compared to yours. No I don't own the site, dear, I just started the thread and I believe I might be responsible for it's direction. As for processing the information provided in a warped way....why don't you start a different thread title for the type of discussion, I think it might be a more respectful way to address this topic of Mary.

Quote: Originally posted by Crusader
"The discussion progressed in a logical manner - except, perhaps it was too logical for somebody that is unable to grasp the finer points of theolopgy."

Quote: Originally posted by Mitzi
Care to retinker your steps.......and look at where you entered into the discussion and with whose post! Lets retake those steps with you: (yes, it almost seems....as you said: Logical manner) Next time use some other victim for your attempts to side swipe a thread....Come on!



Quote: Originally posted by Scruffy
I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with some of my fellow Christians on some things, and the topic of Nephilim is usually one. I believe the Nephilim to be the progeny of earthly women and "fallen angels", and I believe they are behind the modern UFO phenomena.

Quote: Originally posted by Crusader
Impossible! How could spirit creatures have physical relations with fleshly women? Sounds like Mormonism!

Get off your high pony.

[Gavriel]

Get off your high pony.


Get off your high horse

Which is it, a pony or a horse?

[SpiritWoman]

Which is it, a pony or a horse?

I thought Nephillum was a dragon? Some one high jacked this thread.
To bad it was interesting.

[Krusader]

I thought Nephillum was a dragon? Some one high jacked this thread.
To bad it was interesting.

I thought nephillum were giants - but if you want them to be dragons or ponies, it's okay with me.

[mitzi]

Which is it, a pony or a horse?

LLLLLOOOOOLLLL!!!!!! Ok. Gavriel let me think! :uhoh:

[mitzi]

I thought Nephillum was a dragon? Some one high jacked this thread.
To bad it was interesting.

Which parts of the thread are you referring too; hope it wasn't the most recent. The conversation should "not" have been started. The word Nephilim were giants born of angelic fathers (or so they say), it's equally true that Nephilim were a created angel/or were referenced in Genesis as sons of God. (Which is far from the conversation that was started)***as the reference indicated (again) "Nephilim".... refers to "sons of God", that being said, in Genesis 6 it states that" When men began to increase in number on the Earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said " My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be one hundred and twenty years". The Nephilim were in 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, and men of renown. The Lord saw how great the wickedness on the Earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and His heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said " I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

So sons of God procreated with the daughters of men, and the offspring were called the Nephilim. Now the sons of God had to be angels, otherwise the designation for them would be the sons of men, or sons of Adam. This can also be reasonably deduced because the offspring were superior to the sons of Adam, as they were heroes, and men of renown.

Some Nephilim are mentioned in Davarim (Deuteronomy) 2:11; 2:20; 3:11; 3:13; and in the Nevi'im (Prophets) Yehoshua (Joshua) 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16. Shmuel Sheni (2Samuel) 21:22 give a reference to a place called Gath). Gath was the birthplace of Goliath.

Listing a verse in the book of wisdom (Solomon):

A listing from the book of Wisdom of Solomon:

14:6 For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation.

Now when discussing the subject of Mary (which I still think) belongs to a more respectable thread than this one (and believe) should not be reference underneath this title, even though, it might have answered a question to another board members who knows better, as both Crusader and I both know this. Again the word "Nephilim" were considered to be "sons of God" and that is far from the scripture passage in Luke 1:26-38. And I'll refer to Luke 1:46-55 and I'll take to the next height Luke 1 68-80.

To make a long story short, Spirit.... Post #16 and I quote:

From what I understand, and according to Avodah Zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation). So I'm not sure whether it can be discussed on the board? Please reply back

Avodah Zarah reference was given from NistarRav on another forum thread. The original text: The Book of Creation (Sefer Yetsirah...from what I understand "Book of Formation"...even contents in the Maaseh Merkavah) was given to a specific sect within Judaism (maybe Hasidic, but not sure). Again, this might be the reason "why" certain deletions were made within certain texts on the name of the G-d, again, speculations.


:chicken:
Mitzi

P.S. I need to borrow your ladder, Crusader, in order to get off. Please loan me yours.

[mitzi]

Which parts of the thread are you referring too; hope it wasn't the most recent. The conversation should "not" have been started. The word Nephilim were giants born of angelic fathers (or so they say), it's equally true that Nephilim were a created angel/or were referenced in Genesis as sons of God. (Which is far from the conversation that was started)***as the reference indicated (again) "Nephilim".... refers to "sons of God", that being said, in Genesis 6 it states that" When men began to increase in number on the Earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said " My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be one hundred and twenty years". The Nephilim were in 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, and men of renown. The Lord saw how great the wickedness on the Earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and His heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said " I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

So sons of God procreated with the daughters of men, and the offspring were called the Nephilim. Now the sons of God had to be angels, otherwise the designation for them would be the sons of men, or sons of Adam. This can also be reasonably deduced because the offspring were superior to the sons of Adam, as they were heroes, and men of renown.

Some Nephilim are mentioned in Davarim (Deuteronomy) 2:11; 2:20; 3:11; 3:13; and in the Nevi'im (Prophets) Yehoshua (Joshua) 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16. Shmuel Sheni (2Samuel) 21:22 give a reference to a place called Gath). Gath was the birthplace of Goliath.

Listing a verse in the book of wisdom (Solomon):

A listing from the book of Wisdom of Solomon:

14:6 For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation.

Now when discussing the subject of Mary (which I still think) belongs to a more respectable thread than this one (and believe) should not be reference underneath this title, even though, it might have answered a question to another board members who knows better, as both Crusader and I both know this. Again the word "Nephilim" were considered to be "sons of God" and that is far from the scripture passage in Luke 1:26-38. And I'll refer to Luke 1:46-55 and I'll take to the next height Luke 1 68-80.

To make a long story short, Spirit.... Post #16 and I quote:

From what I understand, and according to Avodah Zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation). So I'm not sure whether it can be discussed on the board? Please reply back

Avodah Zarah reference was given from NistarRav on another forum thread. The original text: The Book of Creation (Sefer Yetsirah...from what I understand "Book of Formation"...even contents in the Maaseh Merkavah) was given to a specific sect within Judaism (maybe Hasidic, but not sure). Again, this might be the reason "why" certain deletions were made within certain texts on the name of the G-d, again, speculations.


:chicken:
Mitzi

P.S. I need to borrow your ladder, Crusader, in order to get off. Please loan me yours.

Original quote from post #16:

From what I understand, and according to Avodah Zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation).

Follow up:

Wasn't there a saying: We're taught that everything -- above, below, and in-between -- is interconnected, root to flower, flower to root.

[shunyadragon]

Which is it, a pony or a horse?

Sounds like a 'dog and pony show'

[mitzi]

Sounds like a 'dog and pony show'


Even so, I figure we’ll lasso that doggie before long but I ain’t promisin’ a date just yet, but come back.

[mitzi]

Even so, I figure we’ll lasso that doggie before long but I ain’t promisin’ a date just yet, but come back.
I have asked one of the monitor's to close this thread down but if anyone is "Still" interested in discussing this topic, please start a new thread. Even though, it seems as a thread starter, after a final attempt to reboot the conversation, are being ignored either that or into leading conversation that are rather off beat criticism. If a thread starter "from what I've viewed" on other threads feels that the thread maybe leading into unfavorable conversation, I believe, they have the right to disperse the conversation when asked. The conversation that took place between the two board members has been a continual argument in previous post that were unresolved/disagreements. Again thank you to everyone who gave this post some interesting discussions. I hope to see a monitor's reply soon! My other post was given some help by another member and I hope to receive some more members to appeal to the monitors on this thread, as well.

Thank you

[drachronicler]

Impossible! How could spirit creatures have physical relations with fleshly women? Sounds like Mormonism!
wrong, guy.
Angels were never "spirit creatures" in the old Testament books which Jesus the Rabbi endorsed. The "real" angels of the Bible are simply immortal men who must eat food to subsist so there is nothing "spiritual" about them. They eat regular food while on earth, and "Manna" while in heaven, this is what the Bible really says. Nor do they have wings. They look exactly like men, and in both the New and Old Testaments are frenquently mistaken for men. The only winged heavenly creatures in the Bible are Cherubum and Seraphim, both of which were orginally winged serpents or "dragons" though the original Hebrew words are ignored by modern Christians uncomfortable with what the Bible actually says.

The spirit angels of the New Testament are just so much pagan Greek nonsense, and thus, contradicts the Hebrew scriptures. They are the "good" daemons of paganism. Today we call the bad daemons "demons", and the good daemons "angels", though many enlightened Christians dismiss these pagan notions as a misunderstanding of mental illness. Jesus cured mental disease just as physical disease, but to his converted pagan followers, it was believed he was "casting out daemons".

So yes, angels could copulate with human females because angels are little more than normal men granted immortality to become heavenly servant creatures. This is what the Adam and Eve story was originally all about in its much earlier Sumerian form. The dragon-cherub Nin-Gish-Zida, who guarded the tree of immortality (who would be renamed "Satan"), offered Adape/Adam eternal life to become an angel, which he did not accept because he preferred to remain on earth with Eve. After centuries of Hebrew oral tradition, the story changed a bit, and the benificent dragon-servant who offered Adam eternal life on behalf of God, devolves into an improbable "evil" serpent that tricks the couple out of an eternal life that was never intended for them if they remained earthly creatures.

But as to the Nephilim, they are in fact, are own Cro-Magnon ancestors recollections of the Neanderthals, who in fact did interbreed with "modern" man and archaeology has shown, and then, mysteriously vanished, perhaps deliberately destroyed by God, though not neccesarily by an unsubstantiated "world flood", but rather, by the Seraphim and Cherubim "dragons" which may be why there is a universal world myth about such "fiery winged serpents" terrorizing mankind.

[drachronicler]

I thought Nephillum was a dragon? Some one high jacked this thread.
To bad it was interesting.
Spirit Woman,
I think you may be thinking of "Seraphim", which are in the original Hebrew, "fiery and flying serpents" aka "dragons", and are the dragons that sing praises to God in the book of Psalms. Cherubim too, were originally guardian dragons as we see in virtually all "Guardian dragons of sacred tree" myths, the earliest of which is the Sumerian one in which even the main human character "Adape" is clearly the Hebrew "Adam". The original story was written down perhaps as many as 1500 years before the earliest Bible version, so if the Bible is "inspired" by God, the Sumerian version should theoretically still be the most accurate, given this is the same story though the Hebrew version was clearly distorted through centuries of oral tradition whereas the much older Sumerian one was preserved on cunieform tablets.

[mitzi]

Which parts of the thread are you referring too; hope it wasn't the most recent. The conversation should "not" have been started. The word Nephilim were giants born of angelic fathers (or so they say), it's equally true that Nephilim were a created angel/or were referenced in Genesis as sons of God. (Which is far from the conversation that was started)***as the reference indicated (again) "Nephilim".... refers to "sons of God", that being said, in Genesis 6 it states that" When men began to increase in number on the Earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said " My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be one hundred and twenty years". The Nephilim were in 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, and men of renown. The Lord saw how great the wickedness on the Earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and His heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said " I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."

So sons of God procreated with the daughters of men, and the offspring were called the Nephilim. Now the sons of God had to be angels, otherwise the designation for them would be the sons of men, or sons of Adam. This can also be reasonably deduced because the offspring were superior to the sons of Adam, as they were heroes, and men of renown.

Some Nephilim are mentioned in Davarim (Deuteronomy) 2:11; 2:20; 3:11; 3:13; and in the Nevi'im (Prophets) Yehoshua (Joshua) 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16. Shmuel Sheni (2Samuel) 21:22 give a reference to a place called Gath). Gath was the birthplace of Goliath.

Listing a verse in the book of wisdom (Solomon):


14:6 For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation.

Now when discussing the subject of Mary (which I still think) belongs to a more respectable thread than this one (and believe) should not be reference underneath this title, even though, it might have answered a question to another board members who knows better, as both Crusader and I both know this. Again the word "Nephilim" were considered to be "sons of God" and that is far from the scripture passage in Luke 1:26-38. And I'll refer to Luke 1:46-55 and I'll take to the next height Luke 1 68-80.

To make a long story short, Spirit.... Post #16 and I quote:

From what I understand, and according to Avodah Zarah, there are 4 forbidden questions: Ask not what is Above and what is Below, what came Before (Creation) and what will come After (Creation). So I'm not sure whether it can be discussed on the board? Please reply back

Avodah Zarah reference was given from NistarRav on another forum thread. The original text: The Book of Creation (Sefer Yetsirah...from what I understand "Book of Formation"...even contents in the Maaseh Merkavah) was given to a specific sect within Judaism (maybe Hasidic, but not sure). Again, this might be the reason "why" certain deletions were made within certain texts on the name of the G-d, again, speculations.



Again to Post #16

First Day Of Shavuot
(Ezekiel 1:1-28, 3:12)
Friday, June 6, 2003

http://www.uscj.org.il/haftarahEdit.php?id=252

The haftarah for the first day of Shavuot describes Ezekiel’s greatest yet most obscure prophetic revelation. This prophecy, known as the vision of the chariot - Maaseh Hamerkavah, has been a source of debate in the rabbinic tradition. The controversy has taken two forms. The first question reflects on how the tradition defines this vision? What exactly is Ezekiel attempting to describe? The second controversy is actually an extension of this first question. Who should be permitted to study this “esoteric” form of religiosity?

[mitzi]

wrong, guy.
Angels were never "spirit creatures" in the old Testament books which Jesus the Rabbi endorsed. The "real" angels of the Bible are simply immortal men who must eat food to subsist so there is nothing "spiritual" about them. They eat regular food while on earth, and "Manna" while in heaven, this is what the Bible really says. Nor do they have wings. They look exactly like men, and in both the New and Old Testaments are frenquently mistaken for men. The only winged heavenly creatures in the Bible are Cherubum and Seraphim, both of which were orginally winged serpents or "dragons" though the original Hebrew words are ignored by modern Christians uncomfortable with what the Bible actually says.

The spirit angels of the New Testament are just so much pagan Greek nonsense, and thus, contradicts the Hebrew scriptures. They are the "good" daemons of paganism. Today we call the bad daemons "demons", and the good daemons "angels", though many enlightened Christians dismiss these pagan notions as a misunderstanding of mental illness. Jesus cured mental disease just as physical disease, but to his converted pagan followers, it was believed he was "casting out daemons".

So yes, angels could copulate with human females because angels are little more than normal men granted immortality to become heavenly servant creatures. This is what the Adam and Eve story was originally all about in its much earlier Sumerian form. The dragon-cherub Nin-Gish-Zida, who guarded the tree of immortality (who would be renamed "Satan"), offered Adape/Adam eternal life to become an angel, which he did not accept because he preferred to remain on earth with Eve. After centuries of Hebrew oral tradition, the story changed a bit, and the benificent dragon-servant who offered Adam eternal life on behalf of God, devolves into an improbable "evil" serpent that tricks the couple out of an eternal life that was never intended for them if they remained earthly creatures.

But as to the Nephilim, they are in fact, are own Cro-Magnon ancestors recollections of the Neanderthals, who in fact did interbreed with "modern" man and archaeology has shown, and then, mysteriously vanished, perhaps deliberately destroyed by God, though not neccesarily by an unsubstantiated "world flood", but rather, by the Seraphim and Cherubim "dragons" which may be why there is a universal world myth about such "fiery winged serpents" terrorizing mankind.


Thanks for "all" your info! I'm going to use some of the info you provided along with my own.

Questions: Since Nephilim were destroyed by G-d as stated in Genesis 6:" My Spirit will not contend with man forever for he is mortal ; his days will be one hundred and twenty years......The Lord saw how great the wickedness on the Earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and His heart was filled with pain. and also as you've instated "mysteriously vanished, perhaps deliberately destroyed by G-d" then the conception or the birth of Jesus has "nothing" to do with this subject title?

Also stating from the last post: "So sons of god procreated with the daughters of men, and the offspring were called the Nephilim--” Yes, I believe this to be Greco-Roman mythology.

[drachronicler]

Thanks for "all" your info! I'm going to use some of the info you provided along with my own.

Questions: Since Nephilim were destroyed by G-d as stated in Genesis 6:" My Spirit will not contend with man forever for he is mortal ; his days will be one hundred and twenty years......The Lord saw how great the wickedness on the Earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the Earth, and His heart was filled with pain. and also as you've instated "mysteriously vanished, perhaps deliberately destroyed by G-d" then the conception or the birth of Jesus has "nothing" to do with this subject title?

Also stating from the last post: "So sons of god procreated with the daughters of men, and the offspring were called the Nephilim--” Yes, I believe this to be Greco-Roman mythology.
Interesting that you should mention Nephilim in the context of Greco-Roman myth as a thought just occured to me. The "Sons of God" in the Old Testament are not neccessarily human-like angels, for Satan is counted among them in Job, and his form is identified as a Seraph-dragon in both the New Testament, and various ancient Jewish texts. Therefore, the Nephilim may have been originally conceived as the progeny of not women and (human-like) angels, but of women and seraphim/dragons, the "highest" of heavenly creatures, despite how unfeasible such a "union" would be from a biological point of view.

If Nephilim were not necesarily "giants", but rather "men of renown", it is interesting that we see in the legends that surrround the real Alexander the Great, (one of the most "renowned" men of the ancient world), that he was born from a union between a human mother and a "heavenly" creature that had the form of a serpent/dragon said to be Zeus-Amon.

We still see this notion today in the rather bizarre "Reptilian" conspiracies that purport that the ruling families of today are the progeny of a union between alien/heavenly? reptilian creatures and humans, but I have never realized until now that this idea may go back as far as the Old Testament.

[SpiritWoman]

Hi Mitzi and Draconicler,

In my first reply I was trying to understand why other posters were highjacking this thread with jokes about ponies and dogs as I was getting disappointed as not to many people post on this web site on such a deversified subject.

It's been a few days since I've been able to catch up on TWeb and post.

I want to say that, yes I was confused about the Nephilim and the Cheribum and Seraphim and am very interested in learning the true source of these interesting creatures.

Both of your posts have been very helpful and make for interesting reading as well as very helpful to me in my study.

Thanks to both of you for your open minds on this subject and most of all for sharing your knowledge.

Peace
SW

[mitzi]

Hi Mitzi and Draconicler,

In my first reply I was trying to understand why other posters were highjacking this thread with jokes about ponies and dogs as I was getting disappointed as not to many people post on this web site on such a deversified subject.

It's been a few days since I've been able to catch up on TWeb and post.

I want to say that, yes I was confused about the Nephilim and the Cheribum and Seraphim and am very interested in learning the true source of these interesting creatures.

Both of your posts have been very helpful and make for interesting reading as well as very helpful to me in my study.

Thanks to both of you for your open minds on this subject and most of all for sharing your knowledge.

Peace
SW

You're more than welcome. Shalom, Mitzi

[mitzi]

Interesting that you should mention Nephilim in the context of Greco-Roman myth as a thought just occured to me. The "Sons of God" in the Old Testament are not neccessarily human-like angels, for Satan is counted among them in Job, and his form is identified as a Seraph-dragon in both the New Testament, and various ancient Jewish texts. Therefore, the Nephilim may have been originally conceived as the progeny of not women and (human-like) angels, but of women and seraphim/dragons, the "highest" of heavenly creatures, despite how unfeasible such a "union" would be from a biological point of view.

If Nephilim were not necesarily "giants", but rather "men of renown", it is interesting that we see in the legends that surrround the real Alexander the Great, (one of the most "renowned" men of the ancient world), that he was born from a union between a human mother and a "heavenly" creature that had the form of a serpent/dragon said to be Zeus-Amon.

We still see this notion today in the rather bizarre "Reptilian" conspiracies that purport that the ruling families of today are the progeny of a union between alien/heavenly? reptilian creatures and humans, but I have never realized until now that this idea may go back as far as the Old Testament.


But what happens toward the very end of their lives? (like Alexander) These renown men who started off "very" great and history certainly noted them "are" weakened, their strenght doesn't last. Genesis 6:" My Spirit will not contend with man forever for he is mortal.

[Krusader]

LLLLLOOOOOLLLL!!!!!! Ok. Gavriel let me think! :uhoh:

That's a novel idea.

[mitzi]

That's a novel idea.

Well, you obviously took awhile to get back to this "novel" ideal post, please don't strain yourself too much, dear, are you still think about the answer? It's a difficult question I know, take your time, we'll all wait for you.



:lolo: The subject title is "Nephilim". We don't want to alarm her.

[mitzi]

Interesting that you should mention Nephilim in the context of Greco-Roman myth as a thought just occured to me. The "Sons of God" in the Old Testament are not neccessarily human-like angels, for Satan is counted among them in Job, and his form is identified as a Seraph-dragon in both the New Testament, and various ancient Jewish texts. Therefore, the Nephilim may have been originally conceived as the progeny of not women and (human-like) angels, but of women and seraphim/dragons, the "highest" of heavenly creatures, despite how unfeasible such a "union" would be from a biological point of view.

If Nephilim were not necesarily "giants", but rather "men of renown", it is interesting that we see in the legends that surrround the real Alexander the Great, (one of the most "renowned" men of the ancient world), that he was born from a union between a human mother and a "heavenly" creature that had the form of a serpent/dragon said to be Zeus-Amon.

We still see this notion today in the rather bizarre "Reptilian" conspiracies that purport that the ruling families of today are the progeny of a union between alien/heavenly? reptilian creatures and humans, but I have never realized until now that this idea may go back as far as the Old Testament.


Shalom Drachronicler:

Another thought on your post and one that I've been reading about:

With other words: Nephilim, in Hebrew Bible Giants, is another word for "Watchers", their offspring was called Anakim. The Children of Seth (God) were called Bene Ha-Elohim, their offspring was also called Anakim. Both offspring were Giants or, named in the Bible "men which were of old, men of renown".

The article continues to with:

Theologians are aware of this dilemma, and get around the problem by suggesting that the angels fell from grace twice, once through pride and then again through lust. It seems certain that the term Nephilim was the original Hebrew name for the fallen race, while bene ha-Elohim was a much later term, plausibly from Iran, which entered Genesis 6 long after its original compilation.

In spite of the contradictions surrounding Genesis 6, its importance is clear enough, for it preserved the firm belief among the ancestors of the Jewish race that at some point in the distant past a Giant race had once ruled the earth, from the time of Jared until the time of David, the second King of Israel, with other words the offspring of the Anakim existed until historical times.

Is this true? And if so, then the Anakim could refer to either Bene Ha-Elohim or "Watchers", could this refer to the book of Job, as well, the watchers? I've never heard the word "Watchers", something nu.

http://www.earth-history.com/Earth-05.htm

I usually (don't) read outside the perimeters, referring to the above website, but I found it (so) true in some other articles that I've read....Also, I was thinking about Ezekiel's vision and a further connection between Sinai and Ezekiel's vision, the "seeing" of angels, so quoting this passage "And I saw the chambers of the sun and the moon, whence they proceed and wither they come again ... how one is superior to the other, ... their stately orbit..." It's states somewhere that all the prophets gazed on 9 mirrors while Moses gazed upon only one and that Moses gazed upon a shining mirror while the other prophets gazed upon an opaque mirror (so we differentiate even between the different colors and how strong or weak they are?) . Ezekiel was looking at the water of the River Chebar, when the seven heavens were opened to him. Not to mention, it is states that Ezekiel not only saw the Divine Glory but also all the heavenly creatures as they were tied to the Merkavah. I looked up the word: Ma'aseh Hamerkavah - The Vision of the Heavenly Chariot and then another lists (The Throne of Hashem) it's has couple of other listings, as well.


There was a statement that listed: "With the opening of the heavens, all Israel sees the Glory face to face. As the words "I am the Lord" (Exodus 20:1) blast forth, the entire people (all 600,000) die in ecstasy. Revived by divine mercy, God sends forth 1,200,000 angels to enable the nation to receive the revelation and live. Each person is therewith supported by two divine beings, one to hold the head (so that he may withstand the vision), the other, the heart (so that it would not escape in awe). According to Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, however, these angels served a different purpose. One of them turned each Israelite about by the belt, to face God Himself, while the other crowned his ward with a heavenly crown. Thus aided, the nation of Israel received the Torah in ecstasy and vision.

Ezekiel [chapter] 1 thus reveals what even the most common Israelite saw at Sinai on that awesome occasion. Its recitation on the first day of Shavuot calls that wondrous event to mind with numinous detail. Luminous beyond understanding, the vision in Ezekiel 1:4-28 is a sight for the inner eye."

What an "great" understanding of the heavenly realm including divisions and sub divisions of angels.

I'm going to leave these websites, as a reference point:

http://www.temple4jerusalem.co.uk/HTML/mystic2.htm
http://mobile.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Shavuot/TO_Shavuot_Community/Isaacs_Readings_402/JPS_Ezekiel_540.htm

Many Thanks, I appreciate your post and comments.

[abu njoroge]

Edgar Cayce claimed there was an ancient race here that left for the stars,he also predicted that they would return in the furure.

[mitzi]

Edgar Cayce claimed there was an ancient race here that left for the stars,he also predicted that they would return in the furure.

Yes. but there has also been a comparison with the Great Sphinx of Egypt to that of the Mayan temples in South America especially with the dimensions and how the temple were placed (triangular form), or so I read. Who knows????

[abu njoroge]

Yes. but there has also been a comparison with the Great Sphinx of Egypt to that of the Mayan temples in South America especially with the dimensions and how the temple were placed (triangular form), or so I read. Who knows????
I dont know if the following is fact or fiction? In the book the celestine insights,the author claims that ancient scrolls were found in some ruins in Puru. He also claims they were written in Aramaic,thus the mystery of how did they get there? Aramaic is from the Middle East,not South America.He claims to have seen these scrolls. He also claims that the Catholic church are in possession of these scrolls,and refute there existence.It has been my understanding that the scrolls speak of a worldwide spiritual awakening in the near future. Personally I think there was another race here in ancient times. I think the idea of this race being angels is only because of our limmited understanding of what really took place. I do believe in angels. I just dont think this race that mixed with man were angels. They were children of God like us. For lack of a better word, Ill call them our technologically advanced cousins. I also believe true angels are not physical. They are beings of pure light. There vibrations uplift all within there presence. They also can walk through physical matter.I doubt the nephilim could do this?

[mitzi]

I dont know if the following is fact or fiction? In the book the celestine insights,the author claims that ancient scrolls were found in some ruins in Puru. He also claims they were written in Aramaic,thus the mystery of how did they get there? Aramaic is from the Middle East,not South America.He claims to have seen these scrolls. He also claims that the Catholic church are in possession of these scrolls,and refute there existence.It has been my understanding that the scrolls speak of a worldwide spiritual awakening in the near future. Personally I think there was another race here in ancient times. I think the idea of this race being angels is only because of our limmited understanding of what really took place. I do believe in angels. I just dont think this race that mixed with man were angels. They were children of God like us. For lack of a better word, Ill call them our technologically advanced cousins. I also believe true angels are not physical. They are beings of pure light. There vibrations uplift all within there presence. They also can walk through physical matter.I doubt the nephilim could do this?

Morning: :jade:

The pyramids of Egypt are almost mathematically identical to the Aztec and Maya pyramids of South America.

The ratio of the base to the height of the Great Pyramid represents the number 3.14 (aka Pi) perfectly. By extrapolating the math, it is obvious that the Great Pyramid is actually a representation in stone that the ancients knew the Earth was ROUND! It is a perfect mathematical model of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth.

There have been several articles written about the above and also awhile back the discovery channel had a great program about the comparison. LINK (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080305143536AAPrW8V)

I'll try to look for some of the information that I've read:

Links between Piedras Negras
and the Maya Creation Stories (http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/2000conference.html)--click on the title to surf to the website (Cayce's story of the Atlantean immigrant Iltar who, with 10 companions, arrived in the Yucatan in 10,500 B.C.)..

Abu, we're heading together on this posting.

[mitzi]

He also claims that the Catholic church are in possession of these scrolls,and refute there existence.It has been my understanding that the scrolls speak of a worldwide spiritual awakening in the near future. Personally I think there was another race here in ancient times. I think the idea of this race being angels is only because of our limmited understanding of what really took place. I do believe in angels. I just dont think this race that mixed with man were angels. They were children of God like us. For lack of a better word, Ill call them our technologically advanced cousins. I also believe true angels are not physical. They are beings of pure light. There vibrations uplift all within there presence. They also can walk through physical matter.I doubt the nephilim could do this?

Perhaps the church is in possession of these scrolls and perhaps not. I'm really not sure if that's correct. However, I personally don't think that keeping any artifacts (especially) religious artifact within anyone's hands or even a institution or church would be easily kept . Awhile back, I remembered a story that I heard from another person (Egyptologist) who lived in England and work at the museum she tried to ship some artifacts back with her. The Egyptian goverment didn't allow the artifacts to leave Eygpt and this was under very tight security. Everything they found was boxed up and ready to leave Eypt....so again, I really find it difficult to have anything leave from the Middle East.

As far as Angels and Nephilims. Nephilims were the fallen angels (according to Ohr Somayach: The Nephilim are mentioned twice in the Torah (Genesis 6, Numbers 13). "Nephilim" means "the fallen ones." They were people of giant stature. It is not clear how large they were, but were large enough to scare other people. The Targum Yerushalmi, which is a Midrash, explains that they were Angels who descended to the Earth. According to this they were called fallen ones because they fell from their heavenly stature. The Ramban explains otherwise, that they were the other children of Adam. Because Adam, the First Man, was the handiwork of G-d, his children were of greater physical stature than their descendants. Because these people were so close to the Creator, they knew that they had no grandfather, they should have been spiritually elevated. Because they didn't live up to their potential they were considered "fallen ones.")

So whether or not these angels (or fallen angels) were allowed to keep their same spiritual form, as Gd had created them in the beginning, isn't certain, is it? But just to point out another passage from Genesis (Berei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]) 6:

1. And it came to pass when man commenced to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them. 2. That the sons of the nobles (in GNT, the passage states "Sons of God" or the "Sons of Heaven") saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.

and then in Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown."

Some our most famous legends were born from thethought that they came from the Sons of Gods, Alexander the Great was one.


LINK (http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/289/Q3/)

Angels, like you said are spiritual beings but they were not created like man. Man was created in God's image and likeness, as the passage states "Berei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] (1:26) where the verse records G-d as saying "Let us make man in our image." nor were the angels given free will-to chose between good and evil (or so I hear). If that is the case, then why did the angel fall?

Since there are legion of angels (LINK) (http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/384521/jewish/Celestial-Formations.htm) could each be according to a specific level or class of angels, camps of angels as seen in Ezekiel (a wheel inside a wheel-never ending) or even about the Ministering Angels (The Midrash relates that G-d descended from the heavens at Sinai surrounded by a majestic entourage of twenty-two-thousand angels.) and are these angels given the choice to or allowed to descend down to earth like in the story of Jacob's ladder?


LINK (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Kabbalah_and_Mysticism/Overview_The_Origins/Merkavah_Mysticism/Mysticism_Ezekiel_Kush.htm)

[mitzi]

I also believe true angels are not physical. They are beings of pure light.

If the angels are not physical, and as you've stated; but beings of pure light then the angels,would be considered the radiate/ or the light of Gd's glory, "wherever the angel appears the shechina (the divine Presence) appears (Exodus Rabbah 32:9)." Once a angel has lost their statue then doesn't that pure light become full of darkness-the fallen ones no longer have the light of Gd in them and their spiritual appearance (or make up) than would have to change/and or form, wouldn't this be correct? What make humans so unique is that we have the opportunity to repent (Teshuvah (Return, or Repentance)) which then G-d allows us to erase our sins and also to return back to him, a very generous gift that Gd has given to us. It's the ability to correct our actions and regain our relationship to him.