Page 11 of 38
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:40 pm
by abelcainsbrother
DBowling wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:
So we have to ask ourselves this:
What if they were real? so what?
We know via other scripture that divine beings rebelled ( Satan and his followers)
Agreed, I have no problem with that
We know that divine being exist, that demons exist, that there was a war in their realm.
I also agree with that
Why do we have such a hard time believing what so many did during that time ( and we know that many, perhaps most) believed that the Sons of God were divine beings ( we have their writings)?
Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.
Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.
I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.
Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.
As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.
Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.
I mean, what issue do we have with the supernatural element being there? that there are supernatural beings that want to do us harm and destroy us? I mean Jesus said as much.
None at all...
The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.
But there is a reason why we say the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels it is based on what the bible says in several places clearly referring to fallen angels.It is not just made up.So when again the term "sons of God is used in Genesis 6 we know what it is referring to. This is using scripture with scripture to come to this conclusion.Also the book of Job was written before Genesis too.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:15 pm
by DBowling
abelcainsbrother wrote:
I mean, what issue do we have with the supernatural element being there? that there are supernatural beings that want to do us harm and destroy us? I mean Jesus said as much.
None at all...
The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.
But there is a reason why we say the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels it is based on what the bible says in several places clearly referring to fallen angels.
Please enlighten me...
I would like to see your list of several references where Scripture specifically refers to fallen angels as "sons of God"
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:19 pm
by RickD
abelcainsbrother wrote:DBowling wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:
So we have to ask ourselves this:
What if they were real? so what?
We know via other scripture that divine beings rebelled ( Satan and his followers)
Agreed, I have no problem with that
We know that divine being exist, that demons exist, that there was a war in their realm.
I also agree with that
Why do we have such a hard time believing what so many did during that time ( and we know that many, perhaps most) believed that the Sons of God were divine beings ( we have their writings)?
Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.
Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.
I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.
Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.
As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.
Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.
I mean, what issue do we have with the supernatural element being there? that there are supernatural beings that want to do us harm and destroy us? I mean Jesus said as much.
None at all...
The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.
But there is a reason why we say the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels it is based on what the bible says in several places clearly referring to fallen angels.It is not just made up.So when again the term "sons of God is used in Genesis 6 we know what it is referring to. This is using scripture with scripture to come to this conclusion.Also the book of Job was written before Genesis too.
ACB,
Where does the Bible "clearly" say in several places, that "sons of God" refers to fallen angels? The closest I could find, is Job1:6:
Job 1:6New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and [a]Satan also came among them.
But that verse certainly doesn't clearly say anything about the sons of God being fallen angels. It says that the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
It does not say that sons of God are fallen angels. It says that Satan came among the sons of God.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:19 am
by Philip
Dr. Michael Heiser: "DEUTERONOMY 32:8 AND THE SONS OF GOD":
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hi ... t32-bs.htm
Heiser's scholarly expertise is not only in the ancient Hebrew and the languages of the Bible, but of the cultures, beliefs and mythology of the ancient near east, including Israel, pre-Israel, and the surrounding pagan nations.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:51 am
by DBowling
Philip wrote:Dr. Michael Heiser: "DEUTERONOMY 32:8 AND THE SONS OF GOD":
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hi ... t32-bs.htm
Heiser's scholarly expertise is not only in the ancient Hebrew and the languages of the Bible, but of the cultures, beliefs and mythology of the ancient near east, including Israel, pre-Israel, and the surrounding pagan nations.
A quick comment...
Even if we accept the Septuagint "sons of God" in Deut 32:8 over the Masoretic "sons of Israel",
That still does not demonstrate that the phrase "sons of God" as used in Scripture ever refers to fallen angels.
And if the possible use by Moses of "sons of God" in Deut 32:8 is consistent with Deut 14:1, then "sons of God" (Septuagint) and "sons of Israel" (Masoretic) both refer to the same thing, God's people.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:18 pm
by RickD
DBowling wrote:
Even if we accept the Septuagint "sons of God" in Deut 32:8 over the Masoretic "sons of Israel",
That still does not demonstrate that the phrase "sons of God" as used in Scripture ever refers to fallen angels.
That's what my point was, the last time we discussed this in another thread.
Nobody has shown, anywhere in scripture, that sons of God refers to fallen angels.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:35 pm
by SoCalExile
Philip wrote:Dr. Michael Heiser: "DEUTERONOMY 32:8 AND THE SONS OF GOD":
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hi ... t32-bs.htm
Heiser's scholarly expertise is not only in the ancient Hebrew and the languages of the Bible, but of the cultures, beliefs and mythology of the ancient near east, including Israel, pre-Israel, and the surrounding pagan nations.
Don't appeal to his status, appeal to the argument he makes. that's why I don't follow that guy and I warn others - the arguments he makes are very poor and not based on the bible.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:20 pm
by Philip
SCalExcile: Don't appeal to his status, appeal to the argument he makes. that's why I don't follow that guy and I warn others - the arguments he makes are very poor and not based on the bible.
Heiser isn't perfect. He is but one scholar. But he is one with substantial credentials - and relevant ones. Which means, his weighing in on the matter is an important one. My reference to his background is not to buttress that he is correct, but to show that he has a background that make his opinions worth listening to. But clearly, he DOES make arguments based upon Biblical text - and he's apparently of an opinion on something or things that makes you want to demonize the guy. WHY???!!!
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:32 pm
by abelcainsbrother
RickD wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:DBowling wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:
So we have to ask ourselves this:
What if they were real? so what?
We know via other scripture that divine beings rebelled ( Satan and his followers)
Agreed, I have no problem with that
We know that divine being exist, that demons exist, that there was a war in their realm.
I also agree with that
Why do we have such a hard time believing what so many did during that time ( and we know that many, perhaps most) believed that the Sons of God were divine beings ( we have their writings)?
Well based on how Moses uses the phrase "sons of the Lord your God" in Deut 14:1 it appears that Moses uses the term "sons of God" to refer to the people of God.
Moses' use of the "sons of God" to refer to God's people (Adam's descendants) is also consistent with Luke's use of the term "son of God" to specifically refer to Adam.
I also have a lot of difficulty with the assertion that "sons of God" is a legitimate or Scriptural term to describe fallen angels in rebellion against God.
Asserting that "sons of God" is a reference to wicked angels seems to me to totally miss who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Genesis 6 story.
As I mentioned before I believe the theme of the Genesis 6 story is how the good guys (the sons of God) were corrupted by the bad guys (the daughters of men) when the good guys entered into relationships with and adopted the customs of the bad guys. This theme of good guys entering into relationship with and adopting the evil customs of the bad guys is a common theme throughout Scripture.
Which is why Paul warns believers not to become unequally yoked with unbelievers.
I mean, what issue do we have with the supernatural element being there? that there are supernatural beings that want to do us harm and destroy us? I mean Jesus said as much.
None at all...
The issue I have is asserting that "sons of God" is a legitimate term to describe supernatural beings who are acting in rebellion against God.
But there is a reason why we say the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels it is based on what the bible says in several places clearly referring to fallen angels.It is not just made up.So when again the term "sons of God is used in Genesis 6 we know what it is referring to. This is using scripture with scripture to come to this conclusion.Also the book of Job was written before Genesis too.
ACB,
Where does the Bible "clearly" say in several places, that "sons of God" refers to fallen angels? The closest I could find, is Job1:6:
Job 1:6New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and [a]Satan also came among them.
But that verse certainly doesn't clearly say anything about the sons of God being fallen angels. It says that the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
It does not say that sons of God are fallen angels. It says that Satan came among the sons of God.
It has to be fallen angels with Satan because Satan is a fallen angel and men cannot present themselves before the Lord(John 3:13) but the fallen angels and Satan can until they are ultimately kicked out of heaven.But by reading Job 1:6 and then reading Genesis 6 we know it is referring to fallen angels based of them producing hybrid off-spring - Nephilim.We even know why Satan would produce Nephilim to contaminate God's creation with hybrids to try to stop Genesis 3:15 from being fulfilled.This is also why God sent his people into wars too telling them to kill them all basically throughout the OT too after the flood.If you remove Nephilim hybrid off-spring God wanted destroyed from contaminating his creation then it makes God look like an evil God telling his people to go to war against these people.And yes it has to do with David and Goliath too.Why can't you see that giants were produced in Genesis 6 and then when the bible says Goliath (and his brothers too) is a giant somehow change it to mean man?
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:08 pm
by DBowling
abelcainsbrother wrote:
It has to be fallen angels with Satan because Satan is a fallen angel and men cannot present themselves before the Lord(John 3:13) but the fallen angels and Satan can until they are ultimately kicked out of heaven.But by reading Job 1:6 and then reading Genesis 6 we know it is referring to fallen angels.
We know nothing of the sort.
You are asserting that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels because "it is based on what the bible says in several places clearly referring to fallen angels."
However, your assertion that the bible refers to fallen angels in several places, is factually false.
As Rick has pointed out in this thread already, there is not a single place in Scripture (including Job 1:6) where fallen angels are referred to as "sons of God".
So the whole basis of your claim that Scripture supports your assertion is not true.
The best support for your assertions comes from non-canonical documents and pagan myths... not Scripture.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:26 pm
by SoCalExile
abelcainsbrother wrote:Why can't you see that giants were produced in Genesis 6 and then when the bible says Goliath (and his brothers too) is a giant somehow change it to mean man?
The word used to describe Goliath is not
nephyl/nephilim, it's an entirely different word, which means it has a different meaning. Why? If Goliath was a nephilim then why wasn't that word used? It seems the logical conclusion is that Goliath isn't associated with the word because the word doesn't describe him, which is a clue that nephilim doesn't refer to physical stature.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:59 pm
by RickD
ACB,
If I said this to you:
Now there was a day when the Boston Red Sox came to present themselves before the Commissioner , and Derek Jeter also came among them.
Would you assume that the Boston Red Sox are New York Yankees, because Derek Jeter was among them?
Of course you wouldn't. So, why would you assume that the sons of God are fallen angels, just because a fallen angel is among them?
Again, where in scripture does it say that fallen angels are sons of God?
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:45 am
by abelcainsbrother
RickD wrote:ACB,
If I said this to you:
Now there was a day when the Boston Red Sox came to present themselves before the Commissioner , and Derek Jeter also came among them.
Would you assume that the Boston Red Sox are New York Yankees, because Derek Jeter was among them?
Of course you wouldn't. So, why would you assume that the sons of God are fallen angels, just because a fallen angel is among them?
Again, where in scripture does it say that fallen angels are sons of God?
I already explained how we know because men cannot present themselves before the Lord and we know Satan and fallen angels can.Therefore we are putting Job 1:6 together with Genesis 6 to know that it is referring to angels.Read Job 1:6 again.I mean the bible does not say "sons of God" are men,so why do you believe they are?It is based on the fact that men cannot come with Satan and present themselves before the Lord and so they had to be fallen angels and not men that we know it is referring to fallen angels in both Job 1:6 and Genesis 6.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:57 am
by abelcainsbrother
DBowling wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:
It has to be fallen angels with Satan because Satan is a fallen angel and men cannot present themselves before the Lord(John 3:13) but the fallen angels and Satan can until they are ultimately kicked out of heaven.But by reading Job 1:6 and then reading Genesis 6 we know it is referring to fallen angels.
We know nothing of the sort.
You are asserting that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels because "it is based on what the bible says in several places clearly referring to fallen angels."
However, your assertion that the bible refers to fallen angels in several places, is factually false.
As Rick has pointed out in this thread already, there is not a single place in Scripture (including Job 1:6) where fallen angels are referred to as "sons of God".
So the whole basis of your claim that Scripture supports your assertion is not true.
The best support for your assertions comes from non-canonical documents and pagan myths... not Scripture.
Yes,we do know that men cannot go with Satan and present themselves before the Lord,so we can rule out men.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:29 am
by RickD
abelcainsbrother wrote:RickD wrote:ACB,
If I said this to you:
Now there was a day when the Boston Red Sox came to present themselves before the Commissioner , and Derek Jeter also came among them.
Would you assume that the Boston Red Sox are New York Yankees, because Derek Jeter was among them?
Of course you wouldn't. So, why would you assume that the sons of God are fallen angels, just because a fallen angel is among them?
Again, where in scripture does it say that fallen angels are sons of God?
I already explained how we know because men cannot present themselves before the Lord and we know Satan and fallen angels can.Therefore we are putting Job 1:6 together with Genesis 6 to know that it is referring to angels.Read Job 1:6 again.I mean the bible does not say "sons of God" are men,so why do you believe they are?It is based on the fact that men cannot come with Satan and present themselves before the Lord and so they had to be fallen angels and not men that we know it is referring to fallen angels in both Job 1:6 and Genesis 6.
I'm not arguing against sons of God being angels. I'm asking for evidence from scripture, that sons of God refers to FALLEN angels.
You see the difference, don't you?
2 kinds of angels
1) Angels serving God=sons of God
2) Fallen angels=no biblical basis to call them sons of God