A certain Rolando William posted the following on Facebook:
◄ Genesis 6:4 ►
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
(How did the Angels do this )
The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men.
The Nephilim (Giants) are the offspring of the Anunnaki (fallen Angels)
It’s the reason Noah’s flood had to happen, as you can see next few verses.
Genesis 6:9-9:17
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.
Sophie Daniells Smith asked:
How on earth do you think a 20/30ft male fits inside a 5ft woman. He’d kill her so that is not plausible. Artificial insemination yes magic yes physicality no
David-Lauren Petre
Sophie Daniells Smith um I understand what your saying but everything was much bigger back then. Adam and even was 9 – 10 ft tall if not taller. Everything before the flood was bigger
Obianuju Onwunaso simply commentdd:
like seriously
Dirkie Müller asked David-Lauren Petre:
source please..
Rolando William to Obianuju Onwunaso:
Something happened at the global flood to shorten men’s lifespans. Compare the lifespans before the flood (Genesis 5:1–32) with those after the flood (Genesis 11:10–32). Immediately after the flood, the ages decreased dramatically and then kept decreasing. A key may be in Genesis 6:3: “The Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’” Many people see the reference to “a hundred and twenty years” as the new, divinely appointed limit on man’s age. By the time of Moses (who lived 120 years), lifespans were much lower. After Moses, only one person is recorded as having lived past 120 (2 Chronicles 24:15).
One theory for why the people of Genesis lived such long lives is based on the idea that a canopy of water used to surround the earth. According to the canopy theory, the water “above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7, KJV) created a greenhouse effect and blocked much of the radiation that now hits the earth, resulting in ideal living conditions. At the time of the flood, the water canopy was poured out on the earth (Genesis 7:11), ending the ideal environment. The canopy theory has been abandoned by most creationists today.
Another consideration is that, in the first few generations after creation, the human genetic code had developed few defects. Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were surely highly resistant to disease and illness. Their descendants would have inherited these advantages, albeit to lesser degrees. Over time, as a result of sin, the human genetic code became increasingly corrupted, and human beings became more and more susceptible to death and disease. This would also have resulted in drastically reduced lifespans.
Rolando William to Dirkie Müller:
Something happened at the global flood to shorten men’s lifespans. Compare the lifespans before the flood (Genesis 5:1–32) with those after the flood (Genesis 11:10–32). Immediately after the flood, the ages decreased dramatically and then kept decreasing. A key may be in Genesis 6:3: “The Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’” Many people see the reference to “a hundred and twenty years” as the new, divinely appointed limit on man’s age. By the time of Moses (who lived 120 years), lifespans were much lower. After Moses, only one person is recorded as having lived past 120 (2 Chronicles 24:15).
One theory for why the people of Genesis lived such long lives is based on the idea that a canopy of water used to surround the earth. According to the canopy theory, the water “above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7, KJV) created a greenhouse effect and blocked much of the radiation that now hits the earth, resulting in ideal living conditions. At the time of the flood, the water canopy was poured out on the earth (Genesis 7:11), ending the ideal environment. The canopy theory has been abandoned by most creationists today.
Another consideration is that, in the first few generations after creation, the human genetic code had developed few defects. Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were surely highly resistant to disease and illness. Their descendants would have inherited these advantages, albeit to lesser degrees. Over time, as a result of sin, the human genetic code became increasingly corrupted, and human beings became more and more susceptible to death and disease. This would also have resulted in drastically reduced lifespans.
May be an image of text
Kelli Cannon Lanford to David-Lauren Petre:
because the oxygen saturation in the air was different because it was before the flood. After the flood it was cut down so all things do not grow as big now.
Sophie Daniells Smith to Kelli Cannon Lanford:
is this when they capped the height and age of humans. After the flood, 120 years and so many feet
Kelli Cannon Lanford to Sophie Daniells Smith:
i would say yes. The flood changed the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Lack of oxygen means lack of growth.
Russell Hayden wasted our time by replying thusly to David-Lauren Petre
like your ego and mouth
Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith:
According to Genesis 6:4 in the Bible, giants, or Nephilim, were created when the “sons of God” had sex with human women:
Genesis 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them”.
Some Bible teachers believe that angels took the form of humans to have children with women, resulting in the creation of giants. The word “Nephilim” in Hebrew can be translated as “fallen ones”. The offspring of angels and humans, called Nephilim, were said to have a mixture of human and angelic power.
Dirkie Müller to Rolando William:
all authority on earth was given to Adam ( Gen. 1:28) meaning that a spirit need human’s authority on earth
Sophie Daniells Smith to Rolando William:
there’s no way a giant has sex with a 5ft woman without damaging her intestines and what not impossible physically. There’s no way a 30 inch is going in a 5ft woman impossible like I said so more lies in the bible
Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith:
here’s your answer to that
The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men.
Madilyn Moore to Sophie Daniells Smith:
why are you even in this group? Also you’re ignorant. No one said giants slept with women. The angels came down in HUMAN form and procreated with the women, which made the giants. The angels weren’t the giants. The offspring were. & if this is all lies, why tf are you even here?
Sophie Daniells Smith to Madilyn Moore:
why are you so rude.
I, True Freethinker, chimed in with this to Rolando William:
There’s no indication “angels took the form of humans” rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.” As for, “resulting in the creation of giants” what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
True Freethinker to Sophie Daniells Smith:
Yes, it’s a lie in the Bible: Num 13:33 is where someone would get the idea that Nephilim were very, very, very big but that’s identified in the Bible as an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. The problem is that pop-Nephilologists, who make a living selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians, actually believe that lie and sell it. The dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology–the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
FYI: I’ve written some dozen research based Nephilology books:
https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks
True Freethinker to Rolando William:
You’re consulting texts in which Angels look just like human males and you then artificially insert that they took on that form but there’s zero indication of that in the whole Bible. The logical conclusion is that such is just how they look ontologically.
Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith:
The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men.
Sophie Daniells Smith to Rolando William:
angels are not nephilim
Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith:
nope they are the offspring of them
Candace S Allen to Sophie Daniells Smith:
i agree but the stories go that nephalim were created by fallen angels and humans
Sophie Daniells Smith to Candace S Allen:
could an angel impregnate a woman with magic. Bit like how Mary got pregnant.
True Freethinker to Sophie Daniells Smith:
The key text, Gen 6, notes physical attraction, marriage, coming into, and offspring so it was good ol’ fashioned mating.
True Freethinker to Sophie Daniells Smith:
The dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Connie Monett noted:
Yes, and the story goes that he chose Noah because he was untainted. The word taint is usually associated with blood. So I take that to mean that Noah was not related to any of that
Dirkie Müller to Connie Monett:
The Bible says that God look at the intension of the heart, NOT THE BLOOD it pumps
Jeff Fellure to Dirkie Müller:
read it again… It’s not the intention of the heart… Everybody has good intentions the road to hell is paved with good intentions 
Dirkie Müller to Jeff Fellure:
maybe you should read and think what you read. There is no road to hell, we ALL (except Christ) were born in sin and sin is eternal death
Jeff Fellure to Dirkie Müller:
that’s why Jesus came to help us escape sin, but if you don’t accept Christ, then surely the only place for you to go as hell and everybody will say what I meant to this and I meant to do that and I was trying to do good and I intended to… [the rest of the comment was hidden with a “Read more” button but this particular comment seems to have been deleted since I first copied the comments section]
Dirkie Müller to Jeff Fellure:
you tell me to be quiet, FOOL? YOU should rather pay attention to Heb. 8:10 and John 6:45 and stop trying
George Buol to Connie Monett:
Matthew 24:37-39: “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be”. This verse describes how people in the days before the flood were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark.
Luke 17:26-30: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man”. This verse includes a similar description of people in the days before the flood.
2 Peter 2:5: “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and”
Olivia Garth to Luis Arturo Del Pozo (FYI: I have been skipping not very relevant comments):
the book of Enoch isn’t science it’s biblical history as Enoch was Noah’s great great grandfather
True Freethinker to Olivia Garth:
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah
Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
Thank you! However I have a question… ¿why are we infering the Nephilim are the Giants? Why? Lets use our mind! The scriptures say “the nephilim were before and after” the sons of God had offspring with the daughters of men… If they were before that then they cant be the result of such hibridation, do you get it? The scenario refers more to the eventual existance of Nephilim and Giants as 2 different races. So the question remains, what were the nephilim? This versicule states that before the arrival of the fallen angels the nephilim and the race of men were living on Earth. Correct me if Im wrong.
Rolando William to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Luis Arturo Del Pozo to Rolando William:
thank you, are NEPHILIM mentioned there? Or giants?
Luis Arturo Del Pozo to Rolando William:
already chequed, it says NEPHILIM. Oky, however it stills does not work when we try to infere the NEPHILIM were before the hibridation, because the scriptures says explicitelly they were before that happens. Something is missing in our sources.
Rolando William to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
they are giants also after the flood
True Freethinker to Rolando William:
Why didn’t you tell us that you’re appealing to an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked?
True Freethinker to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
True Freethinker to Rolando William:
But you’re uncritically chasing the English word around a Hebrew Bible.
Rolando William to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
The Nephilim are mentioned in three passages of the Hebrew Bible:
Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim are described as being on Earth in the past and after that, when the “sons of God” had children with the “daughters of men”. The King James Version translates the term “Nephilim” as “giants”.
Numbers 13:32–33
The Israelites are told about the Nephilim by ten of the Twelve Spies. The spies describe the Nephilim as the ancestors of the Anakites, a Rephaite tribe.
Ezekiel 32:27
Some scholars believe that the “fallen mighty men” in this passage may be an indirect reference to the Nephilim.
The Nephilim are often considered to be giants, but Genesis 6:4 doesn’t explicitly call them that. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word Nephilim as gigantes, which means “giants”. Some think the word Nephilim may come from the Aramaic word naphiyla, which also means “giant”.
True Freethinker to Rolando William:
Genesis 6:4 is the reliable record.
Numbers 13:32–33 is an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. You misrepresented that since it’s NOT, “The Israelites are told about the Nephilim by ten of the Twelve Spies”: it was 10 of them since Joshua and Caleb remained faithful and were not rebuked by God. The unreliable ones, “describe the Nephilim as the ancestors of the Anakites, a Rephaite tribe” (they actually make the exact opposite claim) only in non-LXX versions.
Ezekiel 32:27 it’s just using the root naphal.
As for, “The Nephilim are often considered to be giants” what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
“gigantes” means “earth-born” not “giants”—and if “giants” well, that’s begs the questions I just asked.
“naphiyla” means fallen/fall, etc.—and, again, if “giant” then we’re back to the questions.
David Mudge to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
the nephelim were the children born from the sons of God,
That grew into the known giants like eg: Goliath.
Luis Arturo Del Pozo to David Mudge:
the scriptures says they existed on earth before the hibridation. Read again the versicule. Your interpretation, a very common one, seems to be wrong.
True Freethinker to David Mudge:
Goliath, the Repha, has utterly nothing to do with Nephilim.
True Freethinker to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
True Freethinker to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
Three issues:
1) You jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the modern generically subjective English one “Giants.”
2) What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
3) When you wrote, ” The scriptures say “the nephilim were before and after”” you cut that verse in half at the critical point since it actually states, “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.”
Nick Philo:
Unfortunately the Protestant denominations have really muddies the understanding of what a Nephilim is simply because they interpret scriptures as a literal historical document in all of its content, which was NEVER how scripture was meant to be read. Without historical context they read the Nephilim as being the product of sexual intercourse between humans and fallen angels. Frankly that idea is completely ridiculous and shows a massive lack of understanding and wisdom.
Rolando William to Nick Philo:
Sophie Daniells Smith here’s your answer to that
The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men.
Nick Philo to Rolando William Rolando William:
yes you are correct that angels and demons can manifest into human physical form however that form is only superficial. They don’t have reproductive capabilities, however there’s another answer that makes way more sense. Now the reason why this answer isn’t found in the scriptures is because the author(s) of text presuppose that you already have knowledge about these rituals that were used to create Nephilim.
Nephilim weren’t considered to have just two parents but 3. Those rituals involved a priest-king and a temple prostitute in most cases and whatever god that was being worshipped within that group of people. The priest-king would make sacrifices and call upon his god (always a demon that was pretending to be a god) and willingly give his body to it. The possessed priest-king would then engage in a sexual ritual with the prostitute and the hope would be that his seed impregnated her. If it was successful, the child would be considered a demigod. This is how god-kings were created. Think of Xerxes from the movie 300.
The wording in the Book of Genesis while it does say giant, it doesn’t give us a clear definition of what that looks like in practical terms except that the Nephilim or giants were the strong men or men of renown from the days of old from before the flood. Those rituals most certainly survived because we see a very famous Nephilim within the scriptures who is none other than Goliath. While the Protestant version of that story paints Goliath to be around 9’9″, which would be gigantic. Even though in modern times we see people in rarity growing to extreme heights, the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew and was the text that Christ and the apostles used puts Goliath at around 6’6″ which is a somewhat more common size by modern standards, he still would’ve towered over the average person who were much shorter on average.
Jonathan Fitzgerald to Nick Philo:
6’6′ is by no means a giant! Excuse me! The Israelites looked like grasshoppers before the inhabitants of the promised land.
Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
in this description you are saying demons helped the fallen Angels reproduce with humans. Demons are the souls of the nephelim that died in the flood. So you’re saying the offspring of those unions were necessary to create the unions. Hmmm….
Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
I think you should reread what I’m saying because what you think I said is not at all what I was expressing. The fallen angels ARE the demons.
What I’m saying is that the fallen angels (demons) used humanity to create Nephilim which are essentially demonized human beings
Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
I think our misunderstanding is that you think the 200 fallen angels were demons and I think they were not. I think they were angels who created evil offspring that corrupted the earth to the point that God killed them with The Flood. I think demons are the disembodied spirits of those evil offspring.i go by the Hebrew word “naphal” which means fallen and “im” on the end of a word means many. So the fallen many.
Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
so the Bible is pretty clear as to what fallen angels are. I think you’re probably the first person in my 41 years of life that I’ve ran into that argues that they’re not demons. The understanding of the Church which is pretty consistent throughout ALL of Christendom (yes we actually all agree on certain things) is that when an angel falls, that means they have rebelled against the Most High God, which in turn makes them a demon. The scriptures really don’t give a middle ground. If one says that fallen angels aren’t demons then that begs the question of where demons actually come from, which further implies that demons were created to be demons. That in and of itself goes against the idea that God when His creation was finished it was good as clearly stated in the early Book of Genesis.
Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
Ive read the Bible several times and never read that the fallen angels became demons. I’m starting another read through right now with a new Bible version and new list of questions. I’ll put this on my list for this read through.
Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
you should check out the Orthodox Study Bible.
True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
It’s not that “angels…can manifest into human physical form” but rather that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”
As for, “demons can manifest into human physical form” I’m unaware of that: can you provide citations, please?
You asserted Angels, “don’t have reproductive capabilities” well, demons don’t since they’re spirits but since Angels look just like human males, why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
The only indication of “rituals that were used to create Nephilim” is folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: the biblical recipe for creating Nephilim is mating between sons of God and daughters of men.
“Nephilim weren’t considered to have just two parents but 3” by whom and when?
Surely, thousand of post-flood possessed people have mated but it’s never resulted in Nephilim—not matter what any “movie” says.
You mean, “The wording in” only some modern English Bibles, “the Book of Genesis while it does say giant” and, indeed, it doesn’t physically described them.
You asserted, “Nephilim within the scriptures who is none other than Goliath” but you implied that God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. Also, Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil: we’re told that about him virtually every time he’s mentioned—how did you miss that?
The Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
True Freethinker to Jonathan Fitzgerald:
You’re appealing to a standard for what is a “giant” but there’s no such thing and you’re relying on one sentence from an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree? The dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology–the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
True Freethinker to Cindy Inabnit
That demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?”
https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/10/03/demons-ex-machina-what-are-demons
True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
Cindy is relying on folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: Jubilees and 1 Enoch.
Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
the Bible says the angels came to earth and “went into” the women, making wives of as many as they pleased. It says the angels defiled themselves with the women. The women bore giants as a consequence of these unions, who became men of renown . You may think it’s ridiculous, but the Bible says it happened.
Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
I’d like you to think about what you just wrote for a minute. Angels came to earth and went into women… So if a baby was conceived from a Nephilim ritual and the growing embryo now was possessed by said demon, wouldn’t that mean the demon was physically inside the woman since it was possessing the unborn child?
What about Angels defying themselves with women. Wouldn’t it make sense that a fallen angel that possessed a priest-king and had sexual intercourse during the possession, wouldn’t that be an act of defilement for that angel? I’m inclined to say yes.
The women bearing children which were possessed and considered to be demi-gods or in biblical language giants (Nephilim), don’t you think that falls in line with the scriptures? The Church for the last 2,000 years would say yes.
Do I think it’s ridiculous, no. What I think is ridiculous is the literal interpretation of scriptures that I see within protestantism. Those scriptures were originally written in a very different context than what modern readers typically understand which is why these ancient understandings seem so foreign to you. It’s because you’re trying to understand ancient writings through a modern lens. That just doesn’t work well. You’re not even taking into account how difficult it is to get a solid translation from ancient Hebrew to the English language. That too makes modern translations really just goofy and inaccurate
Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
I read the Bible as literal. All through the Bible when husbands had intercourse with their wives it is described as “knew his wife” or “went into”. You be as complicated as pleases you. I will stick with my literal version.
Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
I’m sorry that is how you choose to understand and interpret it. It’s wasn’t ever meant to be interpreted that way. That’s how you end up with doctrine that contradicts itself however do as you wish. Interpreting scriptures as literally as you can has only been a thing for a few hundred years. The true Church has never done that which is evident through History. Even the literal interpretation of God the Father paints Him as angry and vengeful when truly He transcends those emotions. The God you believe in is very different from the True God, but the only way you can come to the conclusion that scripture should be taken literally is by elevating yourself delusionally to believe that you have the capacity to understand God in all of His ways, which the scriptures clearly indicate is impossible from the human perspective. Good luck with that Cindy. I used to think that way too and it only leads to darkness and confusion
True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
You moved the goalpost since Cindy said, “angels came to earth and ‘went into’ the women” but you replied about, “if a baby was conceived from a Nephilim ritual.”
As for, “a fallen angel that possessed” since there’s zero indication Angles, fallen or not, ever possess anyone.
There’s literally zero indication that, “The women bearing children which were possessed…falls in line with the scriptures” nor with, “The Church for the last 2,000 years” and I literally wrote the book on that, “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.”
What you did is to reject what you caricature in your assertion of a, “literal interpretation of scriptures that I see within Protestantism” and replaced it with a made up fantasy based on mere folklore.
True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
“Protestant denominations…interpret scriptures as a literal historical document in all of its content” is a mere assertion.
“completely ridiculous” is a merely emotively subjective assertion.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
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.
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.”
Leslie Coomer:
Maybe sons of Seth and daughters of Cain?
Christopher Goldman:
This proves God was not a liberal. He didn’t try to understand the inequity of the giants upbringing. We’re the giants traumatized and had ptsd? Were the giants underprivileged or having white privilege? See. God made a straight forward answer.
Michael Cordet Meyers to Christopher Goldman:
God also made them that way. As he did everything else. Infallible? I think not.
Christopher Goldman to Michael Cordet Meyers:
I guess it makes sense if we figure out God was one of Elohim or Annunaki and not omnipotent. And also, was yawey (I can’t spell that) beholden to Anu? Was Anu the main God of gods?
True Freethinker to Michael Cordet Meyers:
That’s a theologically incoherent assertion so what makes you assert that?
True Freethinker to Steve Laurence Cadungog Lequido:
What does a ridiculous cartoon have to do with anything?
Peter Stuifzand to Gustav Burger:
Enoch was the chosen one. To hide this fact alone they invented the Jesus lie. Everything in this so called manmade system is is ment to hide the truth about our flat square earth as described in the very first book of Enoch. So thats including all reLIEgions.
True Freethinker to Peter Stuifzand:
The ubiquitous appeal to a mysterious “they” who are never defined: seen is 1,001 times. What’s “reLIEgions”? 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”
Peter Stuifzand to Gustav Burger:
Enoch1 is the oldest book known to mankind, much older than the oldest bible and probably even older than 6000 years and nowhere in Enoch1 was the name of Jesus Christ mentioned, nor a Messiah. The letter J is not even older than 600 years. Enoch described the spirit of the sun/son of the lawd/lord. The spirit is the sun. Many reLIEgions have figures like Jesus such as Mithras, Horus, Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, Boeddha, etc etc. This is called syncretism.
True Freethinker to Peter Stuifzand:
You’re basing a mere assertion on a text for which there’s zero indication that it existed before it was written a few centuries BC.
Peter Stuifzand to Gustav Burger:
Christians can or will not even read their own bible properly. The godssss in the bible are in reality the black elves who are hiding themselves on Atlantis probably together with the Nephilim and their human slaves. The black elves are trying to rule the world from there..What most people think what the grey aliens are, are in reality also the black elves
Larry Price:
It’s going to happen again
Ramon Mares III:
So my the words of that verse, God was man… And the Angels were also????
Timona Mbogani:
I agree with you…….. But…..
Angels aren’t sons of God. Anges are angels. They can take the form of man, but won’t procreate with humans.
Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). The generation of Adam through Seth were the sons of God. Eve the untainted and righteous Noah was the son of God.
The sons of men were the seed of the serpent through Cain the son of the evil one Serpent (1 John 3:2). I hope you have seen in the Bible, Cain wasn’t the son of Adam. And before the serpent was cursed in Genesis 3 to crawl like snakes, he was upright, clever and very subtle than even Adam himself (And even the serpent’s spiritual generation that walks on two feet like we humans up to now are very subtle than any creature on earth).
When the sons of God (through Seth) intermarried with the sons of men (through Cain) fame rose. And it became sinful before God cos their imagination became continually evil and giants were also born.
Rolando William to Timona Mbogani:
In the Bible, the title “Son of God” and “sons of God” can refer to different people or groups of people, with different meanings:
Jesus
In Christianity, Jesus is the unique “Son of God” because he has the same nature as God. The title is used in the New Testament and early Christian theology to describe Jesus’ status as the divine son of God the Father.
Adam
Adam is called the “son of God” in Jesus’ genealogy because he was created directly by God.
Angels
Angels are called “sons of God” because they were created by God.
Israel
In the Book of Hosea, God calls the nation Israel “My son”, making it a “son of God” in a special sense.
Peacemakers
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that those who are peacemakers will be called “sons of God”.
Believers
Believers who are part of the resurrection of the righteous dead are also called “sons of God”.
Historical figures
In the Old Testament, historical figures like Jacob and Solomon are referred to as “Sons of God” because of their descent from Adam.
The title “son of God” is defined more in terms of being submissive or in one accord with God, rather than in biological terms.
Timona Mbogani to Rolando William:
I agree with you to an extent…… where in the Bible are angles called sons of God? Which scripture?
Rolando William to Timona MboganiL
The “sons of God” are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 6:1–4:
The story
The “sons of God” lusted after the daughters of men and had children with them, resulting in the birth of giants called the Nephilim. The Nephilim were described as “mighty men of old” and “men of renown”. God sent a flood to destroy the giants and cleanse the earth.
There are multiple interpretations of who the “sons of God” were:
(Fallen angels:)
The “sons of God” were angels, as the phrase “sons of God” is used to refer to angels in other parts of the Old Testament. However, Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry.
(Powerful human rulers:)
The “sons of God” were powerful human rulers at the time. The daughters of men were commoners, and the union between the two groups led to a race of people who rebelled against God.
(Godly descendants of Seth:)
The “sons of God” were godly descendants of Seth who intermarried with wicked descendants of Cain.
(Evil spirits:)
The “sons of God” were evil spirits who took possession of the bodies of wicked men and used them for their own sinful purposes.
Timona Mbogani to Rolando William:
you’re evading my simple question with your long stories. Is there any scripture that says angels are sons of God????
True Freethinker to Timona Mbogani:
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
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.
True Freethinker to Rolando William:
It’s not the case that “Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry” since Jesus was only speaking of “Angels of God” who are “in heaven” and not all of them all the time in all times and places. It was about the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Gordon Ogana to Timona Mbogani:
excuse…where does the theory of Cain being not the son of Adam come from?,In Gen 4 Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived and begot a son with the help of the LORD…and she called his name Cain.In olden scripture it says that the children of God looked down from heaven and saw that the daughters born to men were fair.They took on bodies came down and picked as they pleased, after completing their mission they unclothed the human bodies wanting to return to heaven but God refused them.They are imprisoned somewhere in the present day Iraq waiting judgement. See
Timona Mbogani to Gordon Ogana:
1 John 3:12. Cain was the son of the evil one. If Cain was the son of Adam, then you must mean that Adam was evil, yet the very Bible in Luke 3;38 calls Adam the son of God.
If you say Cain is the son of Adam, then you mean Adam is evil, and you will be blaspheming God by taking God as the father of an evil one.
Right?
My question and Rolando Williams has avoided to answer, is there any scripture that says ANGLES ARE SONS OF GOD?
True Freethinker to Gordon Ogana:
I was with you until the “They took on bodies” part since there’s zero indication of that in the entire Bible. Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”
True Freethinker to Timona Mbogani:
Why did you manipulate John, God’s Word? You cut the statement to avoid that John told us what he meant by that and it was nothing about genetics, “Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” Think about what else you wrote, “If Cain was the son of Adam, then you must mean that Adam was evil” but since Adam was the son of God, then you must mean that God was evil, right? Likewise, “If you say Cain is the son of Adam, then you mean Adam is evil, and you will be blaspheming God by taking God as the father of an evil one” well, if you say Adam is the son of God, then you mean God is evil, and you will be blaspheming God by taking God as the father of an evil one (Adam, the sinner). Right? As for, “is there any scripture that says ANGLES ARE SONS OF GOD?” Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth. 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.
True Freethinker to Timona Mbogani:
“Angels aren’t sons of God. Anges are angels”: that’s a false dichotomy since more than one term can refer to the same thing. Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
“They can take the form of man”: there’s literally zero indication of that. Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”
“won’t procreate with humans”: that’s a mere assertion. 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.
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.”
What “The sons of men”?
Why did John say “Cain the son of the evil one Serpent (1 John 3:2)”?
You merely asserted, “Cain wasn’t the son of Adam” but I hope you have seen in the Bible that he is, Gen 4:1.
“sons of God (through Seth) intermarried with the sons of men (through Cain)” is just a late-comer of a mythical view based on prejudice.
Peter Gerald:
But the Nephilim SURVIVED the flood!! The children of the Nephilim had corrupt DNA maybe that is why God told the Israelites to wipe out every man women and child of the Canaanites for the Nephilim were among them.
True Freethinker to Peter Gerald:
By merely asserting, “Nephilim SURVIVED the flood!!” You contradicted the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) does that matter to you? What makes you think that God failed, that He missed a loophole, that the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.? Just how did you get them past the flood, past your failed god? You also merely asserted, “The children of the Nephilim had corrupt DNA maybe that is why God told the Israelites to wipe out every man women and child of the Canaanites for the Nephilim were among them” but there’s literally zero reliable indication of that and God told us many times why He commanded those things but never said one single word about Nephilim.
Ron Brooks:
Who says angel form isn’t human like all the time? Two of them proceeded to Sodom and Gomorrah. They were seen as men there also.
True Freethinker to Ron Brooks:
AMEN!!!!!! Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Juan Esteban:
Origins of Demons
True Freethinker to Juan Esteban:
For a biblical view, please see my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?”
George Edward Lozano:
If giants bmad all the pyramids! And then it flooded ? How did they make the city’s without giants
True Freethinker to George Edward Lozano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDv1_fJtBiI&t=3s
Ancient Alien Megalithic Builders vs Wally Wallington & Edward Leedskalnin
Darryl Williams:
The Bible says “Sons of God,” it don’t say “Angels.”
Wasn’t Enoch one of the Sons of the folks mentioned in Genesis 1:27? Prior the the creation of a slave man by “The Lord God,” CHI-HOWA.
True Freethinker to Darryl Williams:
Any given thing can be referred to in more than one way: such as Jesus, Y’shua, Yehoshua, Christ, Kristos, Messiah, Mashiach, etc., etc., etc. Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
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.
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.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.