Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#526

Post by DBowling » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:35 am

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Also, how tall were these Nephilim?
Or the Sumerian Kings and Patriarchs? Ik this is opinionated and I don't want it to distract from the above topic, but if one or the other were generally tall it would explain some mythical stories of giants ruling the earth. According to paleontology, most early humans and hominids were short or medium height. However many Heidelberg humans and groups of Homo Erectus were tall to giant size.
A couple of quick comments.
I'm unaware of any evidence that either the pre-flood Patriarchs or the pre-Flood Sumerian kings were taller than normal. The common thread here is that both of these groups of people had extraordinarily long life spans and both groups lived during the same period of time, around 5000 BC to 3000 BC.

As for the Nephilim, the Septuagint refers to them as giants, and they may have been taller than normal (I don't think we can know for sure), but there is no evidence that the Nephilim had the same extended life spans as the pre flood Patriarchs and the pre flood Sumerian Kings.

There's so much we don't know about the 5000-3000 BC timeframe that it is really tough to make any kind of dogmatic statement.

Regarding Homo Erectus and Homo heidelbergensis, I don't think either of these hominid species have any relationship to the Nephilim.
The Nephilim were humans who lived somewhere between 5000 and 3000 BC (probably closer to 3000 BC).
Homo Erectus was a hominid species that disappeared around 140,000 years ago.
Homo heidelbergensis was a hominid species that disappeared around 300,000 years ago.
So the time frames just don't work out for the Nephilim to have been either Homo Erectus or Homo heidelbergensis.

User avatar
B. W.
Board Moderator
Posts: 8315
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 254 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#527

Post by B. W. » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:28 am

Again, there is know concert evidence on how tall there beings were. Ancient Hebrew Tradition and writing suggest they were giants or very big in stature and bulk. The average height of a human in ancient times were much smaller than the average today around 5 feet and a few inches either way - tall compared to human;s today. My wife is 5'6' and I am 6'1" so we would be giants to the ancient peoples.

Now take RickD - I hear that he has a lot of bulk around the middle so he would be considered a giant too :lol:

So far, there does not appear to be any giant humanoid bones legitimately found on this subject. Does not mean these do not exist or whatever, just that nothing legitimately proven found as of yet.

The more I look at the ancient stone and clay tablets of so called god's around the Sumerian tree of life - the more it looks like the are actually altering DNA - cutting it twisting it to - untying it... mending it...

Let's not forget that today, we are doing the same and altering DNA. There is factual evidence that the occult and paganism is on the rise today worldwide, we have elites and politicians admitting to its practice as well.

So, as it was in the days of Noah take on a more profound meaning for us today...
-
-
-
These users liked this post by B. W.:
thatkidakayoungguy (Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:59 pm)
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#528

Post by DBowling » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:28 pm

B. W. wrote: So, as it was in the days of Noah take on a more profound meaning for us today...
Let me agree with you ... kinda ;)

In Matthew 24, Jesus actually describes what it was like "in the days of Noah".
Here's what Jesus says in Matthew 24:37-39
37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
According to Jesus, in the days before the flood...
- they were eating... yup, we're doing that today
- they were drinking... yup, we're doing that today
- they were marrying... yup, we're doing that today
- they were giving in marriage... and yup, we're doing that today too

Today we are doing everything that Jesus pointed out that they were doing "in the days of Noah"
Which means... according to Jesus, he could return today.

Even so come, Lord Jesus! :D

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4498
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 157 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#529

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:38 pm

DBowling wrote:You make two factually false assertions in your post...
abelcainsbrother wrote:The problem I see is that those who are telling us to go by only what the bible says are not doing so.Instead they are ignoring scripture that lets us know that the "sons of God" refers to angels and yet despite how many times angels are called "sons of God' this is ignored.Then they claim the bible does not say it.
The first false assertion you make is that people are ignoring Scriptures that refer to angels as 'sons of God'. We all agree that Scripture refers to angels as 'sons of God'. There is no disagreement on that.
The disagreement arises with the claim by some that Satan and demons are referred to as 'sons of God' in Scripture.
There is no place in Scripture that refers to Satan and demons as 'sons of God', and Jesus himself clearly teaches that Satan is not a child of God.

The second false statement you make is the assertion that we are 'only going by what the Bible says'. As I have said many times in this thread, I have no problem using contemporary extrascriptural sources to corroborate the Scriptural narrative or to provide additional insight into the Scriptural narrative.
However, I do consider Scripture to represent truth. And Enoch, which was written 4000 years after the time of the historical Enoch, directly contradicts the Scriptural narrative in multiple places.

So do I consider a non-contemporary extrascriptural source that directly contradicts the Scriptural narrative to be historically accurate?
No
I agree with you that the term "sons of God" do not refer to demons because demons are different than angels and have a different agenda.I'm not sure I agree that the term "sons of God" has never referred to Lucifer.There are reasons to believe there was a time when even Satan was referred to as apart of the "sons of God" up until he rebelled against God.It is known that Satan was a good angel before he rebelled against God but once he rebelled he became an enemy of God and lost his position with God. But my point and many others is that 'sons of God" refers to angels and so in Genesis 6 we know it is referring to angels too that came into among the daughters of men and had children with them which produced hybrids/Giants. There seems to be a problem with this interpretation eventhough it comes from scripture.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4498
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 157 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#530

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:53 pm

B. W. wrote:Again, there is know concert evidence on how tall there beings were. Ancient Hebrew Tradition and writing suggest they were giants or very big in stature and bulk. The average height of a human in ancient times were much smaller than the average today around 5 feet and a few inches either way - tall compared to human;s today. My wife is 5'6' and I am 6'1" so we would be giants to the ancient peoples.

Now take RickD - I hear that he has a lot of bulk around the middle so he would be considered a giant too :lol:

So far, there does not appear to be any giant humanoid bones legitimately found on this subject. Does not mean these do not exist or whatever, just that nothing legitimately proven found as of yet.

The more I look at the ancient stone and clay tablets of so called god's around the Sumerian tree of life - the more it looks like the are actually altering DNA - cutting it twisting it to - untying it... mending it...

Let's not forget that today, we are doing the same and altering DNA. There is factual evidence that the occult and paganism is on the rise today worldwide, we have elites and politicians admitting to its practice as well.

So, as it was in the days of Noah take on a more profound meaning for us today...
-
-
-

I think that when it comes to the giants we read about in the bible we can kinda lose focus if we focus on finding evidence of these giants.It would be nice to find some if they existed but I don't believe any have ever been found.This is why I think it is more important to focus on other kind of evidence that they existed like how they were once worshipped as gods. Once we do the research looking into it from this kind of an angle we then have an answer to those who claim the OT writers just copied things from ancient pagans,etc.Even if we don't have physical evidence they existed we can still explain who these gods were from a Nephilim/giant perspective.There are other who have done much research into this and I find it interesting and it is definately an answer to ancient pagan writings and the gods that were worshipped.

This also has implications from a bible prophecy perspective as well because like you and me agree hybrids will be released and come back as in the days of Noah. And I'm starting to believe that the anti-christ himself could be a Nephilim giant that has returned, a hybrid.But there could be many Nephilim that return,with the anti-christ being the leader of them.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#531

Post by DBowling » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:02 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote:You make two factually false assertions in your post...
abelcainsbrother wrote:The problem I see is that those who are telling us to go by only what the bible says are not doing so.Instead they are ignoring scripture that lets us know that the "sons of God" refers to angels and yet despite how many times angels are called "sons of God' this is ignored.Then they claim the bible does not say it.
The first false assertion you make is that people are ignoring Scriptures that refer to angels as 'sons of God'. We all agree that Scripture refers to angels as 'sons of God'. There is no disagreement on that.
The disagreement arises with the claim by some that Satan and demons are referred to as 'sons of God' in Scripture.
There is no place in Scripture that refers to Satan and demons as 'sons of God', and Jesus himself clearly teaches that Satan is not a child of God.

The second false statement you make is the assertion that we are 'only going by what the Bible says'. As I have said many times in this thread, I have no problem using contemporary extrascriptural sources to corroborate the Scriptural narrative or to provide additional insight into the Scriptural narrative.
However, I do consider Scripture to represent truth. And Enoch, which was written 4000 years after the time of the historical Enoch, directly contradicts the Scriptural narrative in multiple places.

So do I consider a non-contemporary extrascriptural source that directly contradicts the Scriptural narrative to be historically accurate?
No
I agree with you that the term "sons of God" do not refer to demons because demons are different than angels and have a different agenda.I'm not sure I agree that the term "sons of God" has never referred to Lucifer.There are reasons to believe there was a time when even Satan was referred to as apart of the "sons of God" up until he rebelled against God.It is known that Satan was a good angel before he rebelled against God but once he rebelled he became an enemy of God and lost his position with God.
As I said earlier in this thread, I do believe that pre-fallen Lucifer was in fact a son/child of God.
But my point and many others is that 'sons of God" refers to angels and so in Genesis 6 we know it is referring to angels too that came into among the daughters of men and had children with them which produced hybrids/Giants. There seems to be a problem with this interpretation eventhough it comes from scripture.
The problem with your position here is you are asserting that angels who are in rebellion against God somehow qualify as "sons of God". Angels who are in rebellion against God are by definition "fallen angels" which are also known as demons.
It is antithetical to what Scripture teaches about what it means to be a son/child of God to claim that demons are somehow "sons of God".

Scripture does refer to angels as "sons of God". We all agree with that.
However, Scripture never refers to "fallen angels" (ie demons) as "sons of God". That is where we disagree.

User avatar
cled
Acquainted Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:41 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#532

Post by cled » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:52 am

The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. 33 There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

There are references in the book of Enoch to giants, makes me wonder if the the dinosaurs were a perversion of reptiles that the angles sexaully assulted . Anyhow i read where the smithsonian institute went to gave sites where giants were once buried and took the bones and destroyed them . And other things to cover up the fact that the bible is true. The covering up of giants has been going on since the 1800's .

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4498
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 157 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#533

Post by abelcainsbrother » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:24 pm

DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote:You make two factually false assertions in your post...
abelcainsbrother wrote:The problem I see is that those who are telling us to go by only what the bible says are not doing so.Instead they are ignoring scripture that lets us know that the "sons of God" refers to angels and yet despite how many times angels are called "sons of God' this is ignored.Then they claim the bible does not say it.
The first false assertion you make is that people are ignoring Scriptures that refer to angels as 'sons of God'. We all agree that Scripture refers to angels as 'sons of God'. There is no disagreement on that.
The disagreement arises with the claim by some that Satan and demons are referred to as 'sons of God' in Scripture.
There is no place in Scripture that refers to Satan and demons as 'sons of God', and Jesus himself clearly teaches that Satan is not a child of God.

The second false statement you make is the assertion that we are 'only going by what the Bible says'. As I have said many times in this thread, I have no problem using contemporary extrascriptural sources to corroborate the Scriptural narrative or to provide additional insight into the Scriptural narrative.
However, I do consider Scripture to represent truth. And Enoch, which was written 4000 years after the time of the historical Enoch, directly contradicts the Scriptural narrative in multiple places.

So do I consider a non-contemporary extrascriptural source that directly contradicts the Scriptural narrative to be historically accurate?
No
I agree with you that the term "sons of God" do not refer to demons because demons are different than angels and have a different agenda.I'm not sure I agree that the term "sons of God" has never referred to Lucifer.There are reasons to believe there was a time when even Satan was referred to as apart of the "sons of God" up until he rebelled against God.It is known that Satan was a good angel before he rebelled against God but once he rebelled he became an enemy of God and lost his position with God.
As I said earlier in this thread, I do believe that pre-fallen Lucifer was in fact a son/child of God.
But my point and many others is that 'sons of God" refers to angels and so in Genesis 6 we know it is referring to angels too that came into among the daughters of men and had children with them which produced hybrids/Giants. There seems to be a problem with this interpretation eventhough it comes from scripture.
The problem with your position here is you are asserting that angels who are in rebellion against God somehow qualify as "sons of God". Angels who are in rebellion against God are by definition "fallen angels" which are also known as demons.
It is antithetical to what Scripture teaches about what it means to be a son/child of God to claim that demons are somehow "sons of God".

Scripture does refer to angels as "sons of God". We all agree with that.
However, Scripture never refers to "fallen angels" (ie demons) as "sons of God". That is where we disagree.
Well the reason why we know they are fallen angels instead of good angels is because of what they do in Genesis 6 producing hybrid giants.No good angels would do this because this was against God's creation so we can say they were fallen angels that did this.It contaminated God's creation with hybrids in order to try to prevent the birth of Jesus. Also demons are not fallen angels they are different than angels.There are fallen angels and there are demons in Satan's kingdom.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 20002
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino
Has liked: 174 times
Been liked: 971 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#534

Post by RickD » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:37 pm

ACB wrote:
Well the reason why we know they are fallen angels instead of good angels is because of what they do in Genesis 6 producing hybrid giants.No good angels would do this because this was against God's creation so we can say they were fallen angels that did this.It contaminated God's creation with hybrids in order to try to prevent the birth of Jesus. Also demons are not fallen angels they are different than angels.There are fallen angels and there are demons in Satan's kingdom.
Image
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 297 times
Been liked: 545 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#535

Post by Philip » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:25 pm

ACB: It contaminated God's creation with hybrids in order to try to prevent the birth of Jesus.
That is about the wackiest comment I've ever seen on G&S! Please tell me how these fallen angels would have read God's mind? The demonic and Satan do not have knowledge of all things as does God. They would have had NO way of knowing that God planned to one day take on human form. What, you think God informed Satan of this plan? REALLY???!!!

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 20002
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino
Has liked: 174 times
Been liked: 971 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#536

Post by RickD » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:27 am

Philip wrote:
ACB: It contaminated God's creation with hybrids in order to try to prevent the birth of Jesus.
That is about the wackiest comment I've ever seen on G&S! Please tell me how these fallen angels would have read God's mind? The demonic and Satan do not have knowledge of all things as does God. They would have had NO way of knowing that God planned to one day take on human form. What, you think God informed Satan of this plan? REALLY???!!!
That's a really interesting point Philip.

I think the idea that Satan had fallen angels mate with women, in order to stop Christ from being born, was mentioned before in this thread.

I'd like to know where this idea came from. Is there any biblical text that substantiates the claim?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 101 times
Been liked: 302 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#537

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:39 am

Scripture does NOT mention what demons are or where they come from.
There are various views ranging from fallen angels to the dead spirits of the nephilim to simply spirits.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 20002
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino
Has liked: 174 times
Been liked: 971 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#538

Post by RickD » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:08 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Scripture does NOT mention what demons are or where they come from.
There are various views ranging from fallen angels to the dead spirits of the nephilim to simply spirits.
I always thought demons was just another name for fallen angels. And a simple google search backs that up.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 297 times
Been liked: 545 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#539

Post by Philip » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:39 pm

Scripture does NOT mention what demons are or where they come from.
Where does Scripture indicate they are anything other than the angels that followed Satan in rebellion? And we do know where they originated, as they are created beings. And unless they are fallen angels, then they aren't discussed.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 101 times
Been liked: 302 times

Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

#540

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:40 pm

RickD wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Scripture does NOT mention what demons are or where they come from.
There are various views ranging from fallen angels to the dead spirits of the nephilim to simply spirits.
I always thought demons was just another name for fallen angels. And a simple google search backs that up.
Where is the origin of demons talked about in the OT or NT?

Post Reply