For repeat watchers who want to quickly go to the topic of discussion, it starts at 8:39. Excellent video! I'm not a Calvinist or cessationist, but still really enjoy your videos. We can agree to disagree. We'll learn the truth in heaven. ❤
It couldn't've just been hyperbole in Numbers. Joshua and Caleb both didn't deny the size of the men. They accepted the fact that they were giants, yet said they could defeat them with God.
It seems to me that when humanity lived in relative proximity we had shared history that then came to be called myth and legend as it was taken through the Earth after the Tower of Babel dispersion.
Cessationist believe in gifts too. When charismatics say we believe in the gifts.. it is a division of self righteousness.. but thank you Joel our unity is in the same spirit
Nice! @RightResponseMinistries and @TheRemnantRadio should get together again soon! I'd be thrilled to hear a conversation about Patriarchalism vs Complementarianism
Between this and listening to your talk with Mike Winger, it'd be interesting to have see a conversation with Michael Heiser. Particularly about his concept of spiritual geography (can't remember if that's the right term) and Jesus reclaiming the earth.
I really enjoyed this video. I think Dr. Chuck Missler also does a great job explaining and shedding some clarity on this subject. As far as the "and also after that" question, I think Rib Skiba offers a compelling possibility, mentioning that only Noah was perfect in his generation but not his daughters-in-law.
Hi guys. Love this conversation. When you guys were talking regarding how the Nephilim continued after the flood, none of you brought up the possibility of that the wives that Noah’s sons took carried the seed or DNA of the Nephilim and that’s maybe how the Nephilim could have continued after the flood. What do you think.
I have often wondered about "everything with the breath of life" part when YHWH talks of the destruction. While most died due to the cataclysmic nature of the flood, did they actually fall under the breath of life part?
Cain's descendents, everything was bigger before the flood because it didn't rain before the flood greenhouse effect the speer of water in the atmosphere. The men of renoun wasn't falling angels, I thought it was a spiritual warfare how would fallen angels have sex with flesh and blood
@@SokemRokemRobotTrue. It said NOAH was blameless in his generations, not his daughters-in-law. Also, he likely had daughters with husbands, they just usually aren't included.
What happens to the Nephilims spirit when they die? Do they go back into the heavenly realm or do they cease to exist ? do their wives know that they are angels/demons? Or is it a big secret to everyone but God.
Just be careful since you are referring to Nephilim as "giant beings" based on an "evil report" by 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishes who made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked.
Very good discussion, I too am a sane continuation gift believer that loves John McArthur, the late R. C Sproul and respect their incredible gifts as well as the panels.
One misconception theologians have is assuming the Angels that came to lay with a daughter of man is the same Angels that fell with lucifer. And not a watcher, or guardian Angel that chose to lay with a daughter of man.
What sin is worst than the other ? All humans are depraved That's why the Bible says Repent Christian or not all are sinners And we are all worthy of God's judgement.
I think that all 3 theories could easily be correct all at the same time, but I do think it's primarily about the Nephilim. All 3 could easily be correct simply because of the evil of humans hearts at that time.
Greetings, incase of sons of god can be determined two ways either the faith of seth seed family or the angels, the scripture of job can show that differ for sons of god . Genesis scripture just never expand on the matter
Sometimes, a giant is just a giant. Jesus said,"It's for man to die once, then comes the judgement". Giants, or nephilim, won't get special privileges, and roam the Earth as disembodied spirits to cause havoc.
Jude 1:6 KJV - 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. Perhaps this is chains of spiritual darkness, and why far more evil and ghosts (demons) are done and witnessed in darkness.
One concern I see with the fallen angels view for Sons of God is why are human beings held accountable for something that sounds like angels forcefully "taking" the daughters of men. In later history of Israel in the wilderness, God judged them for taking pagan wives, and not merely for Israelite women being given to pagans. Furthermore, in Gen 6 what were the men and their sons doing while this activity was occurring? Were they complicit or just helpless bystanders?
The wives were not forcefully taken , they were given in exchange for knowledge that mankind had been striving to learn . Referenced in the Bible as well as the book of Enoch
@@RightResponseMinistries I’m curious how you interpret the Rich man and Lazarus narrative. If we take it literally, and it’s describing the intermediary state, then the rich man has a tongue and wants water. He wants his physical relatives to be warned and sees a physical Lazarus. If it’s a figurative parable, we’ll then we’re still in the same place haha curious your thoughts on that?
The Angels weren't cast into Tartarus until after they had committed their carnal sins in an effort to corrupt the woman's seed. Satan was and his angels were cast to earth, falling like lightning. They knew they couldn't repent and were doomed, but they seemed to think if they could prove GOD wrong or if they corrupted HIS creation, man, they could find a way either back to Glory or at the very least, not destined for painful eternal torment. I agree, or at least my opinion coincides that they were imprisoned and first judged shortly before the flood, and told they would see their offspring die. I think the immediate imprisonment only came after they copulated with strange/human flesh. So there were fallen angels still free after the flood or more became corrupt(the powers, principalities, etc. that interbred again. I have always wondered if the ham shem japeth spouses weren't sisters bc GOD was very specific in HIS statement that Noah was perfect in his generations, meaning his DNA was still perfectly maintained in his ancestors AND offspring. I know that's a cringe statement, but our thoughts and reasons for making incestuous relations taboo is bc our DNA has lost so much since antediluvian direct line of Adam man. We have such degraded DNA that now that produces offspring that are even further genetically lacking and thus sickly, diseased, impaired both mentally and physically, etc.. Just for the record, the thought of sister wives grosses me out too😂, BUT we are so set and ARROGANT in our world view that we discount the supernatural nature of GOD and how much closer to GOD and HIS image Noah was. I enjoyed this discussion. Ty for sharing it. Not to sound monotonous, 2 things, I don't think hair splitting over doctrines Calvinism, cessationism, etc, is a waste. I believe there we exist in a supernatural world created by the Great , without beginning or end, I AM. I think one needs only look around however to see that we are farther away physically and spiritually from our beginning state than ever and move farther away with each generation. Do you SEE the supernatural things/acts/miracles happening now that happened in Scripture today? Happening in a way that can't just as easily be happenstance. Have you seen anyone deliver a message in one language and everyone listening,no matter their language,understand it in full? Any water switched to wine? I KNOW GOD can do anything. I still believe HE acts and intercedes in our lives. I think, with respect, that regarding tongue speaking, one should REEEALLY read and fully discern all that GOD's WORD has to say about that. The apostles carried on CHRIST's ministry and miracles bc they had been imbued these abilities from/in HIS direct presence. I don't know of anyone "laying hands" on anyone and as a result the person's leprosy rinsing right off like a little dry skin since the Biblical accounts. If there are such miracles still occurring, I would love to see it. GOD Bless and keep you gentlemen and thank you for spreading The Gospel.
Giants-men of renoun-nephalim. All names for the same men. Sons of God=godly. Daughters of men=ungodly. theirs no reason to believe angels can procreate.
Good conversation about a topic that is weird for too many, but weird in all the wrong ways. We believe someone rose from the dead after 3 days!! That's weird. But just because it's weird doesn't make it untrue. I will say that sometimes Pastor Joel, your Calvinism comes close to getting in the way of your Biblical faith. As another brother I urge you to always check Calvinism against scripture and not the other way around. Michael is indeed correct there are ACTUALLY many passages of scripture that do not square well with Calvinism. Anyway not what the video is about. Thanks for the content
I'm curious how the speculation about 120 years and Noah's building compares to the chronology of Enoch. Since a good part of rejecting Enoch is tied to it's exposition of these ideas you might as well give Enoch a bit more credit. If Enoch talks about all this jazz, then said immorality must have been in play in the time of Enoch. I am currently dismayed with the level of utter circularity on why Enoch is not in Scripture. More often than not I see the answer: because it's not Scripture. Well, duh. That is unhelpful to someone like me who dares to ask the question "why".
Because although the first book (Chapter 1) was standalone, many 'books' (chapters) were added over time, and none of them are fully supported when compared to all of what is known to be the Word of God. The argument that Chapter 1 is Scripture could be put forth as it gets quoted in known Scripture (Jude, Peter), but although the Apostles were familiar with it they also were familiar with other historical non-inspired texts that they could quote as true (like Paul concerning those liars of Crete), but this would not support that all an historian wrote was true, much less inspired. Enoch had not made the criteria for Scripture in the days of Jesus, nor afterward. Enoch is fascinating but seems to be used to define the Scriptures rather than the other way around.
Jesus DIDN'T SAY, " There is no sexual intercourse." --- Jesus said, "... not given OR taken in marriage " ---- Answering the question concerning Jewish marriage traditions... ----- HERDSMAN III OLD III
Also, in Hebrew, the giants are just large humans. There isn’t anything saying that Goliath was a “Gibborim” in the sense that he was descended from angels. Also, David had “Gibborim,” thirty of them to be exact, or three hundred. And God Himself is a Gibbor (El Gibbor). We need to be careful to parse the context of each text. It is not always that a term holds the same meaning and class identification across passages.
I'm unsure what you mean by "in Hebrew, the giants are just large humans" since there is not Hebrew word "giants"? By definition Goliath could be categorized as a gibbor (not gibborim since that's plural) since that merely means he was mighty but right, not "in the sense that he was descended from angels."
@@KenAmmi-Shalom First off, there is no known Biblical Hebrew word for a “giant.” That’s a first. Secondly, Goliath is given praise for his height and strength, and assumedly his fighting prowess (which he thankfully didn’t get to demonstrate on the young man David). So that’s what I meant there. Goliath is called a warrior hero the same as David’s other mighty men. Gibbor just means “warrior.” It has the same lexeme as a word for “man” and “hero” and “brave” as well as “force of power.” It also has other Semitic equivalents, such as in Aramaic. So the word needs to be read in context each time.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom So when I say “giants,” which in English at base meaning is someone of unusual size, I mean to say that in the Hebrew, the “giants,” meaning the English understanding found Hebrew texts from abnormally tall persons, are just abnormally tall people who were apparently fully functional and physically proportional (meaning not gigantism or other birth defects). That’s it. Shouldn’t be hard since abnormally small humans also existed. Humans used to be far more genetically diverse, which is what we should expect anyways in the nature of sexual descent and mass migration.
@@KMANelPADRINO Indeed, “there is no known Biblical Hebrew word for a ‘giant’” if by “giant” you imply the modern usage (more on this below). Goliath is referred to as a champion and was most reliably just shy of 7 ft. Gibbor just means might/mighty. It’s strictly the modern “English…base meaning is someone of unusual size” which is not the ancient meaning so you can’t apply a modern usage to an ancient text. You say “the English understanding found Hebrew texts from abnormally tall persons” is not the case. The English “giants” comes form the Greek “gigantes” (or “gigas”) which means “earth-born.” When you read about “giants” in your English Bible the Hebrew being rendered (not even translated) is either “Nephilim” or “Repahim”: neither of which imply anything about height at all.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom It is growing clear that you don’t understand what I’m saying. So I will try again. In the Ancient Hebrew used in the Bible, there is no word for “giant.” I already stated what Gibbor means. And the Hebrew is clear that the children born from the unions from Nephilim/sons of God and human women are the Gibborim. In the Septuagint, the Nephilim are not mentioned. Instead the translation focuses solely upon the children born, which is why the Greek says that the “γίγαντες” existed back then and afterwards, and that when the sons of God took the daughters of humanity they (the women) gave birth to “themselves,” namely the “γίγαντες.” What is funny is that while “Gibbor” can mean a “mighty warrior,” γίγας (aka “gigas”) can mean “mighty” also. In fact, for the above reasons based upon the Hebrew, I think the English translation of “giant” isn’t at all what the ancient Greek-speaking Jewish translators meant. They most likely meant “mighty ones” and not “giant ones.” Now that you have given your definition of “gigas,” I can suspect that you don’t know Ancient Greek. I do, though. I also read Ancient Hebrew. And since the sole Bible available to many (including probably yourself, but maybe not) is in Modern English, and since this conversation actually is taking place in the Modern English language and based upon such translations, then I certainly *can* point out that the word “giant” as a proper term isn’t appropriate to use in the Bible at Genesis 6, which I said earlier and now hope to have made clear from a different angle. And please, do go back and reread Genesis 6 even in the English and you will see what I told you earlier: the Gibborim and the Nephilim are not the same people. That is critical to understanding at least where I’m coming from in reading the text.
Do you understand exactly what happened during the flood? Antideluvian world was one continent. When God caused the flood he let loose the firmament and the Waters of the deep causing the continent to break apart due to massive earth quakes and platonic shifting.
Yes, “the word ‘Nephilim’ only appears one other time in scripture that's Numbers 13 verse 33” but the Nephilim don’t: that’s just a reference to them. See, you read, “the Israelite spies reported that they had seen the Nephilim” but you need to be more detailed since there were 12 spies but it was the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishes who made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked who claimed that, they just concocted a tall tale. That there were post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim were related to them, and that Nephilim were very tall are all exclusively stated within the 10 spies’ “evil report” so are utterly unreliable assertions not back by even one other single verse. Thus, did didn’t survive the flood and there’s not one single statement about them returning, not even a hint of Angles falling again (there’s only a one time fall of Angels in the Bible). And the only reason to think that they survived (in any way, shape, or form) or returned is, guess what?, one single verse within an “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked-to death.
The point of the Nephilim made in Genesis 6 was that they were before and after the flood. It does not necessarily take angels falling again in that manner (they are spiritually fallen in any case) to produce Nephilim, as they, being born of women, had reproductive capabilities in their own bodies, in which case there would have been some Nephilim ancestry mixed in with Noah. But if one must regard that as not possible for some reason, then it refers to a continuance of angels taking physical form for immoral and unnatural intent after the flood. I am not aware of a one-time fall verse in regards to physical manifestations of angels, only their one-time fall from spiritual life. In fact, angels were obviously able to take on physical manifestation and eat food. So, fallen angels, Genesis 6, could continue the practice before and after the flood until they were imprisoned. We are not told when they were imprisoned as far as I can tell.
@@craigchambers4183 Most interesting, friend. But your proposal is premised on the mere assertion that, “there would have been some Nephilim ancestry mixed in with Noah.” But besides that you had to invent that story (and imply that God failed): if there was some then why are there no such things as post-flood Nephilim-which is one reason, “one must regard that as not possible”-? Inventing “a continuance of angels taking physical form for immoral and unnatural intent after the flood” 1) also implies that God failed, 2) is fallacious since there’s no indication anywhere that Angles take physical form, 3) as per Jude and 2 Peter 2 they were incarcerated so they would not have been around to do any such thing. True, “We are not told when they were imprisoned” but since the flood was when God was cleaning house, in a manner of speaking, then just letting it all happen again post-flood implies that the flood was a waste. As I noted, it is true that there is no, “one-time fall verse in regards to physical manifestations of angels” since there are zero such verses. See, when you say, “angels were obviously able to take on physical manifestation and eat food” you’re getting ahead of yourself: your hidden assumption of a premise is faulty, you imply they are not ontologically physical but they are physical (even if with access to realms/dimensions) we can’t access. Beyond all of this, you find yourself being forced to literally make up stuff just to protect one single verse that merely records an evil report by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why do you side with them? They made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all: why exclusively believe them? They contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible: as for me and my house, we will side with contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Just some quick replies, but no more since this appears to be accusatory rather than instructive. I reread my post and do not see where I 'invented' some story. I have conjectured based on the verse itself, "before and after the flood." So, either from the loins of Noah or angels doing the same thing again until imprisonment, unless there is a third option that I don't see. Angels took physical form and ate food (Abraham before the destruction of Sodom; men desiring relations (sex) with angels in Sodom, entertaining angels unawares). Taking such form does not mean they are not spirit, but that they abandoned their natural spirit abode for a time. If this happened once and it did not imply that God failed (which He cannot do), why would doing it after the flood suggest failure? God is God, and nothing any living thing like angels do is without His will involved (however you look at that; permissive, direct). The spies, all ten, gave the report. There was no dispute as to the fact that the people were generally larger, and besides, there were also Nephilim. What was 'evil' was the stress laid by the eight that these people were too strong for the Jews to fight and they would lose. Caleb and Hoshea (Joshua) were contrary, saying that the Lord would prevail and that the Jews should go into the land and fight as God was commanding. To read into this that the facts were evil rather than the conclusion (which the whole assembly took to heart and wept and rebelled) is to implicate Caleb and Joshua as well, but clearly they presented the facts too and yet concluded that God was going to give them the victory.
@@craigchambers4183 Friend, please don’t read my black and white text emotively: I’m interested in sharpening iron with iron-I just find that when we seek to sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut. Since there’s nothing in the whole Bible about post-flood Nephilim then, by definition, seeking to elucidate a reappearance of them post-flood is inventing some story. Now, you refer to, “the verse itself, ‘before and after the flood’” but there’s no such verse in the whole Bible and by inserting “the flood” into it you miss that it is telling you to what days it’s referring and it’s not the flood: those days were when the SoG first mated with the DoM and afterwards is just that, after they first did it. They began to do it and kept doing it but that’s all pre-flood. So anything about “from the loins of Noah or angels doing the same thing again” is unnecessary since we’ve no reliable indication of any post-flood Nephilim at any time at all. You say, “Angels took physical form” but there’s no such thing in the Bible. Rather, every time they are described they are described as looking just like human males so that means that such is how they look naturally, that is their ontology, and we were created “a little lower” then they: they are not spirit, they are embodied in a flesh of their own which enjoyed access to dimensional realms that we can’t access. Doing it after the flood suggests failure since it would imply that God sent a worldwide flood in order to be rid of fallen Angel and Nephilim related byproducts only to have them do it all again so the flood was a waste. You say “The spies, all ten, gave the report” but there were twelve spies and Joshua sided with Caleb so that leaves the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked: why side with them and against Moses, Joshua, Caleb, God, and the rest of the whole Bible? You say, “There was no dispute as to the fact that the people were generally larger, and besides, there were also Nephilim” but when Moses relates the event in Deut 1 he doesn’t even bother mentioning Nephilim: he’s too concerned about the real dangers on the ground, not made up tall tales. Also, “generally larger” means generally larger than 5.0-5.3 ft. so what of it? What was “evil” was the motivation and to what it led. The report is not false because it’s called “evil” but due to its demonstrably false contents: five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all. That’s why neo-Nephilology is literally based on one single verse.
Jesus tells us in John 8:17 about witnesses. "It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true." (NKJ/Red letters); There are two witnesses found in Deut. 17:6 & 19:15 to the statement that Jesus made, thus totalling 3 in all. Without witnesses it is just summation and speculation. With witnesses so it is truth. But where contradiction appears, there is deeper truth.
Enoch says that the Watchers were sent to earth to watch over mankind, but then started to lie with them. They didn't fall with Satan. And Revelation 12 states that Satan went to earth when Israel was pregnant with the Messiah, and that it wasn't until the Messiah ascended to Heaven was there war in Heaven against Satan and Michael.
Pastor Joel, I'm really confused about how to discern their ministry. I know they have a lot of respectable people on their show, but they also have had Todd White on and also have picked a fight with Chris Roseburrow. I find this assosiation confusing. Could you please clarify.
Fair question. Their mission is to “disrupt theological echo chambers” by intentionally having guests they disagree with (Todd White would be an example of this). However, in my personal opinion, their attempts to “disrupt theological echo chambers” often merely creates theological confusion, discourages confessional Christianity, dissuades from the value of systematic theology, and endorses nefarious ministers. There’s a reason I had them on my show to discuss the topic at hand: I believe their position on that subject is reasonable and biblically grounded. I would not have them on my show to address “gifts of the Spirit,” for example. That said, Michael Rowntree is a personal friend. We disagree on severs theological issues, but I have witnessed his deep love for Scripture and the Lord. I hope that he will change his mind on certain issues, but I believe he is a godly man. However, I would theologically side with Chris Rosebrough in regards to his view of prophecy. I personally believe Remnant Radio’s view of prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and even dangerous. In conclusion, Remnant Radio is worth listening to on some topics and not others. All of this assumes a great deal of spiritual maturity and theological understanding on the part of the listener. I would not recommend Remnant Radio to new believers.
@Right Response Ministries Pastor Joel, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I truly appreciate it and I find that clarification helpful. Thank you for your ministry, I find it very edifying as I continue to grow in my walk with the Lord.
One that feels An angel having sexual desires of the Daughters of men and laying with them is weird, must not be solid in their beliefs in GOD and all of his creations. Its not a matter of is it possible, or its weird or any other of mans thoughts. It just IS. In my opinion, a person that rejects the existence of GOds Creations, Heaven, Angels, demons and the devil Sons of GOD are Angels And we are the Sons of Men same as the daughters.
oikētērion Outline of Biblical Usage: a dwelling place, habitation of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit. Jude 1:6 KJV - 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. 2 Corinthians 5:2 KJV - For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our ***house*** which is from heaven: The house in 2 Cor is about our new body we wait for, it's the same Greek word, the only 2 instances it's used, showing that the angels when they fell did not keep their original body they had in heaven.
Calvinism… can’t get away from election… hummm…. As a former Calvinist, we have to look at Rom 9 in the context of Rom 9-11, which is about Israel. It is very simple, election is about a group, not individuals. OT Israel was elect for a purpose. The NT believers, by faith, are also an elect group , called for a purpose. God decided to have a people for himself.
As to Nephalim, if one thinks they are physical giants one must think again. Here is why when we actually face a giant who is called Goliath we see that the Hebrew word "rapha" speaks of giants. So a vicious blood thirsty murderer can be described. Another point, as to Son's of God, using Job, we assume sons of God are angels and thus we create a cyclical argument to say sons of God are angel. We forget, Israelites were told, if they could not go to Jerusalem to go to a place appointed by God to celebrate. So the Patriarchs could be called to meet with God at an appointed place to meet with God, and Satan would show up, Angels are eternally in God's presence unless they had already been thrown out.
Your position is illiterate not only Biblically, but simply historically. As a tangent, the inundation of *physical* giants throughout the legendariums of World History is undeniable. Yet Christians will gladly ignore that, while pointing to worldwide legends corresponding to Bable, Adam and Eve, and the Flood.
All angels, good or bad, can put on flesh. I have held the hand of an evil one from Mesopotamia. Very creepy experience. But very real too. That evil angel had an emerald ring on his right hand, thick combed back, shiny black hair, big Arabic nose and a "high haughty look" (smart arse) as the Holy Bible says . He fled at a quicker than light speed when I told him that I bow to no one but Allah (in this instance, Arabic for YHWH as determined in my heart and soul). Glory to God. Om River Christian channel
Sons of God are direct creations of God. Angels are Adam qualify as sons of Lagos because they were his direct creation. The rest of humanity do not fall into that category because we are sons of Adam, and not direct creation of God.
I do not understand your comments, do you not know that we are all direct creations of God? ~ Isaiah 44:24; "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one 'WHO FORMED YOU FROM THE WOMB', “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone," ~ Psalm139: 14-16; I will praise thee; for 'I am fearfully and wonderfully made': marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when 'I was made in secret', and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which 'in continuance were fashioned', when as yet there was none of them.
A)b)c B is correct But the explanation is pear shaped The godly men the Sons of God began the marry the daughters of ungodly men Given into marriage Means truth began to marry lies And so we have Christianity today The church teaches truth and lies Study to show yourselves approved Rightly deciding the Word of God If you belong to Christ You have no right to believe,teach or practice lies.
Angels never ever mated with humans. How stupid does it get? Unless man and the creation is powerful and more powerful than God and are able to do what ever they want. If beings can do what they want why are the fallen angels still held in tartarus being bound for judgement And why can't the devil do anything unless God permits him to. The devil and the angels tried to do what they wanted But you see how God sorted them out and made light work of them Exactly the same reason man can't live in the sea like a whales or fly in the sky like birds. And men can't become monkeys and monkeys can't become men.
It is in you as a person that the nature of God is revealed, for a scriptural episode is not a record of an historical event, but a parabolic revelation of truth. To see Jesus or David as an historical character is to see truth tempered to the weakness of your soul. You must see what the characters represent, rather than the characters themselves. This is true for every story in scripture, for every episode will unfold within you.
"He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit"...it's real, not imaginary. How do I know..thru encounters and experiences with the living God himself in my life. Beliefs/doctrines may change... but encounters do not. From your comments seems apparent that you have never had a true encounter with the Living God...just sayin ..bless your heart
@@Riker-ER OT is allegory not secular history, Paul hinted in Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, very few believe it. Jesus was allegory pattern classic theology can't dare to believe imaginations.
In heaven we don’t procreate as there is no need to. That’s why the angels don’t. Also we see the Holy Spirit come upon Mary to conceive the Lord. There’s an example of spiritual with earthly union. What about people who are sexually involved or assaulted by demons?
In heaven we won’t procreate as there is no need to. That’s why the Angels were not supposed to which is why those who did are considered sinners, having "left their first estate" as Jude put it. I'm unsure if any people actually are "sexually involved or assaulted by demons" since, by definition, demons are disembodies so, perhaps, they give the illusion of sexual involvement.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom thanks for that. I read a book by Hobart Freeman who recorded instances of people being sexually assaulted by demonic entities. Maybe there’s more for me to research on that one
The Holy Spirit did not take on a bodily form, but created in the womb, unlike Mormon theology that says God took on a body and had sex with Mary, which is blasphemous. The question you ask would be perhaps answered by the fact that God at some point imprisoned fallen angels in the pit who committed such deeds, and fallen ones now do not assault sexually with bodies on our bodies; that is, impart sperm that joins with eggs.
I’m gonna throw something out there that I have been thinking of for years. I also believe that the Nephilim are not offspring due to the way it is used in Genesis. But what if the Nephilim are a time marker and the “giants” it speaks of are what we call today as the larger dinosaurs. They would have been on earth at that time and after. Also the violence in the world from the curse of sin also would mean that the animals would act different. The larger ones would now instead of plants eat meat/people. Seeing how God brought a flood to do away with the land dwelling animals as well. And with nephilim meaning giant for the most part, those in time of the spies could have been just using the word as just that “giants”. Just something I’ve thought about.
Because Numbers 13:33 precludes 'giants' as being beasts, but are men. "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim)." Apart from that the idea that the masculine plural Nephilim characteristically indicates sentient beings (like Elohim), not beasts. Hope this helps.
@@craigchambers4183 maybe you could answer this for me. In Numbers 13:33 Who put (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim) in the Bible. Is that in the original Hebrew or was it added later? If the Nephilim in Genesis is speaking of men, then we know that in Numbers 13:33 the sons of Anak we see there couldn’t be actually descendants of the Nephilim because the Nephilim would have died in the flood if they were men. Thank My thought on that is that Numbers 13:33 is using the word Nephilim as “giant” and just a description of the people they saw. If the original doesn’t say (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), the word Nephilim in Numbers again may just be the word “giant” and them just saying that the people were big. Again I’ve just hashed this over in my head. It has nothing to do with salvation, just something I’ve always been curious about.
@@shawnmason8543 Well, as far as anyone can tell all the folks involved in assessing the Scriptures would say "of course it is in the original Hebrew." If you question that one, then there is nothing solid in the Word, right? Often the original writer put somethings in a parenthetical way without using brackets, which translators use to give the sense of the language. I would say they did die in the flood, and that would leave two options: Noah had Nephilim DNA in him, which is possible and later some more Nephilim offspring occurred, or more fallen angels did the same thing after the flood and new Nephilim occurred, which is possible since there is no clear timing given when these violators were put in the pit.
@@craigchambers4183 one of my main issues is that the verse in Genesis when the word Nephilim is used isn’t worded as if it is speaking of the offspring of the sons of God and the women of men. It sounds like it is saying that the Nephilim was on the earth before that happened and after. Genesis 6:4 “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” It doesn’t seem that the word Nephilim is referring to the children that were born to them or the sons of God. It also doesn’t seem that anyone really knows what Nephilim means. I’ve heard “fallen ones” and “giants”.
This seems like a parable illustrating that even really powerful people can be brought low if they act immorally enough. I don't see that spending hours going over what the word "nephilim" means returns any value beyond what's already obvious by an initial reading. I don't mean this as an attack, I'm genuinely curious what the objective is in putting so much effort into this one word that has no real English translation and only appears twice in the whole Bible. I get that there's inherent value in understanding biblical text, but it just seems like trying to determine which species of fish it was that Jesus multiplied. It doesn't seem to matter.
Because of the ubiquity and prominence of the internet and the enigma of the multiple passages, sensationalism-and particularly over-sensationalism-are rampant about this topic... therefore conscientious and thoughtful discussions are needed just to balance out shenanigans. In the midst of the daily ins-&-outs of a modern life of obligation, it's quite common for people to fascinate on the unusual. Secularist and even pagans do this with dress up parties and the like... but given the peculiar nature of the context... and the milieu of infant Christians, they're all kinds of progressive understandings and desires in this that will subject a Christian remnant to ridicule and irrational speculation and discredit Christian witness. "Flat-Earth" perspectives and insistence it's just such an example... Because even if the premises turned out to be true, it does not bode well or advance the cause of Christ -at least in the immediate domains of impacting the culture and the world. Depending upon how familiar one is with the cultural contemporary fixation on the paranormal, this will be something that will become more apparent in its need. This is surely why Joel picked this topic... and given the recent disclosure of government documents and anomalous video, a biblical address of these issues, in the context of plausibility, is essential... Especially with the naturalistic evolutionary secular celebration of "Ancient Aliens" ...and the like. Particularly because a saturation of this on the internet is expanding, the soundness and biblical regard of the two shows in collaboration here is a much needed environment and grounding. If all of these other facets were non-existent- then this would be an unnecessary episode or conversation. ✝️
The Nephilim and the Gibborim are not the same. You guys confused the Nephilim with the Gibborim. The Gibborim are the resultant children. It’s pretty clear in the Scriptures. It isn’t clear why they get confused so often. The Nephilim are the parents. And since the Nephilim are the parents and the root comes from the Hebrew word for “to fall,” and since only the Nephilim (maybe not those particular individuals, but their kind) are spoken as being on the earth after the Flood, then the Nephilim must be the elohim who came down from Heaven to sin and to cause human corruption. And the ones who did not personally do the Genesis 6 error are still around today. These are the celestial rulers and authorities that Paul speaks we are at war with. Also: Don’t forget that the Israelite spies lied. Don’t trust their account to read it back into Genesis 6. Use the rest of the Bible.
Well, "Nephilim and the Gibborim are not the same" since Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men and gibborim are not a people group, are not "the resultant children," since that term is merely a descriptive one meaning might/mighty. In other words, the resultant children are Nephilim and Nephilim are described as having been mighty/gibborim. You say "Nephilim...are spoken as being on the earth after the Flood" but who and where is it that they "are spoken as" after the flood? Yes, the "Israelite spies lied. Don’t trust their account" but you seem to be relying on them. As for "the ones who did not personally do the Genesis 6 error are still around today. These are the celestial rulers and authorities that Paul speaks we are at war with" if they did not personally do the Genesis 6 error then they are still loyal and we don't war with them--assuming that "with" you mean "against."
@@KenAmmi-Shalom You are incorrect in your understanding of what I said. You are also incorrect in your disagreement of what the text says. The text only says that the Nephilim were on the earth before and afterwards. The Nephilim are the subject. The next subject in Hebrew are the sons of God. The one to one reading shows the sons of God being the Nephilim. And we know by Scripture that other *fallen* celestial beings were on the earth. The offspring born to them are the ones explicitly called “Gibborim” in the Hebrew. Do you read Hebrew? If not, just reread the passage. Then you can understand what the text is saying. Then you can come back here and understand better what I have said.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Also, in that vein, I’m clearly not relying on the spies. What they called a paradise they later called a wilderness. The people they said were merely the sons of Anak and Amalek (along with others) suddenly became the descendants of supernatural Nephilim. They were lying through their teeth, which is why the narrator is silent on their words. They were clearly lying and the writer relies upon us being able to remember words a few lines above the page.
@@KMANelPADRINO Sorry if I misunderstood you. However, it’s not the case that “The Nephilim are the subject. The next subject in Hebrew are the sons of God” since son of God were mentioned first, then Nephilim, and then sons of God again. The view that Nephilim is an aka for sons of God is a historically minority view: virtually a non-issue. What are the “Scripture that other fallen celestial beings were on the earth” are who/what were they? Yes, “The offspring born to them are the ones explicitly called ‘Gibborim’ in the Hebrew” but I’m unsure why you mention that. Well, when you say of “the spies” (the ten unreliable ones) that “The people they said were merely the sons of Anak and Amalek (along with others) suddenly became the descendants of supernatural Nephilim” you are elucidating how they just made up a tall tale, indeed, “They were lying through their teeth.”
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Actually you are incorrect in the matter of the subject. It’s why reading Hebrew is worth doing or listening to someone who read Hebrew. Also, what standard of measure are you using for saying that the Nephilim are not the sons of God? Surely, you do know that several deuterocanonical and apocryphal books from Second Temple Jews (STJ) identified them as one and the same? Those are ancient texts where my view is supported. Also, keep in mind that “Nephilim” is simply untranslated Hebrew. It isn’t certain that it was a proper term. So it doesn’t have to refer to the Gibborim. Admittedly, I am also operating on the theological assertion that God wouldn’t do a drastic thing such as flood the Earth only to allow the exact same thing to occur after that complete devastation and to not react in kind to it. It is simply more likely that the statement of “fallen ones” being on the earth before and afterward point to the cosmological reality of demonic powers. Even in one instance where the Nephilim are identified as the Gibborim in STJ, they are only present as demons being disembodied spirits, which isn’t explicitly upheld by other books of Scripture (that particular narrative would be found in the Book of Jubilees). Further, on the subject of same subject, check this out for just one example of a subject being referred to by one proper title and then being described in another: Esau and Edom in Genesis 36 Jacob and Israel in Genesis 46 (throughout the entire chapter) Ishmaelites and Midianites (not even the same people genetically, but affiliates due to common interests and culture) in Genesis 37 What controls for this isn’t just knowing the narrative and knowing that their names are multiple, but also in who is doing the action and who is given the titles. The Genesis 6 model says that the “fallen ones” were in the earth, when the sons of God mated with the human daughters and the daughters bore to them (children). No such children are mentioned in the Bible as existing after the Flood. This, working on my earlier stated assumption that God would not let the same thing happen twice, is why it is more sound to say the “fallen ones” are the sons of God that came down from their own domain to sin greatly with humanity. There are others who did the same but not in a sexual way. This is the more coherent reading given what we have. And what is more is that the Septuagint avoids translating the term “Nephilim” altogether. It shows that clearly the children are the Gibborim in question.
The Sons of God are Flesh and Blood as man is flesh and blood they are one of the same, but the Sons of God are those who have dedicated themselves to God but because of the flesh the desire takes hold of them, as it takes hold of you, you too claim to be a Believer yet you fall because of the desire of Flesh, it is written in Genesis 6, because they are flesh, while others that is men, do not dedicate themselves to god that is believe in God, you have a totally different faith position, so what it is saying is, even those who dedicated themselves to god the Believer, have no power to resist the sinful nature to overcome, the Nephilim are simply Flesh and Blood men who are Giants extraordinary larger than common man, we find this in Goliath, when God says I cannot contend with man then the Sons of God are also men, otherwise god would say I cannot contain with the son's of God, because they are the ones who are falling from Grace, so-to-speak but he does not, therefore, the Sons of God the Nephilim are all mankind, if you allow your imagination to go too far in fantasy because of the poetic style of scripture rather than looking at a natural reality, you remove yourself from a simple truth. It is written, that God has placed the stars in their position in this, your imagination may see a human like being placing each star in its position, but this is fantasy not reality, as it is written, you have knitted me in my mother's womb, if you see it from its face value then you see someone knitting but it is written in a poetic Style, what we find today in academic value or scientific value that the cells simply multiply as though it is like knitting, so in this, there is no Great Mystery in what the word is saying of the truth of a matter, that even though those who believed and those who did not, you find they are equal in that, they cannot overcome the passions of the flesh, and this is what the whole Old Testament is trying to show man, by whatever Power Man can take hold of he can never overcome the sinful nature because of his flesh Believer or non-believer alike, until the Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit overcame all flesh.
The sons of God are of a flesh and blood of their own sort and we were made “a little lower” than they. See, if you say they “have dedicated themselves to God” then you have to back off from that when the whole point of Gen 6, as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, is that they failed to be dedicated to God. You say “Nephilim…are [I hope you meant “were”] Giants extraordinary larger” but there’s no reliable indication of that. In Goliath, we neither find Nephilim, since he was a Repha, not a Nephil, nor do we find, “Giants extraordinary larger” since most reliably, he was just shy of 7 ft. (but then again, “Giants” and “extraordinary” and “larger” are all subjective terms). Thus, don’t allow your imagination to go too far in fantasy.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom extraordinary or giant it's not a subjective term it is in reference to that which is common and that which is not, someone is a giant when they are larger than something else otherwise all would be equal inside, also there are scriptures which translate this word into Giants, also, referring to the Sons of God would have to be referring to a different Faith position, as opposed to those who are wicked, this is why I referred to those of today who believe in God yet they still fall, flesh desires flesh and because of this flesh the Sons of God fell for the Daughters of men, as King David fell for Bathsheba, when I said, do not be taken away by your imagination into fantasy which people can do very easily when reading the Old Testament, take the serpent for instance it is not a snake that is talking to Eve, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not of physical tree, if we take it literally we find fantasy, we must see the reality of these things, this is why I used some examples concerning God placing the stars in the sky and being knitted in one's womb,
@@TempleofChristMinistries Of course “extraordinary or giant” are both subjective. If not then, guess what, a 6 ft. tall person is a “giant,” right? Well, I’m 6 ft. and have been called a “giant” many, many times. Now, when you say “someone is a giant when they are larger than something else” (which, by the way, is the very definition of subjective) you are artificially inserting the strictly modern usage of the English word “giant” into an ancient Hebrew text: that is not what “giant” means when you read it in an English Bible. In such cases, “giant” comes from the LXX’s “gigantes” which merely means “earth-born.” Moreover, “giants” is rendering (not even translating) either “Nephilim” or “Rephaim”: neither of which even imply anything about height at all. So, when you say “there are scriptures which translate this word into Giants” you are not considering what that means nor what the Hebrew words behind it are. Who are the sons of God in Job 38:7?
TBH this stuff is virtually a non-issue. There's no reason for their not to be nephilim post flood. several options are available which allow it. Also, its technnically possible Gen 6 is a metaphorical story trying to show the giant were made in some way by the power of rebellious spirits against God. It's not necessarily the case we need to read Gen 6 as NECESSITATING human-spirit relations. Its the easiest interpretation, but the other is defensible too! nephilim are an interesting an edifying element to Christianity, but not by any means central. I think Calvinism is true as well as the divine council. It's pretty well established but I think the problem comes when say Mormons will try to misuse it (they do that somtimes). I think a lot of this stuff is really a non-issue. either or is fine.
There needs to be a study of the phase “sons of God” - the translation is better understood “messengers of God”. “Angels” is often translated as “messengers”. Far beyond simply wanting to sound reasonable - it is reasonable. What convolutes the fact that the “sons of God” were simply men who identified with Noah but were unfaithful is this forced categorizing of them as the “sons of Seth” and the daughters being the “daughters of Cain”. We don’t need those categories at all. These “sons of God” coveted the daughters of men AND took them as wives. Marriage is the God ordained, Christ picturing institution of God. Even if we want to hold to demonic angels having sex w/ humans they would not have been bound to marry. I have to say as this conversation went on you guys completely went off the rails with theories and this is the problem - you guys total left the text, actually you never really dealt w/ the phase “sons of God” in any meaningful way.
UNTIL.... ALL THE BLIND CHRISTIANS ✝️ ACCEPT THAT ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT THE VERY FIRST MALE AND FEMALE ON EARTH. ------ THERE WILL BE NO LIGHT, OF THE COMMON SENSE ANSWER . ------ HERDSMAN III OLD III
For repeat watchers who want to quickly go to the topic of discussion, it starts at 8:39. Excellent video! I'm not a Calvinist or cessationist, but still really enjoy your videos. We can agree to disagree. We'll learn the truth in heaven. ❤
Dr Michael Heiser has written on this subject with Biblical clarity: The Unseen Realm. Also his podcast The Naked Bible Podcast.
I loved seeing Joel being this gracious toward continuationists.
It couldn't've just been hyperbole in Numbers. Joshua and Caleb both didn't deny the size of the men. They accepted the fact that they were giants, yet said they could defeat them with God.
Douglas Van Dorn has written an excellent book on this topic. I am completely convinced of the sons of God being angels, esp after reading his book.
Makes one wonder if Greek mythology somehow stems from true stories that are really about Nephilim.
It seems to me that when humanity lived in relative proximity we had shared history that then came to be called myth and legend as it was taken through the Earth after the Tower of Babel dispersion.
I think it does
I think it does!
I believe it is, definitely.
That is a very good point
Cessationist believe in gifts too. When charismatics say we believe in the gifts.. it is a division of self righteousness..
but thank you Joel our unity is in the same spirit
Dr michael heiser did a teaching on this... lays out clearly sons of God as angels
Nice! @RightResponseMinistries and @TheRemnantRadio should get together again soon! I'd be thrilled to hear a conversation about Patriarchalism vs Complementarianism
Between this and listening to your talk with Mike Winger, it'd be interesting to have see a conversation with Michael Heiser. Particularly about his concept of spiritual geography (can't remember if that's the right term) and Jesus reclaiming the earth.
Cosmic Geology
Tim alberino has a series on the birthright that YHWH gave man. Definitely a good watch to fit with these guys
He died. 😢
I really enjoyed this video. I think Dr. Chuck Missler also does a great job explaining and shedding some clarity on this subject. As far as the "and also after that" question, I think Rib Skiba offers a compelling possibility, mentioning that only Noah was perfect in his generation but not his daughters-in-law.
Hi guys. Love this conversation.
When you guys were talking regarding how the Nephilim continued after the flood, none of you brought up the possibility of that the wives that Noah’s sons took carried the seed or DNA of the Nephilim and that’s maybe how the Nephilim could have continued after the flood. What do you think.
IMO, that's the best answer. Someone in Noah's family had the DNA that produced giant offspring.
I have often wondered about "everything with the breath of life" part when YHWH talks of the destruction. While most died due to the cataclysmic nature of the flood, did they actually fall under the breath of life part?
Cain's descendents, everything was bigger before the flood because it didn't rain before the flood greenhouse effect the speer of water in the atmosphere. The men of renoun wasn't falling angels, I thought it was a spiritual warfare how would fallen angels have sex with flesh and blood
@@SokemRokemRobotTrue. It said NOAH was blameless in his generations, not his daughters-in-law. Also, he likely had daughters with husbands, they just usually aren't included.
By@@SokemRokemRobot
What happens to the Nephilims spirit when they die? Do they go back into the heavenly realm or do they cease to exist ? do their wives know that they are angels/demons? Or is it a big secret to everyone but God.
I definitely believe only angelic beings created such giant beings
Amen
Just be careful since you are referring to Nephilim as "giant beings" based on an "evil report" by 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishes who made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked.
fallen angels are bound in the pit, Jude. angels cannot reproduce. Goliath was Nephilim. Nephilim were giants,
ANGELS CREATED? Read Col 1:16-19
@@larrymoore2571No one said ex nihilo. 🙄🙄🙄
It was Good ❤
Very good discussion, I too am a sane continuation gift believer that loves John McArthur, the late R. C Sproul and respect their incredible gifts as well as the panels.
One misconception theologians have is assuming the Angels that came to lay with a daughter of man is the same Angels that fell with lucifer. And not a watcher, or guardian Angel that chose to lay with a daughter of man.
They stand pretty firm on the Michael Heiser position
Heiser teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible does not.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom The Bible literally says there were Nephilim on the earth after the flood.
What sin is worst than the other ?
All humans are depraved
That's why the Bible says Repent
Christian or not all are sinners
And we are all worthy of God's judgement.
Video starts at 8:05
Loved this discussion!
I think that all 3 theories could easily be correct all at the same time, but I do think it's primarily about the Nephilim. All 3 could easily be correct simply because of the evil of humans hearts at that time.
The human heart is evil and desperately wicked
There is none righteous
All have sined and fallen short of the Glory of God.
Joel should let his guests talk more
Greetings, incase of sons of god can be determined two ways either the faith of seth seed family or the angels, the scripture of job can show that differ for sons of god . Genesis scripture just never expand on the matter
Gods covenantal promises
Check out Dr Laura Sanger’s explanation in her book on The Roots of the Federal Reserve.
I believe I'm a fundamentalist since I believe what the scripture says.
That means you’re a christian
@Groobs Jesus said that those who believe, obey Him
Fundamentalist means you believe it's entirely literal.
Sometimes, a giant is just a giant. Jesus said,"It's for man to die once, then comes the judgement". Giants, or nephilim, won't get special privileges, and roam the Earth as disembodied spirits to cause havoc.
Jude 1:6 KJV - 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.
Perhaps this is chains of spiritual darkness, and why far more evil and ghosts (demons) are done and witnessed in darkness.
One concern I see with the fallen angels view for Sons of God is why are human beings held accountable for something that sounds like angels forcefully "taking" the daughters of men. In later history of Israel in the wilderness, God judged them for taking pagan wives, and not merely for Israelite women being given to pagans. Furthermore, in Gen 6 what were the men and their sons doing while this activity was occurring? Were they complicit or just helpless bystanders?
The wives were not forcefully taken , they were given in exchange for knowledge that mankind had been striving to learn . Referenced in the Bible as well as the book of Enoch
On the Calvinism discussion at the beginning, a lot of the universal sounding texts make way more sense when you’re #datpostmill 😏
Very true.
@@RightResponseMinistries I’m curious how you interpret the Rich man and Lazarus narrative. If we take it literally, and it’s describing the intermediary state, then the rich man has a tongue and wants water. He wants his physical relatives to be warned and sees a physical Lazarus. If it’s a figurative parable, we’ll then we’re still in the same place haha curious your thoughts on that?
The Angels weren't cast into Tartarus until after they had committed their carnal sins in an effort to corrupt the woman's seed. Satan was and his angels were cast to earth, falling like lightning. They knew they couldn't repent and were doomed, but they seemed to think if they could prove GOD wrong or if they corrupted HIS creation, man, they could find a way either back to Glory or at the very least, not destined for painful eternal torment. I agree, or at least my opinion coincides that they were imprisoned and first judged shortly before the flood, and told they would see their offspring die. I think the immediate imprisonment only came after they copulated with strange/human flesh. So there were fallen angels still free after the flood or more became corrupt(the powers, principalities, etc. that interbred again. I have always wondered if the ham shem japeth spouses weren't sisters bc GOD was very specific in HIS statement that Noah was perfect in his generations, meaning his DNA was still perfectly maintained in his ancestors AND offspring. I know that's a cringe statement, but our thoughts and reasons for making incestuous relations taboo is bc our DNA has lost so much since antediluvian direct line of Adam man. We have such degraded DNA that now that produces offspring that are even further genetically lacking and thus sickly, diseased, impaired both mentally and physically, etc.. Just for the record, the thought of sister wives grosses me out too😂, BUT we are so set and ARROGANT in our world view that we discount the supernatural nature of GOD and how much closer to GOD and HIS image Noah was. I enjoyed this discussion. Ty for sharing it. Not to sound monotonous, 2 things, I don't think hair splitting over doctrines Calvinism, cessationism, etc, is a waste. I believe there we exist in a supernatural world created by the Great , without beginning or end, I AM. I think one needs only look around however to see that we are farther away physically and spiritually from our beginning state than ever and move farther away with each generation. Do you SEE the supernatural things/acts/miracles happening now that happened in Scripture today? Happening in a way that can't just as easily be happenstance. Have you seen anyone deliver a message in one language and everyone listening,no matter their language,understand it in full? Any water switched to wine? I KNOW GOD can do anything. I still believe HE acts and intercedes in our lives. I think, with respect, that regarding tongue speaking, one should REEEALLY read and fully discern all that GOD's WORD has to say about that. The apostles carried on CHRIST's ministry and miracles bc they had been imbued these abilities from/in HIS
direct presence. I don't know of anyone "laying hands" on anyone and as a result the person's leprosy rinsing right off like a little dry skin since the Biblical accounts. If there are such miracles still occurring, I would love to see it. GOD Bless and keep you gentlemen and thank you for spreading The Gospel.
Read the Books of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees and see how they line up with the Bible.
Washer and Enoch are not accepted as canon. Non biblical literature.
Giants-men of renoun-nephalim. All names for the same men. Sons of God=godly. Daughters of men=ungodly. theirs no reason to believe angels can procreate.
Sons of God is used to describe angels the majority of the time.
How can angels procreate? Do they have sexual parts?
Good conversation about a topic that is weird for too many, but weird in all the wrong ways.
We believe someone rose from the dead after 3 days!! That's weird. But just because it's weird doesn't make it untrue.
I will say that sometimes Pastor Joel, your Calvinism comes close to getting in the way of your Biblical faith. As another brother I urge you to always check Calvinism against scripture and not the other way around. Michael is indeed correct there are ACTUALLY many passages of scripture that do not square well with Calvinism. Anyway not what the video is about.
Thanks for the content
Can you provide a few passages that do not sqaure well with the doctrines of grace?
I'm curious how the speculation about 120 years and Noah's building compares to the chronology of Enoch. Since a good part of rejecting Enoch is tied to it's exposition of these ideas you might as well give Enoch a bit more credit. If Enoch talks about all this jazz, then said immorality must have been in play in the time of Enoch. I am currently dismayed with the level of utter circularity on why Enoch is not in Scripture. More often than not I see the answer: because it's not Scripture. Well, duh. That is unhelpful to someone like me who dares to ask the question "why".
Because although the first book (Chapter 1) was standalone, many 'books' (chapters) were added over time, and none of them are fully supported when compared to all of what is known to be the Word of God. The argument that Chapter 1 is Scripture could be put forth as it gets quoted in known Scripture (Jude, Peter), but although the Apostles were familiar with it they also were familiar with other historical non-inspired texts that they could quote as true (like Paul concerning those liars of Crete), but this would not support that all an historian wrote was true, much less inspired. Enoch had not made the criteria for Scripture in the days of Jesus, nor afterward. Enoch is fascinating but seems to be used to define the Scriptures rather than the other way around.
Jesus DIDN'T SAY, " There is no sexual intercourse."
---
Jesus said, "... not given OR taken in marriage "
---- Answering the question concerning Jewish marriage traditions...
-----
HERDSMAN III OLD III
Also, in Hebrew, the giants are just large humans. There isn’t anything saying that Goliath was a “Gibborim” in the sense that he was descended from angels. Also, David had “Gibborim,” thirty of them to be exact, or three hundred.
And God Himself is a Gibbor (El Gibbor).
We need to be careful to parse the context of each text. It is not always that a term holds the same meaning and class identification across passages.
I'm unsure what you mean by "in Hebrew, the giants are just large humans" since there is not Hebrew word "giants"?
By definition Goliath could be categorized as a gibbor (not gibborim since that's plural) since that merely means he was mighty but right, not "in the sense that he was descended from angels."
@@KenAmmi-Shalom
First off, there is no known Biblical Hebrew word for a “giant.” That’s a first.
Secondly, Goliath is given praise for his height and strength, and assumedly his fighting prowess (which he thankfully didn’t get to demonstrate on the young man David).
So that’s what I meant there. Goliath is called a warrior hero the same as David’s other mighty men.
Gibbor just means “warrior.” It has the same lexeme as a word for “man” and “hero” and “brave” as well as “force of power.”
It also has other Semitic equivalents, such as in Aramaic.
So the word needs to be read in context each time.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom
So when I say “giants,” which in English at base meaning is someone of unusual size, I mean to say that in the Hebrew, the “giants,” meaning the English understanding found Hebrew texts from abnormally tall persons, are just abnormally tall people who were apparently fully functional and physically proportional (meaning not gigantism or other birth defects).
That’s it.
Shouldn’t be hard since abnormally small humans also existed. Humans used to be far more genetically diverse, which is what we should expect anyways in the nature of sexual descent and mass migration.
@@KMANelPADRINO Indeed, “there is no known Biblical Hebrew word for a ‘giant’” if by “giant” you imply the modern usage (more on this below).
Goliath is referred to as a champion and was most reliably just shy of 7 ft.
Gibbor just means might/mighty.
It’s strictly the modern “English…base meaning is someone of unusual size” which is not the ancient meaning so you can’t apply a modern usage to an ancient text.
You say “the English understanding found Hebrew texts from abnormally tall persons” is not the case. The English “giants” comes form the Greek “gigantes” (or “gigas”) which means “earth-born.” When you read about “giants” in your English Bible the Hebrew being rendered (not even translated) is either “Nephilim” or “Repahim”: neither of which imply anything about height at all.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom
It is growing clear that you don’t understand what I’m saying. So I will try again.
In the Ancient Hebrew used in the Bible, there is no word for “giant.”
I already stated what Gibbor means. And the Hebrew is clear that the children born from the unions from Nephilim/sons of God and human women are the Gibborim.
In the Septuagint, the Nephilim are not mentioned. Instead the translation focuses solely upon the children born, which is why the Greek says that the “γίγαντες” existed back then and afterwards, and that when the sons of God took the daughters of humanity they (the women) gave birth to “themselves,” namely the “γίγαντες.”
What is funny is that while “Gibbor” can mean a “mighty warrior,” γίγας (aka “gigas”) can mean “mighty” also. In fact, for the above reasons based upon the Hebrew, I think the English translation of “giant” isn’t at all what the ancient Greek-speaking Jewish translators meant. They most likely meant “mighty ones” and not “giant ones.”
Now that you have given your definition of “gigas,” I can suspect that you don’t know Ancient Greek. I do, though. I also read Ancient Hebrew.
And since the sole Bible available to many (including probably yourself, but maybe not) is in Modern English, and since this conversation actually is taking place in the Modern English language and based upon such translations, then I certainly *can* point out that the word “giant” as a proper term isn’t appropriate to use in the Bible at Genesis 6, which I said earlier and now hope to have made clear from a different angle.
And please, do go back and reread Genesis 6 even in the English and you will see what I told you earlier: the Gibborim and the Nephilim are not the same people. That is critical to understanding at least where I’m coming from in reading the text.
Do you understand exactly what happened during the flood? Antideluvian world was one continent. When God caused the flood he let loose the firmament and the Waters of the deep causing the continent to break apart due to massive earth quakes and platonic shifting.
Yes, “the word ‘Nephilim’ only appears one other time in scripture that's Numbers 13 verse 33” but the Nephilim don’t: that’s just a reference to them.
See, you read, “the Israelite spies reported that they had seen the Nephilim” but you need to be more detailed since there were 12 spies but it was the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishes who made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked who claimed that, they just concocted a tall tale.
That there were post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim were related to them, and that Nephilim were very tall are all exclusively stated within the 10 spies’ “evil report” so are utterly unreliable assertions not back by even one other single verse.
Thus, did didn’t survive the flood and there’s not one single statement about them returning, not even a hint of Angles falling again (there’s only a one time fall of Angels in the Bible).
And the only reason to think that they survived (in any way, shape, or form) or returned is, guess what?, one single verse within an “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked-to death.
The point of the Nephilim made in Genesis 6 was that they were before and after the flood. It does not necessarily take angels falling again in that manner (they are spiritually fallen in any case) to produce Nephilim, as they, being born of women, had reproductive capabilities in their own bodies, in which case there would have been some Nephilim ancestry mixed in with Noah. But if one must regard that as not possible for some reason, then it refers to a continuance of angels taking physical form for immoral and unnatural intent after the flood. I am not aware of a one-time fall verse in regards to physical manifestations of angels, only their one-time fall from spiritual life. In fact, angels were obviously able to take on physical manifestation and eat food. So, fallen angels, Genesis 6, could continue the practice before and after the flood until they were imprisoned. We are not told when they were imprisoned as far as I can tell.
@@craigchambers4183 Most interesting, friend.
But your proposal is premised on the mere assertion that, “there would have been some Nephilim ancestry mixed in with Noah.”
But besides that you had to invent that story (and imply that God failed): if there was some then why are there no such things as post-flood Nephilim-which is one reason, “one must regard that as not possible”-?
Inventing “a continuance of angels taking physical form for immoral and unnatural intent after the flood” 1) also implies that God failed, 2) is fallacious since there’s no indication anywhere that Angles take physical form, 3) as per Jude and 2 Peter 2 they were incarcerated so they would not have been around to do any such thing. True, “We are not told when they were imprisoned” but since the flood was when God was cleaning house, in a manner of speaking, then just letting it all happen again post-flood implies that the flood was a waste.
As I noted, it is true that there is no, “one-time fall verse in regards to physical manifestations of angels” since there are zero such verses.
See, when you say, “angels were obviously able to take on physical manifestation and eat food” you’re getting ahead of yourself: your hidden assumption of a premise is faulty, you imply they are not ontologically physical but they are physical (even if with access to realms/dimensions) we can’t access.
Beyond all of this, you find yourself being forced to literally make up stuff just to protect one single verse that merely records an evil report by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why do you side with them? They made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all: why exclusively believe them? They contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible: as for me and my house, we will side with contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom Just some quick replies, but no more since this appears to be accusatory rather than instructive. I reread my post and do not see where I 'invented' some story. I have conjectured based on the verse itself, "before and after the flood." So, either from the loins of Noah or angels doing the same thing again until imprisonment, unless there is a third option that I don't see. Angels took physical form and ate food (Abraham before the destruction of Sodom; men desiring relations (sex) with angels in Sodom, entertaining angels unawares). Taking such form does not mean they are not spirit, but that they abandoned their natural spirit abode for a time. If this happened once and it did not imply that God failed (which He cannot do), why would doing it after the flood suggest failure? God is God, and nothing any living thing like angels do is without His will involved (however you look at that; permissive, direct).
The spies, all ten, gave the report. There was no dispute as to the fact that the people were generally larger, and besides, there were also Nephilim. What was 'evil' was the stress laid by the eight that these people were too strong for the Jews to fight and they would lose. Caleb and Hoshea (Joshua) were contrary, saying that the Lord would prevail and that the Jews should go into the land and fight as God was commanding. To read into this that the facts were evil rather than the conclusion (which the whole assembly took to heart and wept and rebelled) is to implicate Caleb and Joshua as well, but clearly they presented the facts too and yet concluded that God was going to give them the victory.
@@craigchambers4183 Friend, please don’t read my black and white text emotively: I’m interested in sharpening iron with iron-I just find that when we seek to sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
Since there’s nothing in the whole Bible about post-flood Nephilim then, by definition, seeking to elucidate a reappearance of them post-flood is inventing some story.
Now, you refer to, “the verse itself, ‘before and after the flood’” but there’s no such verse in the whole Bible and by inserting “the flood” into it you miss that it is telling you to what days it’s referring and it’s not the flood: those days were when the SoG first mated with the DoM and afterwards is just that, after they first did it. They began to do it and kept doing it but that’s all pre-flood.
So anything about “from the loins of Noah or angels doing the same thing again” is unnecessary since we’ve no reliable indication of any post-flood Nephilim at any time at all.
You say, “Angels took physical form” but there’s no such thing in the Bible. Rather, every time they are described they are described as looking just like human males so that means that such is how they look naturally, that is their ontology, and we were created “a little lower” then they: they are not spirit, they are embodied in a flesh of their own which enjoyed access to dimensional realms that we can’t access.
Doing it after the flood suggests failure since it would imply that God sent a worldwide flood in order to be rid of fallen Angel and Nephilim related byproducts only to have them do it all again so the flood was a waste.
You say “The spies, all ten, gave the report” but there were twelve spies and Joshua sided with Caleb so that leaves the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked: why side with them and against Moses, Joshua, Caleb, God, and the rest of the whole Bible?
You say, “There was no dispute as to the fact that the people were generally larger, and besides, there were also Nephilim” but when Moses relates the event in Deut 1 he doesn’t even bother mentioning Nephilim: he’s too concerned about the real dangers on the ground, not made up tall tales. Also, “generally larger” means generally larger than 5.0-5.3 ft. so what of it?
What was “evil” was the motivation and to what it led. The report is not false because it’s called “evil” but due to its demonstrably false contents: five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all. That’s why neo-Nephilology is literally based on one single verse.
Now they look like normal people not giants.
You probably know one...
If you work around high level govt,you 100 pct have met them.
Facts.
Hope your kids didn’t need to wear masks! It’s sad to see that here in Manitoba, Canada. 🇨🇦
So sorry to hear that.
Or these sons of God was not one of the original fallen angel but other angels that left their first estate after the fall.
Is proffessor peter gentry related to dr kenneth gentry?
I'll
Jesus tells us in John 8:17 about witnesses. "It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true." (NKJ/Red letters);
There are two witnesses found in Deut. 17:6 & 19:15 to the statement that Jesus made, thus totalling 3 in all. Without witnesses it is just summation and speculation. With witnesses so it is truth. But where contradiction appears, there is deeper truth.
Enoch says that the Watchers were sent to earth to watch over mankind, but then started to lie with them. They didn't fall with Satan. And Revelation 12 states that Satan went to earth when Israel was pregnant with the Messiah, and that it wasn't until the Messiah ascended to Heaven was there war in Heaven against Satan and Michael.
Pastor Joel, I'm really confused about how to discern their ministry. I know they have a lot of respectable people on their show, but they also have had Todd White on and also have picked a fight with Chris Roseburrow. I find this assosiation confusing. Could you please clarify.
Fair question. Their mission is to “disrupt theological echo chambers” by intentionally having guests they disagree with (Todd White would be an example of this). However, in my personal opinion, their attempts to “disrupt theological echo chambers” often merely creates theological confusion, discourages confessional Christianity, dissuades from the value of systematic theology, and endorses nefarious ministers. There’s a reason I had them on my show to discuss the topic at hand: I believe their position on that subject is reasonable and biblically grounded. I would not have them on my show to address “gifts of the Spirit,” for example. That said, Michael Rowntree is a personal friend. We disagree on severs theological issues, but I have witnessed his deep love for Scripture and the Lord. I hope that he will change his mind on certain issues, but I believe he is a godly man. However, I would theologically side with Chris Rosebrough in regards to his view of prophecy. I personally believe Remnant Radio’s view of prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and even dangerous.
In conclusion, Remnant Radio is worth listening to on some topics and not others. All of this assumes a great deal of spiritual maturity and theological understanding on the part of the listener. I would not recommend Remnant Radio to new believers.
@Right Response Ministries Pastor Joel, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I truly appreciate it and I find that clarification helpful. Thank you for your ministry, I find it very edifying as I continue to grow in my walk with the Lord.
@@dylancowling8774 you’re very welcome. Thanks.
I’m confused, is Joel Webbon a Calvinist or not? Was under the impression he was.
One that feels An angel having sexual desires of the Daughters of men and laying with them is weird, must not be solid in their beliefs in GOD and all of his creations. Its not a matter of is it possible, or its weird or any other of mans thoughts. It just IS.
In my opinion, a person that rejects the existence of GOds Creations, Heaven, Angels, demons and the devil
Sons of GOD are Angels
And we are the Sons of Men same as the daughters.
oikētērion
Outline of Biblical Usage:
a dwelling place, habitation
of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit.
Jude 1:6 KJV - 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.
2 Corinthians 5:2 KJV - For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our ***house*** which is from heaven:
The house in 2 Cor is about our new body we wait for, it's the same Greek word, the only 2 instances it's used, showing that the angels when they fell did not keep their original body they had in heaven.
The guy quotes St. Augustine and says "historic protestantism" 🤦 unbelievable. The self delusion is on a another level.
Rookies
Calvinism… can’t get away from election… hummm…. As a former Calvinist, we have to look at Rom 9 in the context of Rom 9-11, which is about Israel.
It is very simple, election is about a group, not individuals. OT Israel was elect for a purpose. The NT believers, by faith, are also an elect group , called for a purpose. God decided to have a people for himself.
As to Nephalim, if one thinks they are physical giants one must think again. Here is why when we actually face a giant who is called Goliath we see that the Hebrew word "rapha" speaks of giants. So a vicious blood thirsty murderer can be described.
Another point, as to Son's of God, using Job, we assume sons of God are angels and thus we create a cyclical argument to say sons of God are angel. We forget, Israelites were told, if they could not go to Jerusalem to go to a place appointed by God to celebrate. So the Patriarchs could be called to meet with God at an appointed place to meet with God, and Satan would show up, Angels are eternally in God's presence unless they had already been thrown out.
Your position is illiterate not only Biblically, but simply historically.
As a tangent, the inundation of *physical* giants throughout the legendariums of World History is undeniable. Yet Christians will gladly ignore that, while pointing to worldwide legends corresponding to Bable, Adam and Eve, and the Flood.
All angels, good or bad, can put on flesh. I have held the hand of an evil one from Mesopotamia. Very creepy experience. But very real too. That evil angel had an emerald ring on his right hand, thick combed back, shiny black hair, big Arabic nose and a "high haughty look" (smart arse) as the Holy Bible says . He fled at a quicker than light speed when I told him that I bow to no one but Allah (in this instance, Arabic for YHWH as determined in my heart and soul). Glory to God. Om River Christian channel
Sons of God are direct creations of God. Angels are Adam qualify as sons of Lagos because they were his direct creation.
The rest of humanity do not fall into that category because we are sons of Adam, and not direct creation of God.
I do not understand your comments, do you not know that we are all direct creations of God?
~ Isaiah 44:24; "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one 'WHO FORMED YOU FROM THE WOMB',
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone,"
~ Psalm139: 14-16; I will praise thee; for 'I am fearfully and wonderfully made': marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when 'I was made in secret', and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which 'in continuance were fashioned', when as yet there was none of them.
A)b)c
B is correct
But the explanation is pear shaped
The godly men the Sons of God began the marry the daughters of ungodly men
Given into marriage
Means truth began to marry lies
And so we have Christianity today
The church teaches truth and lies
Study to show yourselves approved
Rightly deciding the Word of God
If you belong to Christ
You have no right to believe,teach or practice lies.
Angels never ever mated with humans.
How stupid does it get?
Unless man and the creation is powerful and more powerful than God and are able to do what ever they want.
If beings can do what they want why are the fallen angels still held in tartarus being bound for judgement
And why can't the devil do anything unless God permits him to.
The devil and the angels tried to do what they wanted
But you see how God sorted them out and made light work of them
Exactly the same reason man can't live in the sea like a whales or fly in the sky like birds.
And men can't become monkeys and monkeys can't become men.
Baptist theology working itself out to its logical erroneous conclusions.
Wow Eight minute intro of small talk.
Why would it be unnatural to practice sex in heaven, if everyone has sexual equipment?
-----
HERDSMAN III OLD III
so Adam was an angel?
Imagination laughs at blind actors.
It is in you as a person that the nature of God is revealed, for a scriptural episode is not a record of an historical event, but a parabolic revelation of truth. To see Jesus or David as an historical character is to see truth tempered to the weakness of your soul. You must see what the characters represent, rather than the characters themselves. This is true for every story in scripture, for every episode will unfold within you.
"He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit"...it's real, not imaginary. How do I know..thru encounters and experiences with the living God himself in my life. Beliefs/doctrines may change... but encounters do not. From your comments seems apparent that you have never had a true encounter with the Living God...just sayin ..bless your heart
@@Riker-ER OT is allegory not secular history, Paul hinted in Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, very few believe it. Jesus was allegory pattern classic theology can't dare to believe imaginations.
In heaven we don’t procreate as there is no need to. That’s why the angels don’t. Also we see the Holy Spirit come upon Mary to conceive the Lord. There’s an example of spiritual with earthly union.
What about people who are sexually involved or assaulted by demons?
In heaven we won’t procreate as there is no need to. That’s why the Angels were not supposed to which is why those who did are considered sinners, having "left their first estate" as Jude put it. I'm unsure if any people actually are "sexually involved or assaulted by demons" since, by definition, demons are disembodies so, perhaps, they give the illusion of sexual involvement.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom thanks for that. I read a book by Hobart Freeman who recorded instances of people being sexually assaulted by demonic entities. Maybe there’s more for me to research on that one
The Holy Spirit did not take on a bodily form, but created in the womb, unlike Mormon theology that says God took on a body and had sex with Mary, which is blasphemous. The question you ask would be perhaps answered by the fact that God at some point imprisoned fallen angels in the pit who committed such deeds, and fallen ones now do not assault sexually with bodies on our bodies; that is, impart sperm that joins with eggs.
You can only imagine the post-nut clarity of those lusting angels... :)) "Oh, no. Men were right, it's not worth it."
What did they learn about biblical womanhood from Amiee Bird? Lol
Nothing good.
I’m gonna throw something out there that I have been thinking of for years.
I also believe that the Nephilim are not offspring due to the way it is used in Genesis.
But what if the Nephilim are a time marker and the “giants” it speaks of are what we call today as the larger dinosaurs.
They would have been on earth at that time and after.
Also the violence in the world from the curse of sin also would mean that the animals would act different. The larger ones would now instead of plants eat meat/people.
Seeing how God brought a flood to do away with the land dwelling animals as well.
And with nephilim meaning giant for the most part, those in time of the spies could have been just using the word as just that “giants”.
Just something I’ve thought about.
Because Numbers 13:33 precludes 'giants' as being beasts, but are men. "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim)." Apart from that the idea that the masculine plural Nephilim characteristically indicates sentient beings (like Elohim), not beasts. Hope this helps.
@@craigchambers4183 maybe you could answer this for me.
In Numbers 13:33
Who put (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim) in the Bible. Is that in the original Hebrew or was it added later?
If the Nephilim in Genesis is speaking of men, then we know that in Numbers 13:33 the sons of Anak we see there couldn’t be actually descendants of the Nephilim because the Nephilim would have died in the flood if they were men. Thank
My thought on that is that Numbers 13:33 is using the word Nephilim as “giant” and just a description of the people they saw.
If the original doesn’t say (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), the word Nephilim in Numbers again may just be the word “giant” and them just saying that the people were big.
Again I’ve just hashed this over in my head. It has nothing to do with salvation, just something I’ve always been curious about.
@@shawnmason8543 Well, as far as anyone can tell all the folks involved in assessing the Scriptures would say "of course it is in the original Hebrew." If you question that one, then there is nothing solid in the Word, right? Often the original writer put somethings in a parenthetical way without using brackets, which translators use to give the sense of the language.
I would say they did die in the flood, and that would leave two options: Noah had Nephilim DNA in him, which is possible and later some more Nephilim offspring occurred, or more fallen angels did the same thing after the flood and new Nephilim occurred, which is possible since there is no clear timing given when these violators were put in the pit.
@@craigchambers4183 one of my main issues is that the verse in Genesis when the word Nephilim is used isn’t worded as if it is speaking of the offspring of the sons of God and the women of men.
It sounds like it is saying that the Nephilim was on the earth before that happened and after.
Genesis 6:4
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
It doesn’t seem that the word Nephilim is referring to the children that were born to them or the sons of God.
It also doesn’t seem that anyone really knows what Nephilim means. I’ve heard “fallen ones” and “giants”.
This seems like a parable illustrating that even really powerful people can be brought low if they act immorally enough. I don't see that spending hours going over what the word "nephilim" means returns any value beyond what's already obvious by an initial reading. I don't mean this as an attack, I'm genuinely curious what the objective is in putting so much effort into this one word that has no real English translation and only appears twice in the whole Bible. I get that there's inherent value in understanding biblical text, but it just seems like trying to determine which species of fish it was that Jesus multiplied. It doesn't seem to matter.
Because of the ubiquity and prominence of the internet and the enigma of the multiple passages, sensationalism-and particularly over-sensationalism-are rampant about this topic... therefore conscientious and thoughtful discussions are needed just to balance out shenanigans.
In the midst of the daily ins-&-outs of a modern life of obligation, it's quite common for people to fascinate on the unusual. Secularist and even pagans do this with dress up parties and the like... but given the peculiar nature of the context... and the milieu of infant Christians, they're all kinds of progressive understandings and desires in this that will subject a Christian remnant to ridicule and irrational speculation and discredit Christian witness.
"Flat-Earth" perspectives and insistence it's just such an example... Because even if the premises turned out to be true, it does not bode well or advance the cause of Christ -at least in the immediate domains of impacting the culture and the world.
Depending upon how familiar one is with the cultural contemporary fixation on the paranormal, this will be something that will become more apparent in its need. This is surely why Joel picked this topic... and given the recent disclosure of government documents and anomalous video, a biblical address of these issues, in the context of plausibility, is essential... Especially with the naturalistic evolutionary secular celebration of "Ancient Aliens" ...and the like.
Particularly because a saturation of this on the internet is expanding, the soundness and biblical regard of the two shows in collaboration here is a much needed environment and grounding.
If all of these other facets were non-existent- then this would be an unnecessary episode or conversation.
✝️
Every word of god matters.
fallen angels are bound in the pit, Jude. angels cannot reproduce. Goliath was Nephilim. Nephilim were giants,
The Nephilim and the Gibborim are not the same.
You guys confused the Nephilim with the Gibborim. The Gibborim are the resultant children. It’s pretty clear in the Scriptures. It isn’t clear why they get confused so often.
The Nephilim are the parents. And since the Nephilim are the parents and the root comes from the Hebrew word for “to fall,” and since only the Nephilim (maybe not those particular individuals, but their kind) are spoken as being on the earth after the Flood, then the Nephilim must be the elohim who came down from Heaven to sin and to cause human corruption.
And the ones who did not personally do the Genesis 6 error are still around today. These are the celestial rulers and authorities that Paul speaks we are at war with.
Also: Don’t forget that the Israelite spies lied. Don’t trust their account to read it back into Genesis 6. Use the rest of the Bible.
Well, "Nephilim and the Gibborim are not the same" since Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men and gibborim are not a people group, are not "the resultant children," since that term is merely a descriptive one meaning might/mighty. In other words, the resultant children are Nephilim and Nephilim are described as having been mighty/gibborim.
You say "Nephilim...are spoken as being on the earth after the Flood" but who and where is it that they "are spoken as" after the flood? Yes, the "Israelite spies lied. Don’t trust their account" but you seem to be relying on them.
As for "the ones who did not personally do the Genesis 6 error are still around today. These are the celestial rulers and authorities that Paul speaks we are at war with" if they did not personally do the Genesis 6 error then they are still loyal and we don't war with them--assuming that "with" you mean "against."
@@KenAmmi-Shalom
You are incorrect in your understanding of what I said.
You are also incorrect in your disagreement of what the text says.
The text only says that the Nephilim were on the earth before and afterwards. The Nephilim are the subject.
The next subject in Hebrew are the sons of God. The one to one reading shows the sons of God being the Nephilim. And we know by Scripture that other *fallen* celestial beings were on the earth.
The offspring born to them are the ones explicitly called “Gibborim” in the Hebrew.
Do you read Hebrew? If not, just reread the passage. Then you can understand what the text is saying.
Then you can come back here and understand better what I have said.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom
Also, in that vein, I’m clearly not relying on the spies. What they called a paradise they later called a wilderness. The people they said were merely the sons of Anak and Amalek (along with others) suddenly became the descendants of supernatural Nephilim.
They were lying through their teeth, which is why the narrator is silent on their words. They were clearly lying and the writer relies upon us being able to remember words a few lines above the page.
@@KMANelPADRINO Sorry if I misunderstood you.
However, it’s not the case that “The Nephilim are the subject. The next subject in Hebrew are the sons of God” since son of God were mentioned first, then Nephilim, and then sons of God again.
The view that Nephilim is an aka for sons of God is a historically minority view: virtually a non-issue.
What are the “Scripture that other fallen celestial beings were on the earth” are who/what were they?
Yes, “The offspring born to them are the ones explicitly called ‘Gibborim’ in the Hebrew” but I’m unsure why you mention that.
Well, when you say of “the spies” (the ten unreliable ones) that “The people they said were merely the sons of Anak and Amalek (along with others) suddenly became the descendants of supernatural Nephilim” you are elucidating how they just made up a tall tale, indeed, “They were lying through their teeth.”
@@KenAmmi-Shalom
Actually you are incorrect in the matter of the subject. It’s why reading Hebrew is worth doing or listening to someone who read Hebrew.
Also, what standard of measure are you using for saying that the Nephilim are not the sons of God? Surely, you do know that several deuterocanonical and apocryphal books from Second Temple Jews (STJ) identified them as one and the same? Those are ancient texts where my view is supported.
Also, keep in mind that “Nephilim” is simply untranslated Hebrew. It isn’t certain that it was a proper term. So it doesn’t have to refer to the Gibborim.
Admittedly, I am also operating on the theological assertion that God wouldn’t do a drastic thing such as flood the Earth only to allow the exact same thing to occur after that complete devastation and to not react in kind to it. It is simply more likely that the statement of “fallen ones” being on the earth before and afterward point to the cosmological reality of demonic powers. Even in one instance where the Nephilim are identified as the Gibborim in STJ, they are only present as demons being disembodied spirits, which isn’t explicitly upheld by other books of Scripture (that particular narrative would be found in the Book of Jubilees).
Further, on the subject of same subject, check this out for just one example of a subject being referred to by one proper title and then being described in another:
Esau and Edom in Genesis 36
Jacob and Israel in Genesis 46 (throughout the entire chapter)
Ishmaelites and Midianites (not even the same people genetically, but affiliates due to common interests and culture) in Genesis 37
What controls for this isn’t just knowing the narrative and knowing that their names are multiple, but also in who is doing the action and who is given the titles.
The Genesis 6 model says that the “fallen ones” were in the earth, when the sons of God mated with the human daughters and the daughters bore to them (children). No such children are mentioned in the Bible as existing after the Flood. This, working on my earlier stated assumption that God would not let the same thing happen twice, is why it is more sound to say the “fallen ones” are the sons of God that came down from their own domain to sin greatly with humanity. There are others who did the same but not in a sexual way. This is the more coherent reading given what we have.
And what is more is that the Septuagint avoids translating the term “Nephilim” altogether. It shows that clearly the children are the Gibborim in question.
The Sons of God are Flesh and Blood as man is flesh and blood they are one of the same, but the Sons of God are those who have dedicated themselves to God but because of the flesh the desire takes hold of them, as it takes hold of you, you too claim to be a Believer yet you fall because of the desire of Flesh, it is written in Genesis 6, because they are flesh, while others that is men, do not dedicate themselves to god that is believe in God, you have a totally different faith position, so what it is saying is, even those who dedicated themselves to god the Believer, have no power to resist the sinful nature to overcome, the Nephilim are simply Flesh and Blood men who are Giants extraordinary larger than common man, we find this in Goliath, when God says I cannot contend with man then the Sons of God are also men, otherwise god would say I cannot contain with the son's of God, because they are the ones who are falling from Grace, so-to-speak but he does not, therefore, the Sons of God the Nephilim are all mankind,
if you allow your imagination to go too far in fantasy because of the poetic style of scripture rather than looking at a natural reality, you remove yourself from a simple truth. It is written, that God has placed the stars in their position in this, your imagination may see a human like being placing each star in its position, but this is fantasy not reality, as it is written, you have knitted me in my mother's womb, if you see it from its face value then you see someone knitting but it is written in a poetic Style, what we find today in academic value or scientific value that the cells simply multiply as though it is like knitting, so in this, there is no Great Mystery in what the word is saying of the truth of a matter, that even though those who believed and those who did not, you find they are equal in that, they cannot overcome the passions of the flesh, and this is what the whole Old Testament is trying to show man, by whatever Power Man can take hold of he can never overcome the sinful nature because of his flesh Believer or non-believer alike, until the Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit overcame all flesh.
The sons of God are of a flesh and blood of their own sort and we were made “a little lower” than they.
See, if you say they “have dedicated themselves to God” then you have to back off from that when the whole point of Gen 6, as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, is that they failed to be dedicated to God.
You say “Nephilim…are [I hope you meant “were”] Giants extraordinary larger” but there’s no reliable indication of that.
In Goliath, we neither find Nephilim, since he was a Repha, not a Nephil, nor do we find, “Giants extraordinary larger” since most reliably, he was just shy of 7 ft. (but then again, “Giants” and “extraordinary” and “larger” are all subjective terms).
Thus, don’t allow your imagination to go too far in fantasy.
@@KenAmmi-Shalom extraordinary or giant it's not a subjective term it is in reference to that which is common and that which is not, someone is a giant when they are larger than something else otherwise all would be equal inside, also there are scriptures which translate this word into Giants, also, referring to the Sons of God would have to be referring to a different Faith position, as opposed to those who are wicked, this is why I referred to those of today who believe in God yet they still fall, flesh desires flesh and because of this flesh the Sons of God fell for the Daughters of men, as King David fell for Bathsheba,
when I said, do not be taken away by your imagination into fantasy which people can do very easily when reading the Old Testament, take the serpent for instance it is not a snake that is talking to Eve, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not of physical tree, if we take it literally we find fantasy, we must see the reality of these things, this is why I used some examples concerning God placing the stars in the sky and being knitted in one's womb,
@@TempleofChristMinistries Of course “extraordinary or giant” are both subjective. If not then, guess what, a 6 ft. tall person is a “giant,” right? Well, I’m 6 ft. and have been called a “giant” many, many times.
Now, when you say “someone is a giant when they are larger than something else” (which, by the way, is the very definition of subjective) you are artificially inserting the strictly modern usage of the English word “giant” into an ancient Hebrew text: that is not what “giant” means when you read it in an English Bible. In such cases, “giant” comes from the LXX’s “gigantes” which merely means “earth-born.” Moreover, “giants” is rendering (not even translating) either “Nephilim” or “Rephaim”: neither of which even imply anything about height at all.
So, when you say “there are scriptures which translate this word into Giants” you are not considering what that means nor what the Hebrew words behind it are.
Who are the sons of God in Job 38:7?
Not the accepted view. Coming from Enoch an unaccepted book.
TBH this stuff is virtually a non-issue. There's no reason for their not to be nephilim post flood. several options are available which allow it. Also, its technnically possible Gen 6 is a metaphorical story trying to show the giant were made in some way by the power of rebellious spirits against God. It's not necessarily the case we need to read Gen 6 as NECESSITATING human-spirit relations. Its the easiest interpretation, but the other is defensible too! nephilim are an interesting an edifying element to Christianity, but not by any means central. I think Calvinism is true as well as the divine council. It's pretty well established but I think the problem comes when say Mormons will try to misuse it (they do that somtimes). I think a lot of this stuff is really a non-issue. either or is fine.
You failed do consider Hosea 1:10.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
@@lausdeo4944 it states that the idea of sons of god refers to believers
@@theotherguynotnamedbob33 Different Hebrew expression that can be translated the same in English.
Hangin with the snake-handlers again?!
There needs to be a study of the phase “sons of God” - the translation is better understood “messengers of God”. “Angels” is often translated as “messengers”.
Far beyond simply wanting to sound reasonable - it is reasonable. What convolutes the fact that the “sons of God” were simply men who identified with Noah but were unfaithful is this forced categorizing of them as the “sons of Seth” and the daughters being the “daughters of Cain”. We don’t need those categories at all.
These “sons of God” coveted the daughters of men AND took them as wives. Marriage is the God ordained, Christ picturing institution of God. Even if we want to hold to demonic angels having sex w/ humans they would not have been bound to marry.
I have to say as this conversation went on you guys completely went off the rails with theories and this is the problem - you guys total left the text, actually you never really dealt w/ the phase “sons of God” in any meaningful way.
UNTIL.... ALL THE BLIND CHRISTIANS ✝️ ACCEPT THAT ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT THE VERY FIRST MALE AND FEMALE ON EARTH.
------
THERE WILL BE NO LIGHT, OF THE COMMON SENSE ANSWER .
------
HERDSMAN III OLD III
Bible doesn't say that either.
PEOPLE.... PEOPLE.... FALLEN ANGELS WENT DIRECTLY TO HELL AND BOND IN CHAINS ⛓.
-------
THERE WAS NO ***SEX*** TIME.
-------
HERDSMAN III OLD III
THAT IS NOT WHAT the Bible DOES.
@@patriciaglass9779
WHATS... NOT..... WHAT THE BIBLE DOES?
-----
HERDSMAN III OLD III
Bible doesn't say that.