Who were the Nephilim, and why didn’t ancient readers find them strange? is the title of a video posted by the BibleProject YouTube channel to which a certain @dishikadillon commented
It’s weird because the angels were not able to reproduce; according to the scripture. Next, how would it have looked to see these beings coming home from a hard days work looking like what the bible says they looked like. Third, you think God sat back and let them come to earth, marry women, have babies and then throw them in chains until judgement? Make it make sense.
I, @kenammi355, replied
But that “angels were not able to reproduce” isn’t “according to the scripture.”
What does the Bible say they looked like (but before quoting, ensure that you read the text to find out who said it, why was it said, was it true, what was the reaction to it, etc.)?
Yes, “God sat back and let them come to earth, marry women, have babies and then throw them in chains until judgement?” just like He “sat back” and let Adam and Eve sin, etc.
@dishikadillon
According to scripture they are an entirely separate type of creature from humans. People do not become angels after death, and angels do not become human. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus says, “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels.
Now at what point were the angels allowed to come to earth, get married, procreate, go back to heaven, and get kicked out with lucifer (Revelations 12:9)? If you are saying that the fallen angels came to earth married and had children, that would mean at some point, they re-entered heaven. You also have to look at 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
Angels are not organic or natural beings. They cannot procreate! If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of humans.
Last, God did not sit back and let Adam and Eve do anything. Everyone has free will; even from the very beginning. Just like then there were consequences, there are consequences now.
@kenammi355
Well, “According to scripture” Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
I’ve no idea why you wrote, “People do not become angels after death, and angels do not become human” since I have never even hinted at any such thing including in my books on Angelology.
When Jesus makes a statement more than once, it’s not a good practice to only quote the one statement that seems to say what we want to hear and it’s also not a good practice to slice a complete thought into pieces just because you don’t like what Jesus said.
Let’s consider the statements.
You quoted Luke 20:34-36 to end abruptly as, “equal unto the angels” but Jesus went on to say, “are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” so you left out the part about that humans and Angels are, “sons of God” just like Gen 6 refers to them.
Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 are very interesting since Jesus was very specific in that He notes, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Thus, He spoke of the “angels in heaven”: the loyal ones, which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” as Jude put it.
As for, “at what point were the angels allowed to come to earth, get married, procreate, go back to heaven, and get kicked out” never: I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia of relevant data but am unaware of anyone who has ever claimed that they were, “allowed” rather, again, those who did so were rebellious in doing so, it was a sin.
As for, “with lucifer” that has nothing to do with it, that’s about what happens after the war in heaven which is a post-Jesus’ ascension event and seems to not have happened as of yet.
This also has to do with, “that would mean at some point, they re-entered heaven” since Jude and 2 Peter both tells us that the sinful Angels were incarcerated (not in “hell” but in “Tartarus”) as per Rev 9 they are released, then fight the war in heaven and then are condemned.
You say, “Angels are not organic or natural beings” but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
You demand, “They cannot procreate!” but I’ve already shown how you came to that faulty assertion. Also, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
As for, “If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of humans” you’ll have to ask Him about that. But again, Angels always described as human males.
I’ve no idea what this means, “God did not sit back and let Adam and Eve do anything.”
But as far as, “Everyone has free will” well, there you have it: so did Angels.
@dishikadillon
First, thanks for making me think. ❤❤ I have so many questions.
Angels in Hebrew simply means the one who is sent, often translated as “messenger”
Coming in human form and being created in human form, are two different things. if angels are like humans, then we aren’t the first of our kind. If they can procreate, then that would mean they have the same sin nature we have and when Adam and Eve caused the fall of man, they must’ve caused the angels to fall also. Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world.” How did sin enter heaven? I did look at Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
Also, were the angels like shapeshifters? I mean I do understand the changing forms because of their assignment, but to sneak out of heaven and come in the form of men, marry daughters, and breed giant humans and not some type of hybrid? If the angels could procreate, why didn’t they just procreate with one another? Concerning the sons of God (Gen.6:1-4) Is this not the son’s of Seth? When it says “there were giants in those days,” the word “giant” caused a misinterpretation. It is believed that these men were literal giants, born from a union of women and angels. Well. there is at least one verse that refutes this thought. First of all, Gen. 6:2 says the sons of God ‘took wives’ and I did give Matt. 22:30 they will neither marry or be given in marriage to prove their not being able to procreate. Angels are not organic or natural beings. They cannot procreate! If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of creating untold numbers of them? (Rev. 5:11)
The sons of God were godly men who married the daughters of wicked men.
Can you imagine if Satan could procreate?
Angels cannot procreate. They cannot mate with humans. So giants did not exist because of unions between women and angels. Just think. If that is the case, tall men like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7 feet, 2 inches) and Shaquille O’Neal (7 feet, 1 inch) or taller, Robert Pershing Wadlow (8 feet , 11.1 inches) or Sultan Kösen (8 feet, 2.8 inches) would be considered demi-gods!
@kenammi355
Thanks in turn for the detailed interaction.
I can only elucidate what’s in the Bible and, again, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and WITHOUT INDICATION THAT SUCH ISN’T THEIR ONTOLOGY.
So, they were apparently, “created in human form” and we were created, “a little lower” than them.
If that mean, “we aren’t the first of our kind” then so be it. Yet, two beings of the same kind can still have some key differences such as that, apparently, Jesus died for human sins, not Angelic ones.
Maybe it was the case that, “when Adam and Eve caused the fall of man, they must’ve caused the angels to fall also” but that can’t be based on, “If they can procreate, then that would mean they have the same sin nature we have” since that’s a non-sequitur and they can procreate but not amongst themselves, obviously, and weren’t supposed to while we can and were meant to.
Romans 5:12 actually also says, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” so that’s not about Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim since, apparently, not all of them sinned.
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are good places for how it entered heaven: the Cherub conceived of a sin and introduced that conception to Eve.
There’s no indication that Angels are shapeshifters and, again, by definition, Angels are always described as looking like human males.
This sentence is pretty tough, “I mean I do understand the changing forms because of their assignment, but to sneak out of heaven and come in the form of men, marry daughters, and breed giant humans and not some type of hybrid?” so I’ll piece it out:
“I do understand the changing forms because of their assignment” there’s no indication of any such thing.
“sneak out of heaven”: no indication that they snuck, they were “cast” down.
“come in the form of men”: since that’s their ontological form.
“breed giant humans and not some type of hybrid”: I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “giant” or “giant humans” and the “Angel view” is the view that they did breed, “some type of hybrid.”
As I’ve noted many times: Angels are described as male so there’s apparently no female ones which is why, “they just procreate with one another.”
Why would, “sons of God” be, “son’s of Seth”?
When you say, “It is believed that these men were literal giants” I neither know, “believed” by whom nor what a, “literal giant” is.
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Yes, you, “did give Matt. 22:30 they will neither marry or be given in marriage to prove their not being able to procreate” and I noted that you misrepresented Jesus’ words then and you did so again since He didn’t say, “neither marry or be given in marriage.”
You asserted, “Angels are not organic or natural beings” but I already noted many times, Angels are always described as looking like human males, PERFORMING PHYSICAL ACTIONS, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. You can’t get around that by merely making assertions. You can always read my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology” for every single thing, quoted and cited, that the Bible says about them.
So, when you conclude by asserting, “They cannot procreate!” you do so based on misrepresenting Jesus’ words (please be very, very careful about doing that) and a non-biblical view of Angels about which you’ve already been corrected.
Again, no I, “don’t you think God would have allowed” all males, “to reproduce with each other” since that’s biologically incoherent.
You then tell me that, “godly men” were not godly since they sinned to terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood so that’s rather odd. You’re just repeating a late-comer of a view that’s based on prejudice, based on myth, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more then zero).
As for, “Can you imagine if Satan could procreate?” I guess I could imagine but there’s no indication of that he even could if he wanted to since Angels look like human males but Cherubim don’t.
As for, “giants did not exist because of unions between women and angels” and I now see that you answered key question #2 so that the answer to key question #3 is, “No” and you will know that if you answer key question #1.
@dishikadillon
when I said godly men I was talking about the son’s of Seth. We do know that Cain’s descendants were evil and did not serve God; as Seth did indeed. . As the Creator, He was the One who created the angels and the whole spiritual realm, but after His birth into humanity He was restricted to time and space. He was lower than the angels. Christ was made temporarily lower than the angels because it opens up the possibility of death, something which angels do not suffer. It doesn’t have anything to do with appearance. Our form will not be the same once we die; if we die in Christ, and receive our glorified bodies. We will not look like this in the when we inherit the Kingdom. Did you not know that beloved?
@kenammi355
Indeed, you were teaching a late-dated view that is based on prejudice, mythology, and only creates problems: you have “godly men” sinning so terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood so they weren’t so Godly after all.
You merely assert, “We do know that Cain’s descendants were evil and did not serve God” but, that’s just what, “We” don’t know: that just myth and prejudice.
Likewise with, “as Seth did indeed” (but really didn’t as per you).
As for, “Our form will not be the same once we die” that’s denying one of THE key features of the resurrection, it’s denying one of THE things that makes the gospel distinct from false, “religions.”
You don’t seem very interested in dealing with what I write anymore so maybe I won’t put much effort into it anymore.
For example, a very important point was, “As for, ‘giants did not exist because of unions between women and angels’ and I now see that you answered key question #2 so that the answer to key question #3 is, ‘No’ and you will know that if you answer key question #1” but you ignored that.
@dishikadillon
First, it is not mythology, it is theology.
Second, Genesis names three children of Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth. A genealogy tracing the descendants of Cain is given in Genesis 4, while the line from Seth down to Noah appears in Genesis 5 therefore, not all were destroyed.
Third, don’t walk away before you see what you did wrong. God cursed Cain and his descendants not to have the priesthood until all of Abel’s descendants had the priesthood. Cain’s curse to his descendants, where they all died in the Great Deluge as retribution for the loss of Abel’s potential offspring.
Fourth, The Bible says that in heaven Christ “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). The Bible gives us a hint of what we will be like in its account of Jesus’ transfiguration. (You can read it in Luke 9:28-36.)
FIFTH AND FINAL, I’M ALWAYS READY TO GIVE AN ANSWER, AS THE SCRIPTURES HAS DIRECTED. I DO NOT TAKE KINDLY TO THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE WISE, BUT ARE INDEED FOOLS. GOD IS NOT MOCKED NOR WILL HE EVER BE ENTERTAINED BY FOOLISHNESS. GO READ UPON THE SCRIPTURES AND YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT GOD IS THE MAKER/CREATOR OF ALL THINGS AND THAT IS THE ONLY MAKER. SATAN NOR THE ANGELS CAN’T CREATE ANYTHING AND LET THIS BE A LESSON TO ALL WHO WISHES TO DISPUTE IT.
@kenammi355
But friend, it’s myth by definition (and I see you ignored that it’s also prejudice and causes problems) since you’re still unable to provide any quotations to support it.
I’m unsure to what you’re referring by, “not all were destroyed, pre-flood (since you referred to Gen 4-5).
As for, “God cursed Cain and his descendants not to have the priesthood until all of Abel’s descendants had the priesthood. Cain’s curse to his descendants, where they all died in the Great Deluge as retribution for the loss of Abel’s potential offspring” all of that is pure mythology. But just as with your whole view: perhaps you can provide quotations to the contrary.
Indeed, our resurrection bodies with be like Jesus’ at his transfiguration and post-resurrection: physical but with additional capabilities. But I’m unsure what that has to do with our discussion.
Oddly, I though we were having an iron sharpening iron discussion as brother and sister but you decided to call me a, “FOOL…” (all caps, mind you) engaging in, “FOOLISHNESS” and then ignorantly yell at me to, “GO READ UPON THE SCRIPTURES” which I’ve been directing you to and quoting all along. Why did you go full blown ungracefully worldly?
As for, “SATAN…CAN’T CREATE ANYTHING” indeed, that appears to be the case.
As for, “ANGELS CAN’T CREATE ANYTHING” well, that’s the very assertion that’s in question and biblical evidences have been provided to you to the contrary.
@dishikadillon
First, go back through your comments. You were the first to yell; if you are insinuating all caps always means yelling, at me. This is not a discussion of salvation and if you’d go back and start at my original comment, it was pertaining to the “nephilim”. Now I’m not sure why you waited almost a week to come back and offer a response, but I’m not interested in being argumentative today. NO ANGELS CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING, AND IF YOU FEEL THEY CAN, GIVE SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP.
@kenammi355
I suppose that all caps can be used for emphasis but writing entire paragraphs in it gives a certain impression and is a bit harder to read.
Now, you asserted, “NO ANGELS CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING, AND IF YOU FEEL THEY CAN, GIVE SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP”
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
Now, let’s have you answer a version of your challenge: “NO ANGELS CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING, AND IF YOU FEEL” you can back up that assertion, “GIVE SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP”—but please don’t take Jesus out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext again.
@dishikadillon
Hello, again.
Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called “sons of God.” In John 1:12 it says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Does that have anything to do with nephilim? So, since In Judaism “Sons of God” usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth and all of the earliest sources interpret the “sons of God” as angels, it is man’s conclusion we’re leaning towards and not the word of God. I mean since we are known for taking things and running with it. Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Matthew 5:9 also speaks of the “sons of God” but where in the Bible do we here God ever refer to fallen angels or demons as the sons of God? Now in Job 1, when god refers to the sons of God, these seem to be good angels and not fallen angels. Maybe you should study the term “sons of God.”
The Hebrew word nefilim OR nephilim is sometimes directly translated as “giants” or taken to mean “the fallen ones”; some understand it to mean “the fallen ones” but this is a misunderstanding of The Hebrew. Their origins are disputed. I guess we’ll never know until God reveals it.
@kenammi355
Shalom again.
Well, “Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called ‘sons of God’” are assertions. Yet, it mattes not since just because “Angels” might be able to refer to “just and pious men, and the kings of Israel” can be “called ‘sons of God’” does not mean that there’s some sort of law about that “Angels” and “sons of God” cannot refer to anyone else: that’s just not how linguistics works.
Likewise, when you appeal to John 1:12 you’re being myopic and jumping from an Hebrew context to a Greek context from millennia later: that’s just not how linguistics works. Again, just because “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” and that doesn’t “have anything to do with nephilim” doesn’t mean that it never does.
Note your own qualifying term, “In Judaism ‘Sons of God’ USUALLY refers…” indeed, so that allows for unusual usages as well. It’s also problematic to refer to “In Judaism” since we have a many millennia worth of history so the “Judaism” of the Torah, the “Judaism” of secularists, “Rabbinic Judaism” or what? So, for example, if we mean the earliest commentary we have, including statement in apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, then it’s not even accurate to assert that it “usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth” but indeed “all of the earliest sources interpret the ‘sons of God’ as angels, it is man’s conclusion we’re leaning towards and not the word of God”—and I know these things since I wrote the book on them, literally, as I already noted and it’s titled, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
As for, “taking things and running with it” well, I’m unsure who’s doing that but, again: “Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as ‘Angelos’).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, ‘left their first estate,’ after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.”
So, you answered your own question about, “where in the Bible do we here God ever refer to fallen angels” not demons, “as the sons of God?”
As for, “Maybe you should study the term ‘sons of God’” but “Maybe” why? I literally published an entire chapter by that term in my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angolology.”
Actually, “giants” for “Nephilim” isn’t technically a translation but a mere rendering and one that is base on the LXX’s mere rendering of “Nephilim” as “gigantes” which literally means “earth born.” And yes, the root word “naphal” refers to fall/falling/fallen/feller, etc. I wrote a whole book just about the linguistics, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.”
As for, “Their origins are disputed” well, not for those who take Gen 6 as is thus, “we’ll never know until God reveals it” and He did in Gen 6 and just because that may cause our man-made traditions some trouble doesn’t mean we should close our eyes to it.
That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply