Who are the Nephilim (Genesis 6) ?

[BPPLEE]

So what about the fallen angels that didn't leave their own habitation?

Eph 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Since it's a disputable manner, shouldn't it be disputed rather than let go? Personally I think it's fun to argue over this sort of thing. Whatever/whenever the Nephilim were, they're long gone now. Unless one wants to argue that they're still around masquerading as little gray aliens from Zeta Reticuli or whatever.

With matters like these, a certain level of detachment is required. I agree, it is fun to argue over this sort of thing, it becomes less fun if someone appears to be taking either side of the dispute too seriously.

There were a number of tribes that were killed off by humans, including the Nephilim. The grey alien deal seems to be a different matter. The mythology surrounding Grey Aliens is they are really small, and use telepathy as a deterrent and communication tool .. the mythology of the giants do not match.

 

[ozso]

With matters like these, a certain level of detachment is required. I agree, it is fun to argue over this sort of thing, it becomes less fun if someone appears to be taking either side of the dispute too seriously.

There were a number of tribes that were killed off by humans, including the Nephilim. The grey alien deal seems to be a different matter. The mythology surrounding Grey Aliens is they are really small, and use telepathy as a deterrent and communication tool .. the mythology of the giants do not match.

I bet they have an explanation for that.

 

[d taylor]

I've always read it to mean afterwards.

-

​

Why, in the context of the chapter the flood is not mentioned until verse 13

 

[Postvieww]

So what about the fallen angels that didn't leave their own habitation?

They still exist and promote evil on the earth. Some are in charge of areas of the earth.

1. Daniel 10:13
   But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
2. Daniel 10:20
   Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

See post #141

 

[JulieB67]

I definitely believe that the "sons of God" are angels. We see that tied into Job as well. Why else would it be described as sons of God -daughters of men if all were human? It wouldn't need to be described that way.

Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

This verse here already tells us that human men began to multiply and daughters were born to them. Marriages, births are already taking place between humans.

And so this verse is entirely different -

Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

There is no need for verse two if both verses are meant to be human. Again, where's the sense in that?

Noah being "perfect in his generations" means his family had not mixed. So God wanted to preserve that blood line- the blood line that Christ would ultimately come through.

And as others have noted, we see this sin laid out in Jude as well. Just as S and G had went after strange flesh, the angels were like minded as well and the strange flesh they went after was human. They left their own habitation to do so. Of course we don't know everything there is to know about it. But we know angels have mass, they have bodies- they can eat our food and vice versa, etc. They are not just spirits. And Satan and his angels will be cast out in the future as noted in Revelation 12. Which is one of the reasons I believe Christ states it will be just like the days of Noah because that's what was happening. Only this time, it will be a flood of lies produced by Satan and his.

 

[storypeddler]

-

​

Nephilim actually means fallen ones. They were not giants, but they were fallen because they were the offspring of fallen angels (sons of God) and daughters of men

There is no reason NOT to believe they were both. The bible explicitly describes and talks about giants in numerous places. The term translated "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is used everywhere else to refer specifically to angels. We know angels can assume human form---there are multiple instances of this in the bible. We know angels, unfallen and fallen, have extraordinary abilities far beyond those of currently fallen man. Angels and humans are two entirely different and distinct orders of creation and were NEVER meant to mix genetically. This is the reason God so harshly judged those fallen angels who participated in this activity (Jude, 2 Peter 4) and one of the reasons for the flood. The genetic mixing of angelic beings with humans should quite naturally lead us to expect offspring that were less than angels but physically superior to fallen man. Giants, many bearing other physical abnormalities (too many fingers and toes, etc.) was the result.

 

[storypeddler]

I have an interesting question to ponder regarding this topic, however. God severely judged those fallen angels who participated in the genetic mixing of Genesis 6. All air-breathing life on earth, except what was in the ark, was wiped out in the flood. And yet we see giants, Nephilim, and others described as their descendants appearing in numerous places long after the flood. Assuming all of the original Nephilim were destroyed in the flood---and this is what the bible clearly describes---then where do these later Nephilim come from? I seems there are only two possible explanations. Either someone on the ark (one of Noah's daughters-in-law?) carried Nephilim blood/genetic material OR some fallen angels attempted this diabolical experiment again after the flood. What do you think?

 

[Apple Sky]

where do these later Nephilim come from? I seems there are only two possible explanations. Either someone on the ark (one of Noah's daughters-in-law?) carried Nephilim blood/genetic material OR some fallen angels attempted this diabolical experiment again after the flood.

I reckon there were another set of fallen angels who must have carried on with this diabolical act.

The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood.

If these sons of God were fallen angels, then these fallen angels are in addition to the ones who were locked up in the abyss as a result of their having sexual relations with human females before the flood.

Thus, the abyss would contain two sets of fallen angels: those who had violated human women before the flood and those who had violated human women after the flood.
If the sons of God were human males, this interpretation would imply that God had commanded the sons of Shem and/or Japheth not to have sexual relations with the daughters of Ham and/or Canaan. The violation of this command evidently would have produced a second generation of Nephilim.

IMO these second lot of angles may have landed in Sodom and Gomorrah as it's not long after the flood that God tells Abraham that he going to destroys these two places. Genesis 18:16.

Q&A: How Did the Nephilim Reappear after the Flood?.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usg=AOvVaw1x1z_6ksDbhPQ7a4i-bwBu&opi=89978449
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usg=AOvVaw1x1z_6ksDbhPQ7a4i-bwBu&opi=89978449

 

[FaithT]

Well... angels are described as being physically human in nature several times. The men of Sodom wanted to "know" them. Paul says people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it it. Jacob wrestled with an angel.

I love that Scripture where Paul says we might’ve entertained angels without even knowing it.

 

[d taylor]

There is no reason NOT to believe they were both. The bible explicitly describes and talks about giants in numerous places. The term translated "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is used everywhere else to refer specifically to angels. We know angels can assume human form---there are multiple instances of this in the bible. We know angels, unfallen and fallen, have extraordinary abilities far beyond those of currently fallen man. Angels and humans are two entirely different and distinct orders of creation and were NEVER meant to mix genetically. This is the reason God so harshly judged those fallen angels who participated in this activity (Jude, 2 Peter 4) and one of the reasons for the flood. The genetic mixing of angelic beings with humans should quite naturally lead us to expect offspring that were less than angels but physically superior to fallen man. Giants, many bearing other physical abnormalities (too many fingers and toes, etc.) was the result.

-
​

Well i see no need in the nephilim being giant in height, just having super strength and maybe intelligence.

I personally believe if dinosaurs did exist, they were also a product of this encounter with angels as The Bible states.

So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

 

[storypeddler]

-
​

Well i see no need in the nephilim being giant in height, just having super strength and maybe intelligence.

I personally believe if dinosaurs did exist, they were also a product of this encounter with angels as The Bible states.

So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Well, the thing is that there are numerous instances in the Old Testament where certain individuals or groups of individuals were specifically described as giant beings with reference made to their relation to the Nephilim. Numbers 13:33. Deuteronomy 2:10-11. 2 Samuel 21:16. 2 Samuel 21:18. 2Samuel 21:20. 2 Samuel 21:22. 1 Chronicles 20:6. There is mention of the Rephaites, the Emim, the Anakim, and other groups who were all apparently descendants of the Nephilim. Goliath and his brothers were Philistines and were also among these groups. It's all over the Old Testament.

 

[d taylor]

Well, the thing is that there are numerous instances in the Old Testament where certain individuals or groups of individuals were specifically described as giant beings with reference made to their relation to the Nephilim. Numbers 13:33. Deuteronomy 2:10-11. 2 Samuel 21:16. 2 Samuel 21:18. 2Samuel 21:20. 2 Samuel 21:22. 1 Chronicles 20:6. There is mention of the Rephaites, the Emim, the Anakim, and other groups who were all apparently descendants of the Nephilim. Goliath and his brothers were Philistines and were also among these groups. It's all over the Old Testament.

-
​

The only reference to the nephilim in the verses you posted is in Numbers 13 and that was part of the lies the spies told about the land. Again no recorded record of there being nephilim in the promise land when the Hebrews conquered the land.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[d taylor]

-
​

I wonder if The Bishops Wife has Genesis 6 as some of it's inspiration, in creating the angel character in the movie.

 

[JulieB67]

The movie City of Angels with Nicolas Cage comes to my mind. A movie that went over my head years ago before I began my serious studies into the Word. And now -wow! Talk about subtly inserting this stuff by way of a Hollywood romance movie into the masses with this kind of story. It even uses the word "falling" in reference to what they are doing.

 

[Paleouss]

I definitely believe that the "sons of God" are angels. We see that tied into Job as well. Why else would it be described as sons of God -daughters of men if all were human? It wouldn't need to be described that way.

Julie, I hope your week has started well. I don't think I have interacted with you before. Greetings. I just thought I would respond to a couple of points. Many already know my position on the matter from other threads. I do not believe that the "sons of God" in Gen 6 are angles.

Regarding your reference to Job and his use of "sons of God" to refer to angels in the book of Job. Interestingly, Job uses a common form of the word "angel" in other verses within the book of Job. For Example, mal-awk and mal·’ā·ḵāw (Job 33:23, Job 2:18), are commonly used words for angel that are also used 8 times in Genesis and 64 times throughout the Old Testament.

The point in the above is to present that Job knows the common word used for "angel". So the question becomes... Why did Job us a less common phrase, bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm, to describe the angels in Job 1:6, 2:1, & 38:7? Because he clearly knows and uses the common form of a word for angel in other verses.

Interestingly, all three of the verses in which Job uses the word bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm, there are 3 groups. In Job 1:6 and 2:1 the groups are: (1) the Lord, (2) Satan, and (3) other angels. If Job would have written mal-awk, then we we might be confused as to who these 'other angels' are. Are they fallen angels coming to confront the Lord with Satan or are they good angels? We wouldn't know because the text wouldn't tell us. But Job did tell us who they were by using the phrase bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm (sons of God). The common and natural reading of the text in Job is that Job is referring to a common imagery theme found throughout the Bible and is assigning a moniker to these angels as 'sons of God'. Thereby denoting 'whose they are', and thereby contrasting them against Satan, the adversary.

This common imagery theme is found throughout the Bible. Angels in favor and respect of God are called "angels of God" (Gen 28:12, Gen 32:1, Luke 12:8, Luke 12:9, Luke 15:10, John 1:51, Hebrews 1:6), "sons of the mighty" (psal 89:6), “holy ones” (Psalm 89:5), and “holy watchers” (Daniel 4:13). Fallen angels are never referred to as having favor, membership, or an ethical standard of the Lord.

Additionally, within the rest of the Bible, the imagery of sons of God denotes a membership, ethical standard, and favor of God; it denotes ‘whose you are’. This consistent imagery that sons of God, children of God, daughters of God are reserved for those in the favor, membership, and respect of God and his blessings seems to be supported by the fact that no other reference within the Bible gives imagery or a moniker of favor to a fallen angel (or man). But, in fact, fallen angels are depicted within context of “cursed” (Matt 25:41) “leading the world astray” (Rev 12:9), being in Hell and chained (2Pet 2:4), kept in chains under darkness (we are excluding Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 for the time being).

It would be inconsistent with the entire rest of the Bible to take this common imagery theme and then turn it on its ear and say the "sons of God" in Job refers to fallen angels. With this in mind, to say that the Bible in regard to Genesis 6, with the Spirit inspiring, would give reference to a fallen angel as being a 'son of God' rather than depicting them as evil, sinful, cursed, or fallen would be a contradiction to what the rest of the Bible communicates to us.

If you are interested in the natural reading of Genesis 6, the essay: An Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-2 Within Context: The Lineage of “Thy Seed” and “Her seed” on Academia.edu is interesting, IMO.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.

 

[JulieB67]

It would be inconsistent with the entire rest of the Bible

Thanks for the post but this is where we differ. Again, I think the book of Jude touches on the sin of Genesis 6. We see that the angels specifically left their habitation to go after strange flesh. We see in Genesis 6 just what that strange flesh was.

It's fine to take things back to the Hebrew but I still don't see sons of God as referring to human men in these passages.

Also again, the verse before already showed that men were already multiplying therefore the next verse makes no sense if it's just repeating the same thing.


Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

Human men


Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Angels.

Which ties into these verses -

Jude 6 "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."

Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 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.

Additionally, within the rest of the Bible, the imagery of sons of God denotes a membership, ethical standard, and favor of God; it denotes ‘whose you are’. This consistent imagery that sons of God, children of God, daughters of God are reserved for those in the favor,

But in Genesis 6 it is describing what led to the downfall and ultimately the flood.

And Noah had favor with God because of his generations being perfect. Meaning they hadn't mixed.

say the "sons of God" in Job refers to fallen angels.

I don't think "sons of God" refers to only "fallen angels" I think it refers to types of angels and men period, not just fallen. The angels in Genesis 6 were considered "the sons of God" and then they went on to fall. But they were still considered the "sons of God" until they fell. I see morning stars as types of angels as well. And both sets are present when God first laid the foundation of the earth.

Job 38:6 "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;"

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"


I doubt we'll change one another's mind, but that's fine.

 

[Paleouss]

Thanks for the post but this is where we differ. Again, I think the book of Jude touches on the sin of Genesis 6. We see that the angels specifically left their habitation to go after strange flesh. We see in Genesis 6 just what that strange flesh was.

Julie, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I had previously written that saying the "sons of God" were fallen angels is inconsistent with the general theme of depicting 'whose they are' found in the Bible. I gave some verses to demonstrate that very general theme that is expressing 'whose they are' when speaking of angels and humans. So when you say, "this is where we differ", I don't see any verses by you that would suggest the contrary. That is, your verses that demonstrate the theme of 'whose they are' being false. The current verses under debate don't count as their own proof.

You did state, however, that "Jude touches on the sin of Genesis 6. I would like to make some points here.

(Jude 1:6 NKJV) 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

I grant to you that Jude 1:6 speaks to some angels who (a) left their proper domain, and (b) left their own abode. I also grant that these angels, because of these offenses just named, were put in everlasting chains until judgement day. In this, we are in total agreement. I would also grant to you that this offense of some angels happened sometime before the flood.

Here is what is not in Jude 1:6... (1) that it is a reference to Genesis 6:1-4, at least specifically; and (2) that angels procreated with human women. These last two, (1) and (2) are not what Jude affirms and he does not speak to either. This reading that Jude refers to Gen 6:1-4 and interspecies procreation has to be inferred onto the text. Now, sometimes inferences are justified, but only if they can actually be shown to be justified. The verse of Jude 1:6 in no way affirms that Genesis 6:1-4 is speaking about angels.

I wrote... the imagery of sons of God denotes a membership, ethical standard, and favor of God; it denotes ‘whose you are’. This consistent imagery that sons of God, children of God, daughters of God are reserved for those in the favor,

Julie Replied
But not in this case. It does not fit within the context of Genesis 6. We are talking about what led to the downfall and ultimately the flood.

And Noah had favor with God because of his generations being perfect. Meaning they hadn't mixed.

Well, that is the point. That is, when one looks at the consistency of the Bible and then tries to say, "but not in this case". It seems to me that one should have pause. A sort of, wait a minute, if my thinking this isn't constant with the rest of the Bible (the theme of 'whose they are' that is), maybe I should rethink this.

You then say regarding "sons of God" being human men, "It does not fit within the context". Can you please show me in any verse before or after Genesis 6:1-4 that the actual context is speaking about angels? All that I find are verses referring to human beings. This is what 'context' really means, that is, the surrounding verses in question (surrounding Gen 6:1-4).

You follow that up by saying, "Noah had favor with God because their generations being perfect. Meaning they hadn't mixed." Can you please show me anywhere in the Bible that supports this assertion? This would seem to be another "it does to fit within the context". In the rest of the Bible, meaning not how you interpreted Gen 6 here, favor and right standing with God is according to faith. This can be backed up by verses like “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb 11:4) and 1John 3:12. But your assertion seems to just be something you are reading into the text.

I don't think "sons of God" refers to only "fallen angels" I think it refers to types of angels and men period, not just fallen. The angels in Genesis 6 were considered "the sons of God" and then they went on to fall. But they were still considered the "sons of God" until they fell. I see morning stars as types of angels as well. And both sets are present when God first laid the foundation of the earth.

I apologize for not being clear enough. Your response above was about me saying that "sons of God" refer to good angels in favor of the Lord. Not "fallen angels" as you wrote that I said. My point was that the general theme of possession in phrases of the Bible don't use 'sons of God' as referring to the fallen. You say, but this is the exception, and that's my whole point. It's something that you want to be an execution. This should give you pause.

You also wrote that "The angels in Genesis 6 were considered "sons of God" and then they went on to fall. This I totally agree with. There most certainly were at one time "sons of God", who were angels, that are now fallen. However, I stated in the other post, if you look at all the other cases in the Bible, after angels had fallen, the fallen angels with Satan included are never referred as such after their fall. The point is that the Bible consistently shows that it no longer refers to the fallen as being called any name that suggest being in the favor of God after their fall, since they are no longer in the favor or God. Again, for this not to be true, an exception must be made in Gen 6:1-2. There seems to be a reoccurring thing going on here, that is, exemptions must be made to hold an angel view.

This post is getting long. I'll address the Genesis verses 6:1-2 in another post.

Peace to you my brother
I hope your week is blessed

 

[Paleouss]

Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

Human men


Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Angels.

Greetings Julie.

Just wanted to add an alternate view of Gen 6:1-2 before I shut my posting down.

Genesis 6:1 (KVJ)
hê·ḥêl
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,

The Hebrew word hê·ḥêl is translated to began. Of the 19 occurrences of the word hê·ḥêl that is used in the Bible, 18 are clearly used in the context of defilement. On the other hand, hū·ḥal is another Hebrew word translated to began. It is not used in any defilement text.

Gen 4:26 (KJV)
hū·ḥal
“then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.”

As you can see, hū·ḥal is used in Genesis 4:26 speaking of those men that call on the name of the Lord. Conversely, hê·ḥêl is used in verses of defilement, like Genesis 6:1. So when Gensis 6:1 uses the word hê·ḥêl, basically it is saying...

Now it came to pass, when defilement-began → man to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them

Now this verse becomes more clear. Since the Hebrew hê·ḥêl always carries with it a defilement connotation of “began” in scripture and the fact that Genesis 6 is about the sin of man that leads to a cleansing through the flood. We can see that Genesis 6:1 is saying, those men who are defiled in the face of the Lord began to multiply and had daughters. The implication of this would be that these ungodly fathers are having and raising ungodly daughters. A clear reference to “thy seed” (Gen 3:15).

So the line of "thy seed" (Gen 3:15) is increasing in population. That's a really bad thing. But what about Genesis 4:26. It says that the line of "her seed" (Gen 3:15) was increasing also, when it said, "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord". So what happened to that increase of Godly men that started in Genesis 4:26?

Well, what happened is explained in Genesis 6:2; That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

In Judges 3:6 we see that the Israelites failed to keep the covenant by “living among” the people of the land, intermarrying with them by taking “their daughters to be their wives”, and “served their gods” and were being pulled and influenced away from God. Marriage outside the Israelite community (outside “her seed”) not only leads to the weakening of the bond with God but jeopardizes the lineage of “her seed” in the prophecy of Genesis 3:15.



Thats the short version.

Bless you Julie.