Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

GIANTS: Hebrew:

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant.

It also translates "giant".

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why assume from silence?

Who was assuming?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

GIANTS: Hebrew:

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant.

Strongs strikes again

WordStudy
nep̱iyliym: A masculine noun used only in the plural meaning giants. The celebrated, puzzling passage where this term is first used is Gen_6:4 which merely transliterates the Hebrew word into English as Nephilim.

These beings evidently appeared on the earth in the ancient past when divine beings cohabited with woman, and Nephilim, the mighty men or warriors of great fame, were the offspring.

This huge race of Nephilim struck fear into the Israelite spies who had gone up to survey the land of Canaan (see Num_13:31-33). The sons of Anak, a tall race of people, came from the Nephilim (Num_13:33; cf. Deu_2:10-11; Deu_9:2; Jos_15:14). Eze_2:21, Eze_2:27 may have the Nephilim in mind, possibly equating them with the mighty men or mighty warriors in the passage.

These beings were not divine but only at best great, powerful men.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Strongs strikes again

WordStudy
nep̱iyliym: A masculine noun used only in the plural meaning giants. The celebrated, puzzling passage where this term is first used is Gen_6:4 which merely transliterates the Hebrew word into English as Nephilim.

These beings evidently appeared on the earth in the ancient past when divine beings cohabited with woman, and Nephilim, the mighty men or warriors of great fame, were the offspring.

This huge race of Nephilim struck fear into the Israelite spies who had gone up to survey the land of Canaan (see Num_13:31-33). The sons of Anak, a tall race of people, came from the Nephilim (Num_13:33; cf. Deu_2:10-11; Deu_9:2; Jos_15:14). Eze_2:21, Eze_2:27 may have the Nephilim in mind, possibly equating them with the mighty men or mighty warriors in the passage.

These beings were not divine but only at best great, powerful men.

When divine beings cohabited with women. That's a definition? I think not.

[Aquila]

Well... if these "giants" were indeed merely human beings and this doesn't describe the event wherein the ,"angels that sinned", sinned and as a result were "bound"... we have to ask, "Where in Scripture do we see this event take place?" Because both Peter and Jude write as though their readers would automatically know to what they were referencing. This would demand that the event be recorded in Scripture, as Scripture is what would contain the record of such an event.

[Aquila]

Let's allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Who are the "sons of God" in these passages?

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Most would agree that these are angels.

Clearly, if the HEBREW phrase "bene ha-'elohim" is a term used to speak of angelic beings elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is never used in reference to human beings in said Scriptures, then we have to conclude that the same term "bene ha-'elohim" as found in Genesis 6 is indeed the same "bene ha-'elohim" mentioned elsewhere.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the Bible to challenge our faith and hold ourselves to believe the most literal and Scriptural meaning or description of an event than to try to "rationalize" it down to something we can wrap our brains around??? Is not the Bible a divinely inspired book that speaks of the supernatural and challenges us to accept what is beyond our rational human understanding?

Josephus, a champion historian for most Preterists, testifies that the interpretation in his day was that the "bene ha-'elohim" were fallen angels. If Josephus explains this... shouldn't we give it some serious consideration that others in this time would have believed the same thing as it would be the leading interpretation? And would this not answer the question regarding the event both Peter and Jude write about without explanation to their readers?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well... if these "giants" were indeed merely human beings and this doesn't describe the event wherein the ,"angels that sinned", sinned and as a result were "bound"...

Who said those events are connected? It's like tying together passages that simply are not plainly tied together, pushing it more towards assumption than anything else.

we have to ask, "Where in Scripture do we see this event take place?"

Who said it has to be in scripture?

Because both Peter and Jude write as though their readers would automatically know to what they were referencing. This would demand that the event be recorded in Scripture, as Scripture is what would contain the record of such an event.

We can claim the readers already knew where to reference the issue, but that is far from conclusive. It is too much deriving of conclusions. Nothing concrete. And really, who gives a hill of beans about it anyway? What does it matter? It seems to fall under the category of endless genealogies. Useless information. lol

Admit it, it's just carnally fascinating.

[shag]

Too many hours on the sci-fi channel


He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

What do u guys make of that description?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shag

Too many hours on the sci-fi channel

Bingo!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When divine beings cohabited with women. That's a definition? I think not.

why isn't "divine beings" a definition?