Did the Nephilim survive the great flood? Help me figure this out!

[1gr8buildit]

If you read the text carefully, you can see how my interpretation is possible.... However, I acknowledge that it can be interpreted several ways. Let's look at it from the way Erhman would, which is...regardless of whether you believe it or not, we are discussing the contents of the book ands what is stated.

Notice... The Nephilim are distinguised from the "sons of God". They are the offspring of the [fallen] angels. The Angels/Sons of God are not Nephilim. The Sons of God/angels are immortal, contrasted by man being cursed with mortality. The Nephilim are destroyed at the flood however, it does not mean that the same union of man and angel could not take place again. [The angels still around because they were not killed in the flood] It would be strange for the writer to contradict himself to such an extent in the same breath with "also afterwards" if this was not his intended interpretation. Now, I agree, the absence of any further talk about the Nephilim in scripture is problematic.

 

[oldfella1962]

If you read the text carefully, you can see how my interpretation is possible.... However, I acknowledge that it can be interpreted several ways. Let's look at it from the way Erhman would, which is...regardless of whether you believe it or not, we are discussing the contents of the book ands what is stated.

Notice... The Nephilim are distinguised from the "sons of God". They are the offspring of the [fallen] angels. The Angels/Sons of God are not Nephilim. The Sons of God/angels are immortal, contrasted by man being cursed with mortality. The Nephilim are destroyed at the flood however, it does not mean that the same union of man and angel could not take place again. [The angels still around because they were not killed in the flood] It would be strange for the writer to contradict himself to such an extent in the same breath with "also afterwards" if this was not his intended interpretation. Now, I agree, the absence of any further talk about the Nephilim in scripture is problematic.

Maybe there just weren't that many of the Nephilim around, or they weren't that big of a deal. As far as "no further talk" IMHO the ULTIMATE "never mention this again" problematic event is in the NT. This would be Mathew 27:52 when the saints pop out of their tombs at the moment of Jesus' death during crucifixion. One sentence, maybe two and that's it - and not a word in the other three gospels. I think countless long-dead saints walking around and interacting with people would be noteworthy.

 

[tell sackett]

If you read the text carefully, you can see how my interpretation is possible.... However, I acknowledge that it can be interpreted several ways. Let's look at it from the way Erhman would, which is...regardless of whether you believe it or not, we are discussing the contents of the book ands what is stated.

Notice... The Nephilim are distinguised from the "sons of God". They are the offspring of the [fallen] angels. The Angels/Sons of God are not Nephilim. The Sons of God/angels are immortal, contrasted by man being cursed with mortality. The Nephilim are destroyed at the flood however, it does not mean that the same union of man and angel could not take place again. [The angels still around because they were not killed in the flood] It would be strange for the writer to contradict himself to such an extent in the same breath with "also afterwards" if this was not his intended interpretation. Now, I agree, the absence of any further talk about the Nephilim in scripture is problematic.

Or not

 

[1gr8buildit]

Maybe there just weren't that many of the Nephilim around, or they weren't that big of a deal. As far as "no further talk" IMHO the ULTIMATE "never mention this again" problematic event is in the NT. This would be Mathew 27:52 when the saints pop out of their tombs at the moment of Jesus' death during crucifixion. One sentence, maybe two and that's it - and not a word in the other three gospels. I think countless long-dead saints walking around and interacting with people would be noteworthy.

One of the many embellishments. Strange enough, I often wonder if those writers will have to answer for those embellishments?

 

[oldfella1962]

One of the many embellishments. Strange enough, I often wonder if those writers will have to answer for those embellishments?

Not being a smarty pants, but why would the writers have to answer for their embellishments? The ENTIRE BIBLE is based on embellishments.

That aside, if the bible is the inspired word of god and the writers were guided by god, wouldn't the editors be guided by god too? Also the councils who decided on what goes in the final bible version, and what gets eliminated. It's all part of the process of god disseminating his holy word, is it not?

 

[1gr8buildit]

Not being a smarty pants, but why would the writers have to answer for their embellishments? The ENTIRE BIBLE is based on embellishments.

That aside, if the bible is the inspired word of god and the writers were guided by god, wouldn't the editors be guided by god too? Also the councils who decided on what goes in the final bible version, and what gets eliminated. It's all part of the process of god disseminating his holy word, is it not?

If a writer decided to write about Fred Bear, the famous archer at this point in time, he might tend to embellish stories?. He may have intentions of giving an accurate account, however, writing so many years after the fact, he is now subject to write according to what he has read or stories he has heard passed down. Some of what I have read about Fred Bear were hard to believe. Possibly not true or embellished. However, I still believe Fred Bear was a famous archer whom must have had a remarkable life.
However, I do see your point that the entire content of the bible seems embellished. However, I see inspired in the stories as well.

 

[bullethead]

Boys, there are a few people who partake in these discussions who have a true ability to explain things in an Apologetic style.
1gr8 ranks right up there.
Cheers!

 

[oldfella1962]

If a writer decided to write about Fred Bear, the famous archer at this point in time, he might tend to embellish stories?. He may have intentions of giving an accurate account, however, writing so many years after the fact, he is now subject to write according to what he has read or stories he has heard passed down. Some of what I have read about Fred Bear were hard to believe. Possibly not true or embellished. However, I still believe Fred Bear was a famous archer whom must have had a remarkable life.
However, I do see your point that the entire content of the bible seems embellished. However, I see inspired in the stories as well.

I kind of see both too - the writers felt inspired to embellish. I'm looking at it with a cynical eye on human nature - nobody wants to worship a god who can't do awesome, over-the-top things, do they? If you are writing an "origin story" for your new religion, you better spice it up if you want to fill seats. I've done a bit of research about the history of Judaism - fascinating subject IMHO.

The same thing applies to Christianity as it does to Judaism in this regard - his followers better make the stories bigger and better every time they tell them, or people will lose interest. The Gospel of Mark (the Gospel thought to be the first one written) doesn't have a lot of "miracles" and larger-than-life stories. Maybe the legend hadn't grown that big yet? Something to think about anyway.

 

[oldfella1962]

I suppose I pick and chose to be honest... a slippery slope. I don't believe Jesus put an ear back on that was cut off with a sword and then they beat him and mocked him. I don't believe he cried out while hanging on the cross. Suffication would not permit this. I don't believe Sampson killed more people when than the 911 trade center when he pushed over the columns and I don't believe they had that many foxes to catch. I don't believe Peter walked on water. I don't believe Jesus turned water into wine. if he had of, Mary would not have come to take charge of him with his brothers thinking he was out of his mind. I could go on and on. But I do believe Jesus willing went to the cross rather than use his popularity to build for himself a earthly dynasty.

I appreciate your honesty about not believing some of the bible stories and your explanation as to why you don't believe some of them, but I have to ask - do you really think Jesus went to the cross as an alternative to building an earthly kingdom? If he was truly divine, he had no choice but to go to the cross since he was god and couldn't refuse to follow his own plan, could he? And if he was not divine and didn't go to the cross, his followers would soon lose interest when the Apocalypse he preached about never came, thus he wouldn't have much of an earthly kingdom anyway at that point.

 

[oldfella1962]

Boys, there are a few people who partake in these discussions who have a true ability to explain things in an Apologetic style.
1gr8 ranks right up there.
Cheers!

We are indeed basking in his greatness! Seriously though, he doesn't just rant and rave and throw poo.

 

[bullethead]

We are indeed basking in his greatness! Seriously though, he doesn't just rant and rave and throw poo.

He makes a statement and then backs it up with coherent relatable detailed explanations as to what brought him to make it. He shows his work.
Spotlite and JB are another two that have caused me to see their side easier and also have made me rethink some of my positions.

 

[oldfella1962]

More thoughts about the NT embellishments versus the OT embellishments:
IMHO from a scientific viewpoint the NT Jesus stories are harder for me to disprove and here is why: let's take turning water into wine for example.
If Jesus did water into wine who would be affected by it? Only the people at the wedding. It's not such an over-the-top miracle that it would interfere with the goings-on of the rest of the world.

Now contrast that with my favorite, god making the sun stay in the sky longer so Joshua could keep slaughter the enemy army. I can absolutely debunk that, since the only way to make the sun appear to stand still would be to stop the earth from spinning. Yeah, that would destroy every civilization on earth and nearly all life in general (google what would happen) and since that never happened, I'll call that myth busted.

 

[oldfella1962]

Here's where I differ... Jesus would never claim to be God. It's against Bible context. The few ambigious text that that crowd uses is not context but rather interpretation. Here is a small example of context... Moses was not allowed to go into the promise land... why, not because he hit the rock once, twice, etc, as they claim. But because rather than his prior exclamations of "stand fast and see what the Lord your God will do here today", he became slightly proud of his role God had given him and claimed "must "I" bring water from this rock. Ponder how different that is and how it could lead to them treating Moses as a god giving Moses the glory rather than God. Now, think of Jesus and how often he diverted glory to God... I can do nothing on my own. The miracles you see are not my own, I can only do what I see the father doing, etc. .... That's context.

All other's before Jesus that were called to lead God's people eventually no longer served the people but rather the people ended up serving them, creating for themselves a dynasty. You might even say They made themselves as earthy gods. It's human nature. Solomon was the example given of unbriadaled restraint on what man will do if allowed to have anything. He even wrote his own story of how great he was.... surprise, surprise. However, he oppressed God's people to get there. Had them build his dynasty as slaves would. His advisors told him he was working the people to hard and that his father David would never do such a thing of which he stated "my thumb is thicker than my father's waist". However, Jesus did the opposite, by faith looking forward to future promises rather than earthly dynasty , suppressed his human nature, and made himself lowly which pleased God. Therefore... God gave him the name above all names.

Interesting perspective on the much bigger picture - thanks!

 

[BassMan31]

My opinion of the subject is that all of humanity (with the exception of Noah because he was "perfect in his generations" substantiated by his genealogy that was provided in Genesis 5) had a gene problem as the result of fallen angels(Sons of God) reproducing with women(daughters of men) and producing angel human hybrids(Nephilim).

Somehow(not explained in the Bible) more Nephilim were produced which is why we see the giants later. I believe that is also why God commands the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of certain groups. They had hybrid DNA that could contaminate the pure God created DNA of Noah and furthermore prevent Jesus from having pure DNA.

On a related topic, Jesus said the end times would be "like the days of Noah." I believe he is referring to people altering their genetics. Seems like I've seen something about "gene therapy" in the news lately.

Nephilim were/are hybrids. their spirits inhabit the world still (according to bible and apocryphal books) (mostly book of Enoch which is only accepted as canonical in Ethiopian orthodox but is referenced by new testament authors and Christ). human created chimeras are in their image. they exist still in the world in form and spirit. in the last days its said men's hearts will fail for what comes upon them (from under the earth).

There are lots of hidden things. the Spirit reveals their existence to believers without exact specifics to form. God will make all things known in His time but what I know for now is what's happening on this planet would absolutely defy every imagination.

 

[BassMan31]

Here's where I differ... Jesus would never claim to be God. It's against Bible context. The few ambigious text that that crowd uses is not context but rather interpretation. Here is a small example of context... Moses was not allowed to go into the promise land... why, not because he hit the rock once, twice, etc, as they claim. But because rather than his prior exclamations of "stand fast and see what the Lord your God will do here today", he became slightly proud of his role God had given him and claimed "must "I" bring water from this rock. Ponder how different that is and how it could lead to them treating Moses as a god giving Moses the glory rather than God. Now, think of Jesus and how often he diverted glory to God... I can do nothing on my own. The miracles you see are not my own, I can only do what I see the father doing, etc. .... That's context.

All other's before Jesus that were called to lead God's people eventually no longer served the people but rather the people ended up serving them, creating for themselves a dynasty. You might even say They made themselves as earthy gods. It's human nature. Solomon was the example given of unbriadaled restraint on what man will do if allowed to have anything. He even wrote his own story of how great he was.... surprise, surprise. However, he oppressed God's people to get there. Had them build his dynasty as slaves would. His advisors told him he was working the people to hard and that his father David would never do such a thing of which he stated "my thumb is thicker than my father's waist". However, Jesus did the opposite, by faith looking forward to future promises rather than earthly dynasty , suppressed his human nature, and made himself lowly which pleased God. Therefore... God gave him the name above all names.

he said "I am."

he also said "was it not said you are gods". i think he was speaking to religious leaders when they charged him for calling himself the son of God.

 

[oldfella1962]

Good, I hope I don't sound like I am preaching, I don't expect anyone to believe as I do, but I post because I expect you might find these differing views interesting

Yes they are interesting, and coming from different angles than I am used to - they get me thinking "outside the box".

 

[BassMan31]

More thoughts about the NT embellishments versus the OT embellishments:
IMHO from a scientific viewpoint the NT Jesus stories are harder for me to disprove and here is why: let's take turning water into wine for example.
If Jesus did water into wine who would be affected by it? Only the people at the wedding. It's not such an over-the-top miracle that it would interfere with the goings-on of the rest of the world.

Now contrast that with my favorite, god making the sun stay in the sky longer so Joshua could keep slaughter the enemy army. I can absolutely debunk that, since the only way to make the sun appear to stand still would be to stop the earth from spinning. Yeah, that would destroy every civilization on earth and nearly all life in general (google what would happen) and since that never happened, I'll call that myth busted.

problem with this is God said it happened. in light of that your understanding of what is and isn't possible is moot and of no consequence.

I call this hubris busted.

 

[oldfella1962]

problem with this is God said it happened. in light of that your understanding of what is and isn't possible is moot and of no consequence.

I call this hubris busted.

Oh no doubt it's all fiction (interesting fiction, but still fiction) IMHO but some things are easier to swallow. It's like watching a movie: it's fiction based on true events. I will compare the bible to Saving Private Ryan.
The soldiers take out a German tank by blowing off its track? No problem, that type of thing did actually happen. If suddenly an A-10 flies through and starts shredding tanks with 30mm rounds, it's ridiculous. That's the best way I can describe my feelings toward the bible.

I feel the same about science as you feel about scripture. In light of your understanding (or mine) of what is and isn't possible is of no consequence to the natural laws of science.

 

[BassMan31]

Oh no doubt it's all fiction (interesting fiction, but still fiction) IMHO but some things are easier to swallow. It's like watching a movie: it's fiction based on true events. I will compare the bible to Saving Private Ryan.
The soldiers take out a German tank by blowing off its track? No problem, that type of thing did actually happen. If suddenly an A-10 flies through and starts shredding tanks with 30mm rounds, it's ridiculous. That's the best way I can describe my feelings toward the bible.

I feel the same about science as you feel about scripture. In light of your understanding (or mine) of what is and isn't possible is of no consequence to the natural laws of science.

if you think this then you need more training in science's process.

 

[BassMan31]

Am What?

go read it, dude.