Evangelist Ray Comfort on Why He Never Leads People in "Sinners Prayer"

There were giants in those days.

That's ALL one can accurately state.

I'm not so sure that is an accurate definition of the Hebrew word "nephil" (nephilim is plural, and putting a capital letter on it when transliterating it merely give the impression that it is a societal class of entities):

Strong's Number H5303 from H5307
נפל / נפיל
nephı̂yl / nephil
BDB Definition:
1) giants, the Nephilim Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5307

That is a supposition of the meaning, according to the KJV translators, and that meaning may be wrong. In contrast, Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon gives several meanings, all of them related to the use of the English definition of "to fall" (verb), "fall" (noun), "fallen" (adjective, a state of being); and to check it all means to read two and a half pages of fine print illuminating all its uses; but none of which include that this refers to an over-sized package of human meat, such as these individuals were, coincidentally in the post-diluvian context of Numbers 13:33. Apparently the KJV translators wrongly assumed that the stature factor applied to Genesis 6:4, which it does not necessarily do, at all!

The correct interpretation that I believe applies is the use on Genesius' page 558, paragraph 1, item (i) to fall from one's purpose or counsel, followed by ברב ; Psalm 5:10, פלו ממעצותיהם ברב "let them fall from their counsels" . . .

To my reckoning, as for better Hebrew interpreters than I, this says the adjective "fallen" applies to them: one is/they are (a) fallen (one/s). They are beings, human or otherwise, or perhaps even both, which have fallen from the purpose for which they were designed, and from the counsels of God by taking their own oppositional counsel, bringing them to the state that is described by--you can guess it--"The Fall."

The fallenness need not have itself anything to do with stature or sexual proclivity, nor of being born of angels. The adjective just refers to the condition of being fallen, of missing the mark of operating according to the design for which they were created. Angels were never given the power of multiplying by connubial conjugation, before or after the resurrection of humans from the grave (Mt. 22:30).

FWIW, and it is worth something to me, in affecting the contexts that people are attempting to misapply.

And you can see, that the only possible recovery from fallenness is restoration by faith in the cross-death and shed Blood of the Christ Jesus of the Bible.

Unlearner: Your responses here have been lazy and condescending, and therefore offensive. Post #169

Elsie; Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Post #171

Oh, you nasty, lazy, jerk, with really dumb respon . . . O-O-O-P-S!! Did I say something ad hominem? (/sarc squared).

Hahaha oh heeeehaw hahahaaaaaaaaaaaa omigosh -- (roll & slap my sides)

Doggone, I was supposed to ping unlearner on the Post #182 response to you. Well, here it is. Go back to #182. Do not pass “Go” -— but I warn you Elsie, you’re going to have to learn how to bow and scrape if youn want to please our unlearned FRiend . . . /s

My post was mostly just the Bible.

No, it was just your erroneous interpretation of what the Bible says, and it is contested by other well-founded Biblical scholars (click here).

Quoting from this "Answers In Genesis" site, we read:

"These verses do not specifically mention the Nephilim, nor do they clearly state that fallen angels had sexual
relationships with women. However, they do place “the angels who sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), “who did not keep their
proper domain, but left their own abode” (Jude 6), in the same context as Noah. Both passages seem to compare the sin
of these angels with the sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who had “in a similar manner to these, having
given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Genesis 19:5 reveals that the men
of Sodom lusted after the two angels who had gone into Lot’s house. It is important to understand that while these
verses seem to lend strong support to the fallen angel view, they do not make a watertight argument for it."

Not watertight? Right. That means your interpretation that "sons of God" is "fallen angels" is just your opinion, not what is thoroughly confirmed. What is confirmed is the definition of the Hebrew "nephil" (singular) which means "fallen"; mistakenly translated in the uninspired Septuagint as γίγαντες (gigantes), carried over by Jerome in the Vulgate as transliterated into Latin as "gigantes", and once more into the Authorised Version Anglicized as "giants"; yet which usual English concept does not at all necessarily apply as you would wish but cannot prove.

In Jude, the spirit beings who willingly followed Lucifer/Satan as he was cast down (one of the definitions of "nephil") shared the quality of fallenness with him (Isaiah 14:14-15).

And the Devil Satan, figuratively the serpent, inveigled Eve to share that quality unwittingly, and therefore also Adam wittingly as a type of Christ, such that humans could also be truly described as in like manner fallen: in Jude verses 4 "written of in old times" (προγεγραμμενοι, by Moses as "nephelim"); and in verse 7 "giving themselves over" which is another definition of "nephil".

The whole message in Jude about certain MEN comprising verses 4 through 16 is all about their fallenness, not about their method of gaining that state, which was a different method than that used by devils (ex-angels) to achieve that state.

So, that would mean that even before the Flood, likely the "nephelim"--"fallen ones" were both fallen angels and fallen humans. Yet it was possible through faith in God and His Coming Messiah whilst consistently availing themselves of substitutionary blood sacrifices to be temporarily reprieved from the death that sin causes, they could again be denominated as "sons of God", an appellation not conferred on fallen angels, who once fallen can never return to their "first estate."

But the humans who by committed trust in God may be restored to their first estate, that of their federal head Adam in his pre-nephil condition, being imputed with righteousness, could then decide to go out and become once more defiled by missionary dating.

We must always remember that for humans, God is not as much concerned with physical death (repairable separation of the soul and spirit from the carnal flesh) as he is about the union or separation of communication of His Spirit with the spirit of a human (spiritual life or death), and the human's absolute eternal life (reunion of the man's soul and spirit with a perfect never-dying flesh-without-blood body) in constant communion with the Eternal God.

Thus, those faithful souls who died before the Flood, or in it, still will enjoy eternal life with their Savior as Friends of the Bride, as sons (and daughters?) of The God, forever.

Fallen angels, otherwise known as devils as their father the Devil is, and unrepentant worldlings (also children of Satan) can never hold the title of "son of God."

I hope you are following this far more credible explanation of Genesis 6 than yours. It is about misuse of the position and misuse of the soul and body than what it was designed for in God's plan for harmony with Him. It is not about misdesignating a human mode of rebellion to God's activity for them, and them alone--to procreate and populate the earthly sphere--as even imaginable as applying to the spiritual devil entity as a participant. To consider that possible is just another way that the fallen worldling's reasonings (imaginations) can be beguiled by the subtil serpent, IMHO.

The analysis I have supplied here is entirely consistent throughout the whole context of the Holy Scriptures, which yours is definitely not.

Be advised and warned.

I have a friend here, born and raised in Greece, speaks Greek, Hewbrew, Arabic, English, French, Spanish and Italian. I will ask him to look at the Hebrew words, written in Hebrew, to see what his opinion is about them. He also looks at some Greek words in the New Testament for me. Imagine that, speaks 7 languages, but not one is Tagalog or Bisaya. 😂

I will look forward to your follow up.

Thank you for taking the time to lay out a reasoned position rather than simply posting insulting comments and running off.

Because I am in the middle of an extremely busy time, I do not think I will have the time to give your post the attention it deserves for about a week.

I did however read all of it and also all of the article you provided a link for. And I will prayerfully consider the issues you have put forward, the reasoning in the article you shared, and especially and most importantly the scriptures referenced.

I appreciate your attention to this matter, and have taken the view of trying to avoid logical fallacies to forward your points. However, though employing reasoning in the approach, its governing influence is according to spiritual laws, not purely logical. It is my desire to obey and preserve that line of development, not to attack the person (although it is sometimes taken that way).

Let me warn you: If I were you, I would pay serious attention to what some of your responders have to say. When a turn of phrase brings out the wry humor in one's inconsistencies, or pokes at one's difficulty in laughing at himself, the person who coins the phrase sometimes has a deeper perception of the problem at hand.

Such a person is not mocking, but entertaining himself and others whilst making his(her) point. You yourself may come to see that as a sort of picaresque way of coming at reality sideways.

Personally, I'm not very good at chiding, and tend to take myself a little too seriesly. FR is a good place to suffer a little for that kind of self-perception. Maybe a lot, if one can't let go.

You yourself may come to see that as a sort of picaresque way of coming at reality sideways.

Say...

...do I have to learn new words so early in the morning?

I'd much prefer my usual reasoning attempts with young, humanoid forms of a bituminous nature.

I thought “picaresque” would be a really good choice for the “Word for the Day” selection. Some of them are really grotesque, but this truly fits, eh?

Or are you being cirrus?

Sometimes I’m a little puzzled too, until I’ve finally figured out what you just said. Duh!

To unlearner's Post @132:

Jude 6-7
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar
manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as
an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

FRiend, you are not getting it. The error in your argument is that your proposition about angels links to sex. That simply is not the case. You are trying to read into Scripture what is not at all there, nor what the author was trying to instruct you in.

Angels are/were created by God, not born, created, and God's design was for them to execute without fail the particular roles he designed them for:

-- To worship and obey Him as Creator
-- To assist in regulating His Creation
-- To beneficially protect, oversee, encourage, and teach the humans He determined to populate the earth with (Ps. 91:11-12 and the like).

That was their estate and purpose. They were never, ever intended to exercise their will contrary to His. Even one singular incident thereof consitituted immediate abdication of their high estate, and relocation to, and imprisonment on, the physical earthly sphere, of which part of is the superhot core. I do not see where any place in the Scriptures that angels were to partake of intimate fellowship and eventually if necessary, forgiveness of disobedience.

In contrast, humans were first created to:

-- round out the complement of beings which the earth was to support, over which they were slated to have dominion over,
-- populate this realm with beings who could choose to do right, and
-- have joyous communion with the Creating Godhead forever.

It is clear from Genesis 2 that while warned of the consequences of an unacceptable activity, that they had the option to go contrary to God's warning, and to know by experience not only "good" but also "evil", of which they were advised against.

It is also clear that in Genesis 3 and 4 The Jehovah Elohim had also devised a method of recovery from the fallen state through substitutionary sacrifice yielding blood and garments to cover their sins. Adam was a son of The God, and the federal head of descendants who like him retained that title by choosing to commit their utter trust in God/Messiah as Savior and Lord, fearing Him, and walking in His Ways (Ps. 128:1).

They were going to come up against the Devil, the old proud Liar, Satan known as Lucifer on occasion:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in
the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.'
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isa 14:12-15 AV).

Appearing to Eve as a serpent, through her who knew by experience no evil, he attacked first her gullibility of the mind (not her marital fidelity or proper use of her body in it), challenging her ignorance through the beauty and desirability of that which was forbidden. That is what he does, challenge that which is forbidden. In his own case, it was to think even for a moment that his personal beauty and musicianship and logic could place him on the same platform as The God, or even higher.

For Eve, the method was different. He challenged her trust in her husband and her God, from whom she could have communicated her dilemma and received advice. Instead, she decided to decide for herself which was the best choice: to eat, or to eat not.

Cutting to the issue of who to share one's body with, in Sodom men had been persuaded that using their bodies in the activity for which they were not designed, even forcing it on those who resisted, was again vioating God's purposes of design. Whether or not Lot's visitors were humans, or angels appearing as males, and of whom we have no idea as to their overall body configuration is not at issue. Overriding their desires was at issue, which is also against God's plan for self-determination.

So, were the post-diluvian men of Sodom just as fallen as the nephelim, the fallen ones, of Genesis 6? Surely they were. Like Eve, they had cohosed to abandon God's design and counsel. Now, to answer your questions:

***************

1) who the Nephilim were,

According to Gesenius' definition, fallen (ones)

2) how they got here,

Each born of a human woman, not created

3) why they were here.

A natural product of human copulation, born according to Jehovah Elohim's command to populate the planet

And 4) why certain angels from the time of Noah are described by Peter and Jude as being imprisoned, while Satan and his angels clearly are not.

False. All of the rebellious angel spirits, includind Satan, are not only banned from heaven, but are restricted from any of God's dominions except the planet earth, including its core, to which God has sovereignly imprisoned certain spirits

And 5) where demons came from.

There are no "demons" in my KJV, therefore no description of them

And 6) what it means that "all flesh" had been corrupted except for Noah’s family.

Incorrect statement. All flesh, including all those of Noah's family, was corrupted at the fall, and propagated by sexual means, but born to die, including even Jesus. all non-human earthy flesh was preserved aboard the ark. All humans were invited to be saved from te flood, but only Noah's family chose to accept the offer. It was God that closed the door, even patiently awaiting stragglers

And 7) why God commanded to destroy every living person and animal among certain inhabitants of Canaan.

So that their culture would not infect the arriving Hebrews, nor would they desire their material possessions in greed (Achan, Joshua 7)

And, 8) why Jude compares the actions of these antediluvian, rebel angels with the sexual perversions of Sodom.

Ah. Here is where your spiritual discernment fails. Your soulish explanation focuses on crediting angels with the misuse, nay even invention of unlawful activity involving they themselves, of God's purposes for the design of the human body, and not merely the humans' repurposing of their bodies amongst they themselves, which would be enough to defeat God's plan of repopulating the earth subsequent to the flood.

The spiritual issue involved in Jude 7 is whether or not to take and obey God's counsel, and whether or not His created entities would employ themselves in the manner and purpose for which they were designed.

You equate the activity of which the angels are capable with the activity of which humans are capable, which is entirely unsupported as the issue in view or even materially possible.

"Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way
straight before my face.
For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness;
their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in
the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee.
But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for
joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as
with a shield" (Psalm 5:8-12 AV). After beguiling Eve, Satan's next goal was to prevent the coming Man of Sorrows from being Born. Since Christ attained the victory over sin and death, Satan is only holding a delaying tactic against his own demise, and blinding his human progeny with him lest they should see the offer of salvation, justification, sanctification, and eternal absolute life through faith in the faithfulness of Jesus to the least detail of God's plan for Him and for His Bride.

Your answer to #3: 'A natural product of human copulation' ... not exactly.

Would you say that genetic manipulation or chemical enhancement to form and function is 'natural production'?

There are indications that nimrod, for instance, 'began to become' more than he received naturally. And of course, if these giants, these enhanced mortals were natural then GOD would not have destroyed them and their children and their animals. Some kind of 'tinkering' was in evidence which was anathema to GOD's plan for humanity.

Would you say that genetic manipulation or chemical enhancement to form and function is 'natural production'?

No, I would not; but that does not seem to be what was happening in Noah's times.

Look up what "nephil" means in the Bible-time Hebrew. There is nothing that says those called "nephilim" (= plural of nephil) were physically unusual in any way. Strong's Concordance is not helpful in this, because all that you see there is how a word in the original language was translated into English by the translators of the Crown-Authorized version, and they were not always right.

In this particular case, They followed the translators of what we think is either the Septuagint--which translation of the Old Testament has its own lack of rendering the Hebrew and Aramaic (Chaldee) properly into Koine Greek--or the Vulgate, in which Jerome (though mainly translating from the Hebrew)--followed the Septuagint in Genesis 6:4 and not the Hebrew.

Recognizing that only Moses who wrote the word "nephelim" (and that only three times) could tell us exactly what he meant by that term, we must go to other Hebrew literature to discover what it meant to his culture. And that is what lexicographers do.

But firstly, all of the Nephelim of Numbers 13:33, though tall, were necessarily humans, being descendants of the eight humans borne through the Flood, on the ark. Furthermore, these totally human Nephilim were also "mighty ones," warriors, likely because of their size. That does not necessarily mean that all nephelim were warriors, or that they all were tall, does it? In fact, we only see an exaggeration of their size by the returned disbelievers, not by Caleb or Joshua who were more realistic.

Secondly, Young's analytical Concordance does not accord the nephelim of Genesis 6:4 as being large, only mighty by their coordinate descriptor "gibbor" the Hebrew term mighty and/or strong; and "fallen ones" as the definition of nephilim.

Thirdly, the highly-regarded Hebrew-to-English lexicon (click here) of Dr. William Genesius, professor at Halle, gives (in my edition) about 24 column-inches of fine print on what "Nephil" means on pages 557-558, and none of it mentions anything about giants.

Now, you may wish that Genesis 6:4 refers to "nephelim" as "giants," but in that we will part company, with my foundation being correct translation of the Hebrew text as the issue, and correct interpretation/exegesis as the result.

For me, nephilim are humans who have fallen from fellowship with God by rejecting the faith of Seth, Enoch and Noah. They are men who are not sons of God. And the context does not say that the faithful daughters of God were not fair to look upon and graceful. What one might suspect is that they were not quite as easily available for premarital recreational sex as the daughters of fallen humans, especially for local famous heroes. Considering this root cause, even more phony religionists, hedonists, and God-deniers overwhelmed the faithful, even to extinguishing the gospel of grace, such as is happening now.

God is going to wipe them out once more, take away Satan's influence, and for a thousand years see rebelliousness occurring even under direct and close supervision that has immediate consequences.

. . . but in that we will part company, . . .

Only in the nephelim thing, not in general. In most everything I agree with and encourage you.

I should have made this a little clearer.

Where did I write the snippet you italicized?

You didn’t write that phrase. I did. It was from my own post #196 just before, where I was afraid in my response to your #195 you would take what I said as a rejection of general agreement with you.

Hey bro. I had my Greek friend take a look at some of this. Not only does he read and write Hebrew and Greek, but he grew up in Jerusalem, so he grew up speaking them, plus Arabic. He said your idea of fallen from counsels is dead right on. I thought it was amusing, because under the Hebrew was English, but Hebrew is read from right to left, and so was the English. I read the English from right to left also.
I had him look at the Greek, where the New Testament names the brothers of Jesus. Some FRiends try to say these were cousins. He just smiled and said NO. Cousin and brother are two different Greek words, just like they are two different English words. He said these "brothers" were from the same family, not cousins. In other words, imagine this, these were children of Mary and Joseph, after Joseph "knew" her (sexually) Mary had other kids.
I wanted your opinion though. What do you think it meant, when it says they were men of old, men of renown? What made them like that? Were all the fallen ones men of renown? Were there women of renown too? What's your take on it?