The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים, nefilim) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1–4. A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.
I'd say "Son" is a direct Creation. Just like Christ in the Flesh, he was directly created by the Spirit. Jesus seemed to have just 1 pair of the human 23 chromosomes, https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-blood-of-jesus-1
The bloodline of Seth was a Godly line, because God never wants anything or anyone to disrupt the line of His Seed, (Gen3:15), so God becomes angry if anyone messes with His flesh's genetic material, (see Genesis 38). God's promise was through the son of Abraham, and I believe Mary had some blood relation with Issac.
I also believe those sons of God were Giants. You could have a look at the non-canonical book of Enoch. I seem to trust it. It seems as though fallen angels married women whoever they chose, and those gave birth to giants.
I was going to give the passage to a young guy who is preaching for the first time later this year
We see natural variation in size in many other species. Goliath was about 9 1/2 feet tall. There was a man from Illinois in the early 1900s who reached 8 ft 11 inches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow. You can also find some less extreme cases at any NBA game.
We also see some very short people.
I see no reason to doubt the stories of giants. These would have been Goliath-type people, or the size of large basketball players, rather than 40-foot-tall mythological characters.
We see natural variation in size in other species too. Dogs range in size from the chihuahua to the Great Dane. In domesticated animals this can be exaggerated by selective breeding, but it happens naturally too.
I'd say "Son" is a direct Creation. Just like Christ in the Flesh, he was directly created by the Spirit. Jesus seemed to have just 1 pair of the human 23 chromosomes, https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-blood-of-jesus-1
The bloodline of Seth was a Godly line, because God never wants anything or anyone to disrupt the line of His Seed, (Gen3:15), so God becomes angry if anyone messes with His flesh's genetic material, (see Genesis 38). God's promise was through the son of Abraham, and I believe Mary had some blood relation with Issac.
I also believe those sons of God were Giants. You could have a look at the non-canonical book of Enoch. I seem to trust it. It seems as though fallen angels married women whoever they chose, and those gave birth to giants.
It's not about genetic material. This is just a few generations after Adam and Eve, so genetic variation was still somewhat limited - and there were definitely a lot fewer of the harmful mutations that come in over time.
God's people aren't supposed to associate with sin. If the righteous line of Seth is intermarrying with the wicked line of Cain, then that means they're associating themselves with the evil that Cain's descendents are getting involved in.
Also, the Book of Enoch is not Scripture. The Jews knew about it and did not consider it to be inspired Scripture, and the early church generally rejected it too. It claims to have been written by Enoch, but there's no evidence of that. It is an interesting historical book but should not be considered to be a reliable guide.
Much of the book of Enoch is referenced in the book of Jude. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked into it, but the Lord coming with ten thousand of his saints is one, and very clearly the devil disputing with Michael about the body of Moses is another.
With that in mind I wouldn’t quickly dismiss The book of Enoch as nonsense. It most certainly is not in the cannon of Scripture and therefore cannot be used to prove doctrine, but that doesn’t mean it is full of lies. We have no promise of it being inspired in the first place, nor perfectly preserved if it was.
But that does not mean the information in it wasn’t given to Enoch or that it wasn’t correctly written down. Paul obviously respected it, for he referenced it.
The book of Jasher was mentioned in Scripture, and again, it is not in the cannon of Scripture and so is not to be considered inerrant, but it clearly was respected by the Jews as a reliable source.
The book of Enoch goes into very much detail about Genesis 6, and does not contradict it in any way that I have noticed.
I'd say "Son" is a direct Creation. Just like Christ in the Flesh, he was directly created by the Spirit. Jesus seemed to have just 1 pair of the human 23 chromosomes, https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-blood-of-jesus-1
The bloodline of Seth was a Godly line, because God never wants anything or anyone to disrupt the line of His Seed, (Gen3:15), so God becomes angry if anyone messes with His flesh's genetic material, (see Genesis 38). God's promise was through the son of Abraham, and I believe Mary had some blood relation with Issac.
I also believe those sons of God were Giants. You could have a look at the non-canonical book of Enoch. I seem to trust it. It seems as though fallen angels married women whoever they chose, and those gave birth to giants.
Mainframe, I just don’t see where we come up with the idea that the world was divided into the line of Seth and the line of Cain pre-flood. And I don’t see it taught anywhere but in discussion about Genesis 6 not being literally true as written.
Was not Ham in the “godly line of Seth”? Since Noah was in the line of Seth are we not all in the “Godly line of Seth”?
We see natural variation in size in many other species. Goliath was about 9 1/2 feet tall. There was a man from Illinois in the early 1900s who reached 8 ft 11 inches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow. You can also find some less extreme cases at any NBA game.
We also see some very short people.
I see no reason to doubt the stories of giants. These would have been Goliath-type people, or the size of large basketball players, rather than 40-foot-tall mythological characters.
We see natural variation in size in other species too. Dogs range in size from the chihuahua to the Great Dane. In domesticated animals this can be exaggerated by selective breeding, but it happens naturally too.
Here’s just a thought, if Goliath was six cubits and a span, who’s span was it? We are given the old English measurement of 18”, but I’m only 5’-10” and my span is 21”. If it was the king’s span at the time of the incident (Saul who was very tall), wouldn’t his span have been considerably larger? If we simply said 24” (conservatively) then Goliath would have been over 13’ tall.
Regardless, Goliath was post flood.
It's quite possible that the Book of Enoch includes accurate information. In fact, since it has some overlap with Jude, we know that some of it is accurate. But we have no reason to believe that it's interpretation of Genesis 6 is accurate. We should be very careful about having extra-Biblical books influence our interpretation of Scripture. Just because something doesn't explicitly contradict doesn't necessarily make it accurate; it might have an incorrect interpretation.
It's quite possible that the Book of Enoch includes accurate information. In fact, since it has some overlap with Jude, we know that some of it is accurate. But we have no reason to believe that it's interpretation of Genesis 6 is accurate. Or inaccurate We should be very careful about having extra-Biblical books influence our interpretation of Scripture. Just because something doesn't explicitly contradict doesn't necessarily make it accurate; it might have an incorrect interpretation.
I absolutely agree about your comment about allowing extra biblical books influence us in our doctrine. I’m simply saying that the book of Enoch has been respected by the Jews and the “giants in reputation” interpretation is the one that leaves the plain language of the Bible
"Giants in reputation" works. So does Goliath-type giants. There are a lot of basketball players that could easily be described as "giants". A "giant" need not be anything more than a very large person.
Also, I think we do have reason to reject the Book of Enoch's interpretation of Genesis 6. It describes fallen angels coming down to earth and impregnating human women, with the resulting offspring being hundreds of feet tall. We have no support in Scripture for the concept that demonic beings can impregnate humans, and the idea of the resulting offspring being hundreds of feet tall is simply laughable.
Ah yes, Gleason, that's more accurate way of saying it. It needs to be a holy line of believers.
Kjv, i neither think it's 'clearly written' but can be conclusively understood, of course Cain and Seth were two genetic lines. But I don't find the Bible telling me that one had the giants and the other had women. It's also a self defeating idea.... imagine a godly line of Seth's children intermarrying with Cain's. They're no long God's people. Why godly to begin with anyway, and isn't Jesus's forefathers, Holy people?
25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth,[h] saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time people began to call on[i] the name of the Lord.
Hundreds of feet tall? That's crazy! Does Enoch say that?
Yes, the book of Enoch says that. See chapter 7: https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM. Actually, it says "three thousand ells", and an ell is an equivalent term for a cubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Talmudic_units_of_measurement#Length_and_distance
So, assuming the standard cubit measurement of 18 inches or so, we're now up to 4,500 feet tall. This is nuts. Even if our cubit measurement is wrong, we're still well into silly territory.
Hundreds of feet tall? That's crazy! Does Enoch say that?
No, it obviously doesn’t say a hundred feet tall. The measurement is “ells”, if I recall correctly (I’m at work and can’t really research this right now). We don’t know what an “ell” is and so don’t know what height is being described, but traditionally the guess is 25-30’. Of course you can assign a number to an ell to give you any height you want.
"Giants in reputation" works. So does Goliath-type giants. There are a lot of basketball players that could easily be described as "giants". A "giant" need not be anything more than a very large person.
Also, I think we do have reason to reject the Book of Enoch's interpretation of Genesis 6. It describes fallen angels coming down to earth and impregnating human women, with the resulting offspring being hundreds of feet tall. We have no support in Scripture for the concept that demonic beings can impregnate humans, and the idea of the resulting offspring being hundreds of feet tall is simply laughable.
We have every reason to believe the concept of demonic beings being able to impregnate human woman, it’s Genesis 6. And again, the book of Enoch uses a unit of measurement that we don’t have further reference of, so the “hundreds of feet tall” argument is fabricated.
Do you base your belief that an angel cannot reproduce on anything more than Jesus’ statement that we won’t marry in heaven, just like the angles don’t?
I’d like to hear some opinions on the giants mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. In my church it has been brushed away as “men of large reputations or accomplishments”, such as “Isaac Newton was a giant in the field of science”. The sons of God have been explained as being the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men the worldly offspring of Cain.
I’m flat out not buying this.
First, the “godly line of Seth” exists nowhere but commentaries. The descendents of Seth are scripturally unidentified as being a “godly line”
Secondly, in general the sons of God is a reference to angles, not men (see the book of Job).
Thirdly, an unsaved woman having the child of a saved man does not produce a giant, figuratively or literally.
I see no reason to reject the clear wording of Scripture about the pre-flood giants.
What say you?