The Angels of God in heaven, it does not necessarily include the fallen angels.
So if the heavenly angels cannot reproduce, making baby angels...LOL, How can fallen angels reproduce(which have no ability to reproduce) with a being that is not made "after its own kind"? Please explain.
Sure, you've seen those pictures of baby angels with wings? LOL. They're so cute! I agree Sean, if the angels in heaven do not marry, which would indicate they do not reproduce, they we could assume the fallen angels would not. Just because they are fallen would not mean they obtained some human abilities and characteristics. Also, if they are reserved in chains that could mean they are limited in what they can do.
I would like to submit this for your reading, brethren...
q.gif (1639 bytes) A friend and I were talking the other night about the Bible in Genesis where it talks about the giants in the earth. Well the question came up if the earth was flooded and killed all the people except Noah and his family where did the men like Goliath and Gad and the giants that were seen by the Israelites in the promised land come from?
a.gif (1659 bytes) Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:21, 22 says, "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." All of the possible variation in mankind (eye colors, hair colors, nose sizes and shapes, ear sizes and shapes, jaw sizes and shapes, skin complections and colors, and size and heights, etc.) were all found in the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. All of what we now see came from just one man and one woman. God programmed all of this variety into just one man and one woman.
When God brought the flood upon the earth, there were just 8 people who survived: Naoh, his wife, and their three sons and three daughter's-in-law. Genesis 7:13 says, "In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark." God, who could bring all of this present variety out of just 1 man and 1 woman to start it all, could certainly continue that variety now through 4 men and 4 women after the flood.
When those with certain dominant characteristics marry, those traits are sometimes magnified more and more. Have you ever seen a tall man married to a tall woman? What is usually the case? Tall children. What if those tall children then marry other tall mates? The height could gradually increase more and more over the generations. Height seems to be on the increase today, even when the parents are not overly tall. Neither of my parents are 6 foot tall, but they have a son who is about 6' 3' tall. How tall will his children be when they are at full maturity?
Some people wrongly assume that giants in the Bible could only be produced by some supernatural event, not by natural conception, but that is not true. Below is a previous question and answer in that regard.
GENESIS CHAP-6 WHO ARE,OR WHAT ARE THE SONS OF GOD? FALLEN ANGELS??
Genesis 6:1-8 says, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 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. 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. 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. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 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. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."
The emphasis in the above passage seems to be upon man and his wickedness — not upon the wickedness of angels. "When MEN began to multiply on the face of the earth, and DAUGHTERS WERE BORN UNTO THEM..." The phrase which people wonder about being angels is the phrase "the sons of God." But when you consider the whole Book of Genesis, the words "angel" and "angels" appear many times. The word "angel" appears in the Book of Genesis 11 times, and the word "angels" appears 4 times.
There is a saying about Bible interpretation which goes something like this, "If the literal sense makes common sense, then seek no other sense." In other words, do not try and read more into a passage than is there. Case in point, I do not know of anyone who has ever read Genesis 6, and interpreted it as angels committing immorality with women, and thus producing a race of giants. People only wonder about that after someone suggests the thought. But upon the first reading of that chapter, I do not think that anyone has ever come up with that idea. That alone gives you a clue that it is not a natural interpretation of that passage.
Yes, the Bible does refer to certain angels committing especially offensive sins during the days when the ark was being built. I Peter 3:18-20 says, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." Jude 6, 7 says, "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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Angels did something vile in those days, but the Bible does not give us details. Ephesians 5:11,12 says, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."
The Bible is clear that angels do not have children. Matthew 22:23-30 says, "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
Mark 12:24,25 says, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."
Luke 20:34-36 says, "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
I think that the Bible is very clear that the giants of Genesis 6 are the result of marriage, and are not "half men-half angels."
Genesis 6:1-8 says, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 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. 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. 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. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 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. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."
If you will notice that passage carefully, you will notice that there were already giants in the earth, and AFTER THAT, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare mighty men.
It is not necessary to have angels involved to produce giants. What about Goliath and his family? Were they half angel? Who has ever thought that Goliath must be part angel? Then why must angels be involved in Genesis to come up with giants in the land?
What about Robert Wadlow? He was born in Alton, Illinois, in 1918. At 8 years old, he was 6’0". At 11 years old, he was 6’7". At 14 years old, he was 7’5". At 17 years old, he was 8’1/2". At 22 years old he was over 8’11" — almost 9’ tall. He died in Manistee, Michigan. His shoes were size 37AA. Was he the result of an angel? No. He was just a big man. (Guinness Book Of World Records, 1976).
Adam was called the "son of God," and he was not an angel. Luke 3:36-38 says, "Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of ADAM, WHICH WAS THE SON OF GOD."
Brethren, I used to teach that the angel/baby thing was true in my new convert days. I just "parroted" others' point of view. It made great sensationalism in a HBS setting. However, I somehow began to think it was not right and abandoned that position at least 25 years ago. I recommend to you that teach this way, rethink this concept(find it's origin in the Apocrypha or elsewhere), and abandon it altogether.
Here is some more info on this heretical teaching...it is not even citing the Apocryphal book of Enoch either....This teaches Satan(an angel) able to have human sex...
Serpent seed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Christian concept of the "seed of the serpent" see Seed of the Woman
A sculpture of Adam, Eve and the Serpent at Notre Dame de Paris. In the sculpture, the serpent is depicted as half human.
Serpent seed, dual seed or two-seedline is a controversial doctrine, according to which the serpent in the Garden of Eden mated with Eve, and the offspring of their union was Cain. This belief is still held by some adherents of the white-supremacist theology known as Christian Identity, who claim that the Jews, as descendants of Cain, are also descended from the serpent.[1][2] The idea has also existed in several other non-racial contexts, and major proponents include Daniel Parker (1781–1844)[3] and William M. Branham (1909–65).[4]
The doctrine that Eve mated with the serpent, or with Satan, to produce Cain also appears in early Gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Philip (c. 350); however, this teaching was explicitly rejected as heresy by Irenaeus[5] (c. 180) and later mainstream Christian theologians. A similar doctrine appeared in Jewish midrashic texts in the 9th century and in the Kabalah. It is considered a false doctrine by mainstream Protestants.[6] Catholic theologians point to the fact that the Bible states that the original sin is that of Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit.[7]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 The doctrine
3 Christian Identity movement
4 William Branham's teachings
5 Arnold Murray's teachings
6 Jung Myung Seok's teachings
7 See also
8 References
History[edit]
The Serpent Seed idea appears in a 9th-century book called Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer.[8] In his book Cain: Son of the Serpent, David Max Eichhorn, traces the idea back to early Jewish Midrashic texts and identifies many rabbis who taught that Cain was the son of the union between the serpent and Eve.[8] Some Kabbalist rabbis also believe that Cain and Abel were of a different genetic background than Seth. This is known among Kabbalists as "The Theory of Origins".[9] The theory teaches that God created two "Adams" (adam means "man" in Hebrew). To one he gave a soul and to the other he did not give a soul. The one without a soul is the creature known in Christianity as the serpent. The Kabbalists call the serpent Nahash (meaning serpent in Hebrew). This is recorded in the Zohar:
"Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial – good wine mixed with bad." (Zohar 136)
In The Scofield Study Bible Scofield says, "The serpent, in his Edenic form, is not to be thought of as a writhing reptile. That is the effect of the curse (Gen 3:14). The creature which lent itself to Satan may well have been the most beautiful as it was the most "subtle" of creatures less than man".[10] Scofield's notes are silent as to the idea of Cain being the serpent's seed, however in Genesis 6:2 his notes claimed that while it was an "error" to believe that the offspring mentioned were the product of supernatural unions, it was instead the intermarriage of the "godly line of Seth" with the "godless line of Cain" being referred to.[11] Advocates suggest that modern Christian translations of the Old Testament reduce emphasis on this concept, which they believe indicated that the serpent had been an upright, human-like creature.
The foundational scripture for the serpent's seed doctrine appears in Genesis 3:15, which in the King James Version states "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." Advocates interpret this literally to mean that an offspring of the Serpent via Eve would eventually lose in a mortal conflict with one of "her seed". Eve's son by Adam would have presumably been called "Adam's seed" so it has been suggested, since a woman does not naturally produce seed, that "her seed" is the first prophesy of an eventual human messiah produced by means of a virgin birth. Adherents believe this sets up the serpent's seed as an antitype to Jesus Christ.
Advocates also point out that in Genesis chapter 4 it is mentioned only once that Adam "knew" his wife, yet twice it is mentioned that she bore sons (Genesis 4:1-2; see heteropaternal superfecundation). Advocates also believe an unmentioned act of infidelity is implied by reproductive and marital curses placed on Eve in Genesis 3:16, that otherwise seem inappropriate to merely eating a forbidden fruit. St. Paul seems to suggest as much in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he may have implied that Eve was not a chaste virgin at the time Adam first had relations with her: "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted..." (2 Corinthians 11:2-3)
In the New Testament, the first Epistle of John also states, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." (1 John 3:12) John also recorded in his gospel that Christ said, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." (8:44) Advocates of the serpent seed doctrine have interpreted these verses to imply that the New Testament writers believed that Cain, the first murderer, was indeed the serpent's seed.
The doctrine that Eve mated with the serpent, or with Satan, to produce Cain, has been taught in various forms for thousands of years, and it finds its earliest expression in Gnostic writings (e.g., the Gospel of Philip) and especially in Manichaean doctrines; however, it was soundly rejected by mainstream Christian theologians such as Irenaeus[5] in the 2nd century, and St. Augustine in the 4th century.
More recent variants are central to the beliefs of Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists founded by Daniel Parker. Other variations are espoused by groups that adhere to the Christian Identity movement. Some of these groups appear to use the doctrine as a rationalization for racist beliefs. One of the largest, but non-denominational, groups that believes in a form of the serpent seed doctrine are the followers of Branhamism who are documented to number over 1,500,000.
The doctrine[edit]
The doctrine of the Serpent's Seed is followed by several minor Christian groups, the followers of Branhamism, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, and some adherents of the Christian Identity Movement among others. There are variations of the doctrine and differences between these groups but the basic belief is that the Original Sin was an act of sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve and, prior to that act, Eve was sexually seduced by the serpent and committed sexual intercourse with the serpent; further, that Cain was conceived by the act with the serpent and Abel was conceived by the act with Adam.
The main variations are on the aftereffects of the act. Some proponents believe that the serpent was Satan himself.[12] Others believe that the serpent was an animal being influenced by Satan.[13] Another key difference is in the descendants of Cain. Some believe that the two lines remained separate and that eventually Cain's descendants were all destroyed, others believe that Cain's descendants became completely mixed with the descendants of Adam (meaning that all humanity is partially descended from Cain),[14] and still others believe that the two lines remain separate to this day.[15] Finally others disagree whether sex itself was the original sin[16] or if the original sin was sex for pleasure rather than sex for reproduction.[13]
The following points and scriptures are largely agreed upon by all proponents to be the basis of the Serpent Seed doctrine, although variations do occur as mentioned above.
The Two Trees. The starting point of the discussion is usually on the two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:10) Proponents note the difference between the "trees that grow out the ground" as opposed to "the trees in the midst of the garden." This is used to indicate the two trees are not physical trees but principles (e.g. ideas, rules).[13][16] They also point to the Book of Revelation, where the Tree of Life is now in heaven to show that the two trees are not the same kind of trees that grow on Earth but instead are something spiritual. (Rev 2:7 and 22:2) Furthermore they point out that since man chose to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it should still be visible somewhere in the world today, which they claim is the overt sexuality of society.
The Serpent. (Gen 3) The serpent in its original form was a creature capable of speech, and it had not yet at that point been cursed to go "upon [its] belly"; thus some proponents claim that the "serpent" was originally an upright human-like creature.[17] Some proponents claim the serpent was intended to be used for manual labor and therefore was made to look like a man but was not given a soul.[18] The chapter states that the serpent "beguiled" Eve. In Early Modern English this word literally meant to seduce or lead astray.[19]
Sex. In the Bible, the sexual act is always obliquely referenced in Moses' writings. It is always referred to discreetly, such as "knowing". Similarly in the Book of Proverbs, it states "such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness." (Prov 30:20) This is used as evidence that the trees and the fruit are just another cryptic way to describe sex.
The Punishment. (Gen 3) Proponents also point to the punishment to show that the act was sexual. When Adam and Eve sinned they covered their genitals, not their mouths, indicating they sinned not with their mouths but with their genitals. The punishment God put on them also affected sexual reproduction: He caused the woman to have menstrual cycles and to have increased pain in childbirth. God's curse also put enmity between the descendants of Adam (e.g., Abel) and the descendants of the serpent (e.g., Abel's murderer Cain).[20]
The Birth. (Gen 4) At the birth of Cain, Eve said "I have gotten a man from the Lord." Proponents claim that in the remaining two pre-Flood chapters, Adam's descendants are called the "sons of God", not "men",[21] while the word "men" refers solely to the descendants of Cain. Eve was also called "the mother of all living" (Gen 3:20), but Adam was not similarly called "the father of all living".
The Offspring. (Gen 4) Cain and Abel were of different occupational backgrounds. Abel tended the flocks and Cain tilled the ground. Proponents claim these traits were inherited from their fathers; Adam was to rule over the animals and the serpent was intended to tend the Garden of Eden. Another difference between them was that Abel, being of pure birth, knew how to give a proper sacrifice to God. Cain, not being pure, did not know how to give a proper sacrifice, he only knew he needed to give one, indicating he was only inherited a portion of the knowledge that Abel had inherited. His impurity was also displayed by his jealousy and murder of Abel, some proponents argue that these are not traits God would have created in Adam and Eve and could not have been inherited from them.
The Two Lines of Descent. (Gen 4-5) Some proponents claim that because the two lines of descent are recorded separately it indicates they were somehow different. It notes how the developments in Cain's sides were all negative (e.g. Lamech's declaration in Gen 4:23 that "I have slain a man to my wounding".[22]) But in Seth's line (Gen. 5) nothing is mentioned of anything evil, and each patriarch "begat sons and daughters". Ultimately, the two lines intermarry (Gen 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."), and God then destroyed the world with a flood.[23] Proponents also point to the biological principle of heterosis being evidenced in the offspring of the interbreeding of the two lines being giants.
Christ. Ultimately Seth's line leads to Jesus, who was born of a virgin. Proponents point to the fact that all humanity was impure and therefore incapable of "breeding" a "pure" Son of God as the reason Christ had to be born of a virgin. Many proponents claim that Christ was born in the same state that Adam was created: perfect and without sin. They claim he had to be created by God in order for him to be pure and to be the "perfect sacrifice".[13][16]
Parable of the Tares. Regardless of the understanding of the Serpent Seed based on the book of Genesis, many who believe in the doctrine hold that one of the most important evidences for the doctrine comes from Jesus unfolding the revelation the Parable of the Tares. In this parable Jesus confirmed there were two distinct children present in the world until the end.
Christian Identity movement[edit]
Adherents of the white supremacist theology known as Two-Seedline Christian Identity hold that white people are descendants of Adam and are hence the chosen people of God. The Jewish people are said to be descendants of Cain and thus of Satan. This belief was developed by Wesley A. Swift, Conrad Gaard, Dan Gayman[24][25] and William Potter Gale among others.[26] The opposing faction is called One-Seedline Christian Identity and it holds that all people are descended from Adam, but only Aryans (here meaning Northern Europeans) are truly God's people.[1][2][27][28]
William Branham's teachings[edit]
William Branham was not the first to preach the doctrine of serpent seed, but he was one of the major proponents of the doctrine in modern times. Branham was the most widely known minister of the 20th century to actually teach serpent seed and much of its spread can be attributed to him. William Branham taught that the fall of mankind resulted from Eve having sexual intercourse with an upright Beast, man-like in appearance, whom Adam had named 'Serpent'.[16]
Because of his wide acclaim in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, Branham was widely followed in Charismatic and Pentecostal movements and to a lesser degree by Methodists and Baptists. His meetings, held all over the world, were attended by hundreds of thousands of people which gave him a very large audience. This popularity and influence gave him the best platform among all adherents of the serpent seed doctrine and it enabled him to spread the doctrine to the masses. Although he did not regularly espouse the doctrine in front of his largest audiences his belief in the doctrine was not kept secret and he did preach several sermons on it in smaller meetings.
Branham was well aware of the potential connections of the doctrine to racism but he tried to show that his belief was not racially targeted.[29] He tried to show that although he believed in the doctrine he did not think it was a basis for racism,[30] never applying his understanding to any ethnic group or race.
Arnold Murray's teachings[edit]
Arnold Murray (1929–2014), founder of The Shepherd's Chapel, taught the serpent seed doctrine. He accepted that the Jews (Kingdom of Judah) were descended from Adam through Seth, as described in the Bible. However, his view was that the Kenites (rather than the Jews) were the offspring of Cain, and infiltrated the northern kingdom of Israel.[12] Murray's teachings are disputed by Protestant apologetics ministries CARM and CRI.[6][31]
Jung Myung Seok's teachings[edit]
Jung Myung Seok, the South Korean founder of the Providence religious movement, taught that the original sin was Eve having sex with the serpent (Satan), and that its effect can be reversed by having sex with the Messiah, who, according to the Providence movement, is Jung himself. Jung used this doctrine to entice numerous female followers into having sex with him, for which he is now in prison.[32][33]
Yes, the Bible does refer to certain angels committing especially offensive sins during the days when the ark was being built. I Peter 3:18-20 says, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." Jude 6, 7 says, "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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Angels did something vile in those days, but the Bible does not give us details. Ephesians 5:11,12 says, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."
Why would Christ go and preach to fallen angels if they were already in chains reserved unto judgement? There is a separate thread which offers an accurate explanation of this passage. The spirit that quickened Christ is the same spirit by which Noah preached.
Right, and the CONTEXT says that the 10 spies were lying about what they saw. So, again, I'll have to think about it.
And, BTW, your sources aren't any different. For instance, the Pulpit Commentary say this - Verse 33. - The giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants, אֶת־הַנְּפִילים בְּנִי עַנָק מִן־הַנְּפִלים.The Nephilim, Beni-Anak, of the Nephilim. The Septuagint has only τοὺς γίγαντας.
It shows that they are also, like your sources, studying the CONTEXT of the Hebrew language. It appears to be a 50/50 opinion, all around, on the consensus of what is meant by "giant".
Uh...Noooooo. They did not lie. lol
Where did you get the 10 spys lied?
context shows they were Giants
By why stop there. Did you read what I posted about Goliath?
The context shows Goliath was a VERY LARGE MAN.
1Sa 17:4 And a champion named Goliath came out of the Philistines camp; he was from Gath. His height was six cubits and a span.
Jos 11:22There were none of the giants left in the land of the sons of Israel; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod there remained some.
Context
The Giants of gath were descendents of Anakim (no not Luke's father)
Who were called Nephilim
thats what I mean by context. the word Nephilim does not mean "Giants", but it was a word USED for a race of Giants.
Thats why I say looking u a word's definition does not tell the whole story
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
We stop growing in our last years of H.S., Their adolescent years were into the 100 year range.
I'm still waiting for more than assertions Sean.
Quote:
Look at the phrase "there were GIANTS in the Earth in those days...It is a "blanket statement", and is a description of mankind.
No it's not. That's your imagination at work. It does not say "THEY WERE ALL GIANTS".
If I said "There are Apostolics on AFF today"..does that make EVERYONE HERE an Apostolic? Of course not!
Here, this might help...a different translation Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Quote:
It does not single out any race or certain people....It is us puny people that read into it that they were a special race....
It singles out the Nephilim
Quote:
6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
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.
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.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,(notice, the "giants were here before the "sons of God" hooked up with the women) 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.
Actually it says there were Nephilim in the earth in those days and afterwards, which we can see from reading Numbers and 1Sam they were still there afterwards
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of mankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Linear Mode
