Skip to comments.Crazy Prophecy Books
Posted on 09/22/2008 8:07:20 AM PDT by topcat54
Books on Bible prophecy are getting crazy. And what's even crazier is that a legitimate news site is promoting them. There's David Flynn's Temple at the Center of Time: Newton's Bible Codex Finally Deciphered and the Year 2012. The latest end-time speculative prophecy book is Thomas Horn's Nephilim Stargates: The Year 2012 and the Return of the Watchers. Horn claims that "new experiments in genetic engineering could open the doors for the return of fearsome ‘giants' described in the Bible-the offspring of human women and fallen angels." The basis for this and other theories is Genesis 6:1-7 and the identity of "the sons of God" and the "Nephilim."
One of the most popular interpretations of Genesis 6:1-6 is that the "sons of God" are fallen angels who impregnated women and created a super race of beings called the "Nephilim." This interpretation is the basis of all Nephilim speculation whether it's demons, aliens, or some other fantasy. Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman argue in Alien Encounters that "the ‘sons of God' of Genesis 6 was understood as referring to (fallen) angels by the ancient rabbinical sources, the Septuagint translators, and by the early Church fathers." The sources used by these Christian authors, by their own admission, are non-canonical books, for example, the "Book of Enoch, the Syriac Version of the Old Testament, as well as the Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs and the Little Genesis."
Missler and Eastman claim that "the Hebrew term translated ‘sons of God' is . . . a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels." Even the well respected Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto takes this position. He argues that "whenever bene (ha)'elohim or bene 'elim [literally, ‘sons of Gods'] occurs (Psalm 29:1; 89:7 [Eng. 6]; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; also Deuteronomy 32:8 according to the text of the Septuagint) angels are referred to."
For the moment, let's assume these advocates for the angel view are correct. Does this mean that in Genesis 6 the "sons of God" are fallen angels? Why would fallen angels be described as "sons of God"? Three times the phrase bene elohim is used in the Old Testament, all in the book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7). There is no indication they are fallen angels. A similar phrase (bar elohim, "son of God") is used in Daniel 3:25. It is not a reference to a fallen angel. The term "sons of the mighty" (bene elim) is used in Psalm 29:1 and also Psalm 89:6. These verses do not describe fallen angels. In fact, the "sons of the mighty" is a reference to humans not angels. Psalm 29:11 reads: "The LORD will give strength to His people; the LORD will bless His people with peace." This last verse of this chiastic Psalm is in chiastic parallel with the first verse: "sons of the mighty" = "His people."
Consider the use of "sons of God" in the New Testament. Adam is described as "the son of God": "The son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38). He is neither a good nor a fallen angel. "Peacemakers" are described as "sons of God" (Matt. 5:9). The "sons of the resurrection" are "like angels" (because they cannot die) and are called "sons of God" (Luke 20:36). Paul writes, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26). Then there's the "anxious longing of the creation [that] waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:19). In fact, every time the phrase "sons of God" is used in the New Testament, it never refers to angels, either good or bad.
Let's look at the use of the phrase "sons of God" in Job. Author Gary Bates argues, as do many others, "In the [Old Testament] passages outside of Genesis," [the phrase ‘sons of God'] . . . is always clearly used of angels." The appeal is made to the three uses of "sons of God" found in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. Part of the confusion arises because a number of modern translations translate the Hebrew bene as "angels," following the Septuagint, rather than "sons," which is the literal translation. Unfortunately, this is an interpretation rather than a translation of the Hebrew. Job 38:7 is the only example where "sons of God" could refer to angels, but not fallen angels. It appears in a passage of symbolism and is paralleled with "the morning stars sang together." Compare this with Judges 5:20 where we read "the stars fought from heaven." The stars here are a reference to rulers based on the parallel passage in 5:19: "The kings came and fought; then fought the kings of Canaan at Taanach near the waters of Megiddo; they took no plunder in silver."
A number of commentators contend that the "sons of God" are godly men (Job 1:1), possibly even prominent civil rulers, who "came to present themselves before the Lord" (1:6) for counsel because they are judges of the people. (The Hebrew word elohim is used in this way in Exodus 22:8-9 and Psalm 82:6. Most Bible versions translate elohim as "judges" in the Exodus passages.) Notice the Bible's description of Job: "His possessions also were 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east" (1:3). The passage can read "sons of the east" since the Hebrew bene is used. This means that there were many "sons of the east." Compare this with Genesis 6:4 where the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are described as "the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." Notice in Job 1:5 that Job is concerned about his relationship with God and that of his sons. It's in 1:6 that the "sons of God . . . present themselves before the LORD." Job is one of the "sons of God."
But how does Satan, a fallen angel, fit in with this interpretation? Satan is described in the Bible as "the accuser of our brethren . . . who accuses them before our God day and night" (Rev. 12:10). In the case of Job, Satan interjects himself among the godly rulers-"sons of God"-and accuses Job before God. He did a similar thing when Jesus went out into the wilderness. "And the tempter came and said to Him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread'" (Matt. 4:3). George Rapkin's comments in his Genesis in Harmony with Itself and Science are helpful:
The story of Job opens by telling of a devout father, who, when he knew his children were feasting, offered sacrifice for them, lest they should have blasphemed God. Then came the day of appearing before God, and of Satan being granted the permission to harass the father.
The "sons of God" were the godly men of the time who came for worship in the presence of the Lord. They came before the Lord just as David later urged the congregation to do, when urging thanksgiving. Coming before the Lord and entering into His presence is not so striking when we find the Bible speaking of men and congregations doing this. Nimrod is said to have been a "mighty hunter before the Lord," but we do not stretch our fanciful imagination to the extent of saying he must have been an angel. Now Job and his sons, with other righteous men, were the sons of God who presented themselves before the Lord for the act of worship and sacrifice, the father then acting as the head, or priest, of the family worship and sacrifice.
Even the phrase "present themselves before the LORD" (Job 1:6) is not a tip off that the scene in Job is describing angels in heaven. In 1 Samuel 10:19 we read, "But you have today rejected your God, who delivers you from all your calamities and your distresses; yet you have said, ‘No, but set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your clans." Similarly, Joshua 24:1 states, "Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel and for their heads and their judges and their officers; and they presented themselves before God." Notice that it's the leaders, including judges, who present themselves before God. The situation is identical to what is taking place in Job 1:6 and 2:1. Psalm 2:2 shows the negative side of this principle: "The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed." ("presented themselves before" and "take their stand" use the same Hebrew construction.) None of these presentations take place in a spiritual realm where angels reside. God's heavenly host is described differently (see 1 Kings 22:19; Acts 7:55-56).
While the Hebrew is different, the idea is similar when Cain is said to have gone "out from the presence of the LORD" to settle "in the land of Nod, east of Eden" (4:16). Jonah flees to "Tarshish from the presence of the LORD" by a ship "going to Tarshish" (Jonah 1:3). The men on the ship knew Jonah "was fleeing from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them" (1:10). How does one flee from the physical presence of the Lord by ship? "Presence of the LORD," as these verses indicate, does not mean angels in the physical presence of God and neither does "presented themselves before God." The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are like the sons of God found elsewhere in Scripture: they had at one time identified themselves with God's covenant. They are not fallen angels or demons.
Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman, Alien Encounters: The Secret Behind the UFO Phenomenon (Coeur d'Alene, ID: Koinonia House, 1997), 334.
Missler and Eastman, Alien Encounters, 207. Here's another example: "The Apocryphal books of Enoch, 2 Esdras, Genesis Aprocryphon and Jasher support the Genesis story, adding that the sin of the angels grew to include genetic modification of animals as well as humans. The Book of Jasher, mentioned in the Bible in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, says, ‘After the fallen angels went into the daughters of men, the sons of men taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order to provoke the Lord' (4:18)." ("Are Bible's ‘giants' set for return? Author warns genetic engineering could bring back ‘Nephilim' [September 19, 2008]: http://tinyurl.com/4guw2t).
Missler and Eastman, Alien Encounters, 205
The Masoretic Text reads "sons of Israel." "Sons of God" is probably the better translation. It seems obvious that both "sons of man" and "sons of God" are referring to human beings. Deuteronomy 32:9 reads: "For the LORD's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance."
Umberto Cassuto, "The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man," Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 21-22. Quoted in John H. Walton, "Are the ‘Sons of God' in Genesis 6 Angels?-No," The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 189.
The Hebrew word for "son" is ben; in Aramaic it is bar. The passage in Daniel 3:24 is written in Aramaic.
The phrase "like a son of the gods" or simply "like a son of God" is used in Daniel 3:25, but it is King Nebuchadnezzar who describes the fourth man in the furnace this way.
Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), 352.
George Rapkin, Genesis in Harmony with Itself and Science (1899). Quoted in J. Sidlow Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts: Being a Short Series of Elucidatory and Applicatory Expositions of Certain Scripture Passages Which Have Occassioned Perplexity (London: Marshal, Morgan & Scott, 1963), 188.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
bump for later
“Crazy” Bible Prophecy stuff seems to have its place in America. The highest selling nonfiction title of the 1970’s was Hal Lindsay’s “Late Great Planet Earth”. It was hard hitting and it changed my life. Judging from the numbers sold, that probably happened to millions of people.
Let's look at the context for a minute, because the article misses the entire context and does not address WHY the term “sons ofgGod” is even mentioned. It has been said that any very taken out of context, is a pretext. In this case, we are not told the whole story by the author. So let's look at it and ask why the “sons of God” is even there...how it relates to verses surrounding it and who the other characters are in the story. Just to parse the phrase without context misses some other important issues. because God didn't just put this confusing phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 for us to ask what it meant, but use the phrase to convey a larger point to the story told in Genesis 6. And when we look at the context, logic says that these “sons of God” must have been something other than mere normal men, or even really holy men. No, something sinister is described in the first part of Genesis 6. For even after the fall in Genesis 3, God never expressed any desire to wipe out all men! Yes, He cursed the man, the woman, the serpent and even the very ground, but NEVER said He wanted to destroy all men.
Only after describing the activities of these “sons of
God” does God want to wipe out ALL men.
So something really evil happens in the first part of chapter 6. Something MUCH worse than the very fall of man!
What was it? Who did it? And why did “they” do it?
So...here goes context...
Here's a summary of the chapters leading to chapter 6...
Gen 1&2 the Creation
Gen 3 the fall & the curses related to it
Gen 4 the generations from Adam and Eve through Enos, including the telling of Cain and Able.
Gen 5 the generations until Noah's sons.
As an interesting aside, I challenge deeper dig, to look up the names of all of Adams descendants from Adam through Japeth, then put the names together end to end, forming a sentence, and see how these names are actually a followup to the proto-evangelian found in Gen 3...declaring the coming Messiah. You'll be blessed. But that is on your own, as I'd rather stick to the topic at hand in this thread. If anyone is interested, lemme know and I'll post the info later.
Back to the topic...
Preceding Genesis chapter six, we have the creation the fall, and the generations of Adam.
Then in chapter six, we have a new event being described. These “sons of God” come to the “daughters of men” and apparently have sex with them...or marry them...or something happens between these two groups of people. Whatever happens is not good in God's eyes.
Here are the exact verses from he KJV...
6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
I know this is a lot to copy paste here, but it is important.
It appears that the story in Gen 6: 1-3 is not directly related to the chapters beforehand other than time line placement.
The characters in the first part are
“Sons of God”
“Daughters of men”
“Men” seems fairly obvious to be “people”...people living on the earth. Who multiply and have daughters. It would logically be that these “daughters” are the “daughters of men” that is referred to in v2. Kinda simple so far.
Then, here comes the first real question...
If the “sons of God” is to be ordinary men...born of men...as are the “daughters of men”...why are they not simply called “sons of men”? It seems obvious that they are NOT sons of men at all, but something different. The difference seems to require a completely different term that the one employed to described the normal human female descendents of normal men employed din the context of the same thought. Stated plainly, if these “sons” were normal humans, why does the verse not simply read; “That the sons of MEN saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”?
Also, if the term “sons of God” meant really really holy dudes who worshiped and interceded on the behalf of others, then why is whatever these dudes were doing so wicked that God repents that he made men (vv3&5-6)? If it were merely men marrying women, and/or having sex with them, what's the real problem? Why would that be more sinful than what happened in Genesis 3:6?
No, there is something highly sinful going on in the first part of Genesis 6.
Furthermore, these “giants”...what's up with them? Why are they even mentioned? They must have some context to the story, or they wouldn't be there. Furthermore, note the “when”...they were there then “in those days” and also “afterward”, when the “sons of God” procreated with the “daughters of men”. So it appears that the “giants” are related to the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men and were the offspring of this union between the two.
So, it appears that the sinful stuff that angers God has to do with this union between these daughters of men and these “sons of God”. Also, it appears that this offspring are an odd byproduct...that the offspring are a real problem. Why? Because they were taller than they should be? Doubtful.
After all these descriptions about the activities between women and these “sons of God” making these unusual offspring (unusual because they are described completely differently than any other generation’s offspring to this point) we have the description of Noah.
Noah is also descried in an unusual manner...
“But Noah...These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.”
Did you catch the “perfect in his generations”?
Whatever the thing that angered God, it is contrasted with the description of Noah and the WAY he is described. First, the link between the two is the conjunction “but”. We're told God is angered, “But Noah...” links the contrast.
So, when we look at Noah and the description of him we get a real good insight as to what made Noah different and what what was so angering the LORD.
Noah was “pure in his generations”...and by describing his sons, we see that the term generations is meant to be his offspring, his bloodline, “...Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
So...Noah was different from the thing that angered God, in that his offspring were “pure”, uncorrupted, by whatever is the huge sin that God finds in all other men.
It is clearly seen that there was some unholy offspring created when these daughters of men had relations with these “sons of God”. Whatever it is, it cannot be accepted that we're talking about normal gals marrying and having children with really holy guys, normal humans. No, whatever was happening was creating an unusual race of giants (AKA nephilim) that God found to be highly unholy and worthy of destroying all of creation. Noah however had a pure blood line and was saved.
So who were these sons of God?
I tend to agree with the fallen angels theory.
Since the dawn of creation Lucifer has attempted every manenr of usurping God's plans. I believe that this was his futile attempt to thwart the coming Messiah by corrupting the blood line. God a gave the proto-evangelian in Gen 3:15. Satan knew of the coming messiah and throughout the OT the story is told of the countless attempts to destroy the Jews completely, corrupt the blood line to thwart God's plans at Calvary.
The idea that the “sons of God” were normal guys, falls short. Furthermore, if the term “daughters of men” means gals born to men, why is is such a strecth to assume that “sons of God” is not sons created by God...angels? And if angels went to have sex with mortal women that would, by definition be a fallen angel, who gave up his first abode.
It is amazing how those who believe in the supernatural, ie things that exist and happen outside our natural laws of nature (physics), by expressing belief int he Creator of all, can jump through so many hoops to try and explain away the supernatural when it happens in real life, or is described so plainly.
As a followup...
It is fascinating that the “giants” are were on the earth in those days...”and also afterward”
When do you suppose “afterward” happened...or is happening...or will happen?
The philistine that as felled by one smooth stone was a giant. There are other hints in the OT that these mutants walked the earth after the flood.
A mystery. For now.
The sons of God were the God-fearing descendents of Seth, while the daughters of men are the iniquitous descendents of Cain.
The giants were the Nephilim , see Numbers 13:33, an actual race of men.
Noah was "perfect in his generations" as he was the most righteous man among all the evil ones.
I was listening to a coattocoastam the other night and they were talking about 2012, when a caller called in a made the point that 2008 is in fact 2012. Due to the Gregorian calender changes. Does anyone one know if this is true? How far off from the C.E. calender did the Gregorian calender adjust the A.D.?
What’s the deal with the 2012 year, is that when Hillary the beast gets elected. </ sarcasm>
How does an angel have a “bloodline”?
Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.,
Here God plainly says that there will be a seed of the serpent. How that happens God knew.
Indeed the closer we get, the more desperation we see.
Then why is it in the bible? Who is the seed of the serpent?
Jesus says that unbelievers are the seed of the serpent. He is talking spiritually, not physically
——For what it’s worth to ya, from the Appenixes of the Companion Bible by E. W. Bullinger. ——
23. “THE SONS OF GOD” IN GEN. 6:2, 4.
It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called “a son of God”. For that which is “born of the flesh is flesh”. God is spirit, and that which is “born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a “son of God” in Luke 3:38. Those “in Christ” having “the new nature” which is by the direct creation of God (2Cor. 5:17. Eph. 2:10) can be, and are called “sons of God” (John 1:13. Rom. 8:14, 15. 1John 3:1). (*1)
This is why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Ps. 29:1; 89:6. Dan. 3:25 (no art.). (*2) We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6:2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Gen. 6:2 the Sept. renders it “angels”. Angels are called “spirits” (Ps. 104:4. Heb. 1:7, 14), for spirits are created by God.
That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.
The nature of their fall is clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own oiketerion. This word occurs only in 2Cor. 5:2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.
The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.
The time of their fall is given as having taken place “in the days of Noah” (1Pet. 3:20. 2Pet. 2:7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of “the world that then was” (Gen. 1:1, 2. 2Pet. 3:6).
For this sin they are “reserved unto judgment”, 2Pet. 2:4, and are “in prison”, 1Pet. 3:19.
Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated “giants”), were monsters of iniquity; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood.
Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam (Gen. 6:9, see note). All the rest had become “corrupt” (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. the only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap. 25 on the Nephilim.
This irruption of fallen angels was Satan’s first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in gen. 3:15. If this could be accomplished, God’s Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.
As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6:4, “and also after that” (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12:6) “the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land.”
In the same chapter (Gen. 12:10-20) we see Satan’s next attempt to interfere with Abraham’s seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that it should be in “Isaac”. This attempt was repeated in 20:1-18.
This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which his servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Enemy stand out prominently :—
The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50:20.
The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1:10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2:5. Heb. 11:23.
The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh’s pursuit, Ex. 14.
After David’s line was singled out (2Sam. 7), that was the next selected for assault. Satan’s first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2Chron. 17:1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2Chron. 21:4).
The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2Chron. 21:17; 22:1).
When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed “all the seed royal” (2Chron. 22:10). the babe Joash alone was rescued; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah’s word was at stake (2Chron. 23:3).
Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36:1; 38:1). God’s faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136).
In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3:6, 12, 13. Cp. 6:1).
Joseph’s fear was worked on (Matt. 1:18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was “a just man”, and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24:1); hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened : “Fear not”.
Herod sought the young Child’s life (Matt. 2).
At the Temptation, “Cast Thyself down” was Satan’s temptation.
At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.
The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.
At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed; the watch set; and the stone sealed. But “God raised Him from the dead.” And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10:12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high; and the members of “the one body” are hidden there “in Him” (Col. 3:1-3), like another Jehoshaba; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2Chron. 23:3).
The irruption of “the fallen angels” (”sons of God”) was the first attempt; and was directed against the whole human race.
When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.
When David was enthroned, then the royal line were attacked.
And when “the Seed of the woman” Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.
(*1) The word “offspring” in Acts 17:28 is quite different. It is genos, which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.
(*2) In Hos. 1:10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.
Doesn't make sense, since human giants, known as the Nephilim were alive both in Joshua's day and in David's, and who knows until when.
Jewish commentary is vague on what the term means even, as the Hebrew doesn't really define it positively.
Joshua himself, was " a fallen one", ie, a great soul with a clear mission. He too was a man of renown and certainly not evil.
Further, the book of Acts 17:26 says And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
One bloodline, not two. .
1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
If you do a word study of the Greek for estate and habitation it give the connotations that they left their first form of being and left heaven.
I’m not saying they didn’t. But they did not procreate with humans. They bedevil humans for they are legions under Satan. They would still be mating and producing offspring if this were possible. They are spiritual evil.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.