The Giants/Nephilim in the Bible.

[TokiEl]

Not sure if you take the Book of Enoch as credible but it is referenced in the Book of Jude. It was recorded in Enoch that they had sexual relations and the result was the Nephilims.

Jude quotes Enoch... and i believe the Son of Man epithet is also from Enoch.


Where do demons come from ?

They must come from somewhere right... there must be an explanation for the existence of demons.

And according to Enoch... demons are spirits of dead nephilim.


The bible doesn't say much about them... except they were tall as cedars and compared people to grasshoppers among them.

And at least some had six fingers/toes and dobbel row of teeth.


Also in the bible there is a serpent seed and tares and one place pharao is called a monster with scales... so something not exactly human is exuding from the pages of the Holy writ.





I like to think that royals and aristocrats... upper class blue bloods are heavily infested with nephilimity. As that would explain why they govern the world the way they do... waging wars and making common people sick.

It makes perfect sense if they're not exactly human... but serpent seed and tares.

 

[phipps]

I believe the book of Enoch addresses it.
The scriptures you quoted broach it and there is a passage in Numbers.
Will try to link stuff later when I can.

I will add that if the giants were half demons as you claim, the Israelites would not have been able to conquer them. The Canaanite tribes of giants such as the Anakim were not a super-race. The Israelites nearly destroyed them. Even before the Israelites arrived, the Moabites and the Ammonites (tribes not favoured by God) had displaced some of the Canaanite tribes of giants. So the Bible clearly indicates that the Nephilim, although strong and of large stature, were fully human. They were not a hybrid between humans and demons.

 

[elsbet]

It's just so amusing how if one brings up simple certitude about a certain race, it's immediately classified as racism. Like how else would you know whom I'm referring to if I don't mention the race?

I said bigotry and politics... not racism.

... many scriptures have been removed. White people burnt a lot of them...​

​

Like how else would you know whom I'm referring to if I don't mention the race?​

And I still don't know who you are talking about-- the Romans, the Norse, the British, the Slavs... perhaps the Babylonians?

There is no such thing as a unified white race-- and we're talking about a time spanning thousands of years.

The only thing I've gleaned from your statement is you see no distinction between white people (or you choose not to). Though it's unfortunate, you're welcome to hate anyone you choose. In this context, however-- if we are being honest-- it is a poor identifier of people.

... they were the true Jews of God.

So what do you think is the significance of being a Hebrew, or a true Jew of God?

---

 

[free2018]

There are no scriptures in the Bible that broach the subject of demons siring offspring with humans. That is a lie. Numbers 13:31-33, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” And Deuteronomy 1:28 says, “The people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.” The Israelites called the giants people. “The people are greater and taller than we.” They were very large people, but they were just people. Unless you link me to stuff that agrees with Bible doctrine that the giants were human just like we are except large, you will be wasting your time.

As I've shown in this thread and others the book of Enoch is a false book that has so many lies in it and contradicts the entire Bible as I posted here and here in this very thread. That is why its not part of the Bible and is not inspired of God.

I think I will leave you to it.

I am not going to argue past this post.
I will point that one or two things.


Look at the book of Job and you will see that Satan came along with the sons of God.

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
[2] And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
[3] His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.
[4] And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.
[5] And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:1-12)

I am not going to address every single point you made against Enoch. I, unfortunately, can not afford to...

You then go on to dispute the apocryphal writings. I will just leave you with these questions.

Just to be clear there are many things in the scriptures that many many step over. The firmament is described clearly in Genesis. Why do I mention the firmament? If we realize that the Father created an Earth closed off from anything else. It's in Genesis and a few other places. What happened to these giants? Most of them were killed during Noah's time, yet people still spot a few of these creatures living in forests recently-- all around the world.

 

[phipps]

@free2018

I think I will leave you to it.
I am not going to argue past this post.

I think that is best. We do not agree because what you believe is not from the Bible its from outside of God's Word.

I will point that one or two things.

Look at the book of Job and you will see that Satan came along with the sons of God.

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
[2] And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
[3] His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.
[4] And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.
[5] And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:1-12)

Satan was with the sons of God yes, but and this is a very important but, Satan is not called a son of God. The verse says "and Satan came also among them." Satan is not called a son of God clearly! He joins the meeting but he is set apart from the sons of God. I posted about this in this very thread.

Those that are called sons of God are righteous beings, Satan who is a demon plus all fallen angels/demons have never been called sons of God and never will not after they sinned and were thrown out of heaven. Let me repost what I posted in a previous post about the sons of God here and who it relates to in the Bible. Its going to be long.

"That point is clear in Job 1:6 and 2:1 where there was a meeting in heaven and the sons of God came before the Lord. Satan appears at both meetings but not once is he called a son of God. Both verses make it a point to say, "and Satan also came among them" and "and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." Satan is not counted among the "sons of God" because he isn't one."

Sons of God in the Old Testament

The Old Testament also contains three categories of texts. First, as in the New Testament, the word “sons” is applied to God’s people because of creation and redemption. Second, the king, as the representative of the people and a type of the coming Messiah, was a “son of God” in a special way (1 Chronicles22:9-10; Psalms 2:7; 89:20, 26-27) The third category entails texts that speak of heavenly “sons of God” (as mentioned in the previous post).

In Job, the earliest Greek translation translated "sons of God" as "angels of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1) and "my angels" (Job 38:7). The phrase "sons of the living God" in Hosea 1:10, however, refers to Israel. Here is more scripture as Israel as the son of God:

Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Deuteronomy 14:1-2, "You are the children of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

Sons of God in the New Testament

In the New Testament angels are never called “sons of God.” The concept of sonship rather falls into three categories. The first and most common is of Jesus as the unique “Son of God.” The second is of humans as “sons of God” because of creation and, especially, redemption. We have been created as sons and daughters of God; we lost this status because of sin; but through the redemptive work of Christ we are restored into the family of God.

The third category has received little attention, and consists of texts that refer to glorified believers as “sons of God.” When Jesus is confronted by Sadducees on the question of marriage in heaven, He replies that those who will have a part in the resurrection will be “like angels” (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25) or “equal to” angels (Luke 20:36). Jesus then continues with a peculiar statement: believers will be “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). What Jesus is saying is that the resurrection propels the righteous into a higher heavenly existence that He calls “sons of God.” This existence is not unlike that of the angels, neither is it inferior in substance, but nonetheless, it is distinct. Whatever sonship we possess in this life is transitional and anticipates the ultimate restoration to true sonship that will take place only at the resurrection.

A similar use appears in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:9 declares: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” The future tense “shall be called” points to the resurrection. Likewise, in Matthew 5:44-45 those who love their enemies will be “sons of God.”

Paul develops the theme of the glorified “sons” in Romans 8:14-25. In verses 1-11 he describes how the Holy Spirit empowers a believer to live a life in the Spirit. He assures believers that they are already “sons of God” (verse 14), having been adopted into the family of God (verse 15). He then switches to heavenly realities. In verse 19 he declares: “Creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.” While he has affirmed that believers are already sons, a greater and more profound sonship awaits to be revealed. This will take place with “the redemption of our body” (verse 23), i.e., at the resurrection of the dead. It is at that point that believers will experience “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (verse 21).

While Romans 8:14-25 is the clearest exposition of glorified believers as “sons of God,” there are further hints scattered elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 15:40 Paul contrasts the mortal earthly body with the immortal heavenly body to be received at the resurrection, and then states that believers will “bear the image of the heavenly man” (verse 49). Who is this “heavenly man”? Is it a reference to Jesus? Or is Paul comparing mortal existence to the archetypal creation body, the one we will receive anew when we become glorified “sons of God” as in Luke 20:36?

Summarizing the New Testament evidence, we noted that the concept of sonship is applied (a) to Jesus in a unique way; (b) to humans by virtue of creation and redemption; (c) to believers after the resurrection, when they will receive the heavenly, glorified body and will become sons and daughters in the full sense of the term.

I am not going to address every single point you made against Enoch. I, unfortunately, can not afford to...

Because you know what I said about the book of Enoch is the truth, its not inspired by God and is a book of lies and against God.

You then go on to dispute the apocryphal writings. I will just leave you with these questions.

Just to be clear there are many things in the scriptures that many step over. The firmament is described clearly in Genesis. Why do I mention the firmament? If we realize that the Father created an Earth closed off from anything else. It's in Genesis and a few other places. What happened to these giants? Most of them were killed during Noah's time, yet people still spot a few of these creatures living in forests recently-- all around the world.

Firmament means sky, expanse or heaven as the Bible calls it. Genesis 1:6-8 says, "Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day."

People spot these creatures living in forests? What forests can hide people who are 450 feet as the book of Enoch claims? How would we all not notice them or at least the people who live in or near the forests? Can someone hide when they are 450 feet? It would be in the news surely. And what would be the purpose of these people being alive today yet hidden? Did God mean for the hybrids to live for that long even though they all died according to the Bible? What nonsense! Surely even you can see that.

And the Bible does not say most of them died during the flood either. The Bible says they all died. Only eight people survived the flood and that was Noah and his family. Here, I will quote the Bible, "So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood. ... And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark...Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man" (Genesis 7:7, 12-13, 17-21).

Note the part I've highlighted in blue. It says, "and every man." All those who died in the flood were human. Not once does the Bible say there were anything else other than human beings. I will stick to the truth of the Bible.

Good bye.

 

[Oceanic]

I said bigotry and politics... not racism.

... many scriptures have been removed. White people burnt a lot of them...​

​

Like how else would you know whom I'm referring to if I don't mention the race?​

And I still don't know who you are talking about-- the Romans, the Norse, the British, the Slavs... perhaps the Babylonians?

There is no such thing as a unified white race-- and we're talking about a time spanning thousands of years.

The only thing I've gleaned from your statement is you see no distinction between white people (or you choose not to). Though it's unfortunate, you're welcome to hate anyone you choose. In this context, however-- if we are being honest-- it is a poor identifier of people.

So what do you think is the significance of being a Hebrew, or a true Jew of God?

---

Bigotry is the act of prejudice against someone because of their background or race so it does essentially, depending on the context, count as racism.

Unified white race? Literally "white" is an umbrella term to unify all who are white. Just like "black" is an umbrella term to unify all who are black, no matter if they're African American, African, Afro-Latino, Blasian, Blexican, Black Native American, Black Indian, Aboriginal, they are all still in that category.

I said "white people" because I'm not about to give you a list of exactly specific nationalities of white people who did what they did to the Bible. It's easier to just say "white" and it really isn't a bad thing. Unless it's some sort of important speech pertaining to your job, I don't see why I have to go deep with this when you can understand when I say white people, I mean white people of almost every nationality,

Because the act of translating the Bible was general among them.

 

[free2018]

@free2018


I think that is best. We do not agree because what you believe is not from the Bible its from outside of God's Word.


Satan was with the sons of God yes, but and this is a very important but, Satan is not called a son of God. They verse says "and Satan came also among them." Satan is not called a son of God clearly! He joins the meeting but he is set apart from the sons of God. I posted about this in this very thread.

Those that are called sons of God are righteous beings, Satan who is a demon plus all fallen angels/demons have never been called sons of God and never will not after they sinned and were thrown out of heaven. Let me repost what I posted in a previous post about the sons of God here and who it relates to in the Bible. Its going to be long.

"That point is clear in Job 1:6 and 2:1 where there was a meeting in heaven and the sons of God came before the Lord. Satan appears at both meetings but not once is he called a son of God. Both verses make it a point to say, "and Satan also came among them" and "and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." Satan is not counted among the "sons of God" because he isn't one."

Sons of God in the Old Testament

The Old Testament also contains three categories of texts. First, as in the New Testament, the word “sons” is applied to God’s people because of creation and redemption. Second, the king, as the representative of the people and a type of the coming Messiah, was a “son of God” in a special way (1 Chronicles22:9-10; Psalms 2:7; 89:20, 26-27) The third category entails texts that speak of heavenly “sons of God” (as mentioned in the previous post).

In Job, the earliest Greek translation translated "sons of God" as "angels of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1) and "my angels" (Job 38:7). The phrase "sons of the living God" in Hosea 1:10, however, refers to Israel. Here is more scripture as Israel as the son of God:

Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Deuteronomy 14:1-2, "You are the children of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

Sons of God in the New Testament

In the New Testament angels are never called “sons of God.” The concept of sonship rather falls into three categories. The first and most common is of Jesus as the unique “Son of God.” The second is of humans as “sons of God” because of creation and, especially, redemption. We have been created as sons and daughters of God; we lost this status because of sin; but through the redemptive work of Christ we are restored into the family of God.

The third category has received little attention, and consists of texts that refer to glorified believers as “sons of God.” When Jesus is confronted by Sadducees on the question of marriage in heaven, He replies that those who will have a part in the resurrection will be “like angels” (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25) or “equal to” angels (Luke 20:36). Jesus then continues with a peculiar statement: believers will be “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). What Jesus is saying is that the resurrection propels the righteous into a higher heavenly existence that He calls “sons of God.” This existence is not unlike that of the angels, neither is it inferior in substance, but nonetheless, it is distinct. Whatever sonship we possess in this life is transitional and anticipates the ultimate restoration to true sonship that will take place only at the resurrection.

A similar use appears in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:9 declares: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” The future tense “shall be called” points to the resurrection. Likewise, in Matthew 5:44-45 those who love their enemies will be “sons of God.”

Paul develops the theme of the glorified “sons” in Romans 8:14-25. In verses 1-11 he describes how the Holy Spirit empowers a believer to live a life in the Spirit. He assures believers that they are already “sons of God” (verse 14), having been adopted into the family of God (verse 15). He then switches to heavenly realities. In verse 19 he declares: “Creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.” While he has affirmed that believers are already sons, a greater and more profound sonship awaits to be revealed. This will take place with “the redemption of our body” (verse 23), i.e., at the resurrection of the dead. It is at that point that believers will experience “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (verse 21).

While Romans 8:14-25 is the clearest exposition of glorified believers as “sons of God,” there are further hints scattered elsewhere. In 1 Corinthians 15:40 Paul contrasts the mortal earthly body with the immortal heavenly body to be received at the resurrection, and then states that believers will “bear the image of the heavenly man” (verse 49). Who is this “heavenly man”? Is it a reference to Jesus? Or is Paul comparing mortal existence to the archetypal creation body, the one we will receive anew when we become glorified “sons of God” as in Luke 20:36?

Summarizing the New Testament evidence, we noted that the concept of sonship is applied (a) to Jesus in a unique way; (b) to humans by virtue of creation and redemption; (c) to believers after the resurrection, when they will receive the heavenly, glorified body and will become sons and daughters in the full sense of the term.


Because you know what I said about the book of Enoch is the truth, its not inspired by God and is book of lies and against God.


Firmament means sky, expanse or heaven as the Bible calls it. Genesis 1:6-8 says, "Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day."

People spot these creatures living in forests? What forests can hide people who are 450 feet as the book of Enoch claims? How would we all not notice them or at least the people who live in or near the forests? Can someone hide when they are 450 feet? It would be in the news surely. And what would be the purpose of these people being alive today yet hidden? Did God mean for the hybrids to live for that long? What nonsense! Surely even you can see that.

And the Bible does not say most of them died during the flood either. The Bible says they all died. Only eight people survived the flood and that was Noah and his family. Here, I will quote the Bible, "So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood. ... And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark...Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man" (Genesis 7:7, 12-13, 17-21).

Note the part I've highlighted in blue. It says, "and every man." All those who died in the flood were human. Not once does the Bible say there were anything else other human beings. I will stick to the truth of the Bible.

Good bye.

You tell me you’ll stick to the truth of scriptures. Fair enough. Everything we see now has already happened at least once.

The flood was needed because “no flesh would survive.”

You do not know more about the Most High. I have forgotten a lot. Not the meaning.

When I read the scriptures everyday, I read the part on the page.

God created everything. He created the firmament we live on. He created everything.

There wasn’t a separate force that created anything.
The serpent in the garden was created by God.

God is not the author of confusion.
This realm is dominated by Satan and the demons.

 

[phipps]

Is the Bible true?

People today are sceptical of just about everything; what are people’s intentions, whether certain facts are accurate, the motives behind an action, etc. According to the Bible, we should not just take things at face value and believe them. Rather, the Bible counsels us to “test all things” (Acts 17:11), and this even includes the Bible.

How do we know the Bible is true?
Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone’ … It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ … For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’ ” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10).

“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Jesus quoted from Scripture when He was tempted by Satan. He also said the Bible is truth (John 17:17). Jesus quoted Scripture as the authority for everything He was teaching.

Prophecy
The Bible says, “I am the Lord. … New things I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them” (Isaiah 42:8-9).

“I am God … declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Bible predictions of future events that have come to pass dramatically confirm the divine inspiration of Scripture. These are just a few examples of fulfilled Bible prophecies:

1. Four world empires would arise: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome
(Daniel chapters 2, 7- 8).

2. Cyrus to be the warrior to capture Babylon (Isaiah 45:1-3).

3. After Babylon's destruction, it would never be inhabited again (Isaiah 13:19, 20 Jeremiah 51:37).

4. Egypt would never again have a commanding position among the nations (Ezekiel 29:14, 15 30:12, 13).

5. Earth-shaking calamities and fear toward the end of time (Luke 21:25, 26).

6. Moral degeneracy and decline of spirituality in the last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

7. Messianic prophecies came true (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53)

Endurance of the Bible
Mankind has tried to destroy the Bible for centuries. During the Dark Ages, only the clergy were allowed to read the Bible. The common person would be put in jail or even killed for having a Bible and sharing its teachings. We know from history that the reformers violated the laws and studied the Word of God for themselves. However, because of their actions, many of them were burned at the stake. Despite the efforts to completely eradicate the Bible, it still continues to be the world’s best seller every year. In fact, the Bible is the best-selling book in history.

Isaiah 40:8 reads, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever.” God promised in His Word that the Bible would last forever. Man cannot destroy it. Man can’t even silence it. The Bible has and will endure until the end of time.

Science
The Bible says, “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160).

There are many scientific evidences that endorse the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible as the Word of God, several of which are listed below:

In Jeremiah 31:37 we learn that the heavens (outer space) cannot be measured. At one point in history, astronomers thought the universe was measurable. But the Hubble Telescope showed that mankind was just living on a “pale blue dot” in the grand universe. In fact, the universe is too big for scientists to measure with tools currently available.

Job 26:7 reads, “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” Job was written thousands of years ago. Long before anyone would have known for sure that the earth rotates around the sun.

“He … sits above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). The Bible said the earth is round centuries before it was confirmed by scientists.

“To establish a weight for the wind” (Job 28:25). Long before science verified it, the Bible reported that air has weight.

Are the Bible’s historical statements accurate?
The Bible says, “I, the Lord, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right” (Isaiah 45:19).

Yes. Sometimes evidence might not yet be available to prove certain historical claims found in Scripture, but evidence has repeatedly surfaced proving the validity of the Bible. Note the following:

1. For years skeptics said the Bible was unreliable because it mentions the Hittite nation (Deuteronomy 7:1) and cities like Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2) and Sodom (Genesis 19:1), all of which they denied ever existed. But now modern archaeology has confirmed that all three did exist.

2. Critics also said that the kings Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) and Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) never existed. Again, their existence has since been confirmed.

3. Skeptics said the Bible record of Moses was not reliable because it mentions writing (Exodus 24:4) and wheeled vehicles (Exodus 14:25), which they said didn’t exist in his time. Today we know they did.

4. At one time, the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah were known only from the Bible record; thus, critics doubted their existence. But when archaeologists found independent ancient records that mention many of these kings, the Bible record was proved accurate once again.

 

[phipps]

The unity of the Bible
The Bible consists of 66 books. There are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. Forty different authors wrote the Bible over the course of 1,500 years and on 3 different continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe). The Bible consists of many different types of writings. In the Old Testament we find (1) the Law of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch, (2) the Major and Minor Prophets, (3) Psalms & poetry, and (4) History. In the New Testament we find (5) the four gospels which tell the story of Jesus, (6) the book of Acts, which tell the historical account of the disciples after Jesus went to heaven, (6) letters that Paul and others wrote to the various churches and lastly, (7) Revelation, a prophetic book discussing events at the end of time.

When considering the varying aspects of the Bible, it is amazing to note that the Bible is truly consistent in content. If one would ask 40 different people from different cultures to write the same story without talking to each other beforehand could they provide a unified story? Would they all say the same thing? Would their facts be different? Would there be a different “tone” to each one? It is nearly impossible for a group of people to write in harmony with each other without consulting beforehand. In the same way, the accuracy and truth of the Bible can be highlighted by the harmony of its authors who wrote about controversial topics, but yet agreed on every point of doctrine.

The Bible writers considered Scripture to be an inseparable, coherent whole in which major themes are further developed. There is no discord between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament does not contain a new gospel or a new religion. The Old Testament is unfolded in the New Testament, and the New Testament builds upon the Old Testament. As such, the two Testaments have a reciprocal relationship in which they shed light upon each other.

The Unity of Scripture also implies that all of Scripture (tota scriptura) should be taken into consideration when we study a biblical subject, rather than building our teaching only on isolated statements.

Scripture Interprets Scripture
Only because there is an underlying unity of Scripture can the Bible function as its own interpreter. Without such unity, Scripture could not be the light that reveals its own meaning, where one portion of Scripture interprets other portions and thus becomes the key to understanding related passages.

The beauty of letting Scripture interpret Scripture is that it sheds further light on its own meaning. In doing so, we do not indiscriminately string together various passages to prove our opinion. Instead, we carefully take into consideration the context of each passage. Besides the immediate context before and after a passage under investigation, we should take into consideration the context of the book in which the passage is found. Furthermore, since according to Paul in Scripture, “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning” (Romans 15:4), we should study all that Scripture says on a given subject.

When we compare Scripture with Scripture, it is important to study the Bible thoroughly. If possible, we should do so in its original languages, or at least with an appropriate Bible translation faithful to the meaning contained in the original Hebrew and Greek. Though knowledge of the original languages is not necessary to have a good understanding of the Bible, it certainly helps when possible. If not, faithful and prayerful study of the Word, with an attitude of humility and submission, will still surely bear great fruit.

All of the Bible is inspired by God
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible does not merely contain the words of God—it is the Word of God. The Bible is the information and operations manual for human life. If we ignore it and we will experience unnecessary difficulties.

Changed lives
The Bible has a convicting power that, if people will accept God’s working, will improve their lives. There are many accounts of people who were once thieves or murderers and now are changed because of studying the Bible. The Bible says in 1 Peter 1:23, “Having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the Word of God which lives and abides forever.” Only through the Bible can one be truly changed. We have natural tendencies towards evil, but through the power of God’s word He will help us to be “born again”, to be renewed in mind (Romans 12:1, 2), to be a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17), and to overcome sins in our life. As one considers the testimony of a changed life, it becomes more difficult to argue with the truth of the Bible and its power in people's lives.

Some say the Bible is full of errors. How can anyone believe it is inspired?
The vast majority of so-called errors in the Bible have been demonstrated to be merely errors of judgment or a lack of understanding on the part of those who make the complaint. They are not errors at all, but simply truth misunderstood. The inspired Bible:

Will always tell you the truth

Will never mislead you

Can be fully trusted

Is reliable and authoritative in spiritual, historical, and scientific matters

It’s true that, in some cases, copyists might have mis-copied a small word or number here and there, but no such supposed error or any other alleged error has affected the absolute truth of God’s Word. Doctrine is built not upon one Bible passage, but upon the total of divinely inspired comments on a subject. Of course, some things in the Bible are difficult to reconcile. There will always be room for doubt. However, even alleged errors not yet fully explained will eventually be reconciled, as they have been in the past. It seems the harder people work to undermine the Bible, the brighter its light shines.

 

[Maldarker]

@Oceanic,


I'm not.


Not according to the Bible (which is the true Word of God) and this thread is based on what the Bible teaches of the nephilim/giants not from other books that are not part of the Bible or inspired by God.


Not according to the Bible which is the truth and nothing but the truth of God. And I showed you actual scripture that disagrees with what you're saying.


That will explain you having these false beliefs but its sad that you share these same beliefs with professed Christians here. Christianity is not false when it follows the truth of God's Word.


If you want to believe the book of Enoch and all of its false claims that's your choice but it has never been removed from the Bible because it was never part of it and never will be. Its a hoax and most of it contradicts the Bible. If anything contradicts the Bible its a complete falsity no matter how many similarities it may seem to have with the Bible. The Bible is about complete truth or its a lie.


Many people have attempted to change the Bible but God has protected His Word. That is why the book of Enoch and the other "lost books" are not in the Bible and its no through luck of trying. Like I told you God is always in control.


And you clearly don't know. I will pray that God lead you to the truth. I wasn't going to accuse you of racism though I did notice even from a previous post of yours that you seem are preoccupied with white people changing and messing with the Bible. Its not about race when it comes to Satan. He doesn't care who he uses to distort God's Word. He wants us all to lose our lives eternally regardless of race. The Great controversy between God and Satan has never been about race, its about all people in the world.

Goodbye.

Why aren't these other books in it phipps? Who decided? I'm sure you know and if you do ....well then your just not being honest with your self.

 

[TokiEl]

Satan was with the sons of God yes, but and this is a very important but, Satan is not called a son of God. They verse says "and Satan came also among them." Satan is not called a son of God clearly! He joins the meeting but he is set apart from the sons of God. I posted about this in this very thread.

Satan is of course a son of God as all heavenly beings are... and no satan is not a terrestrial demon but a heavenly cherub.

So in the book of Job when sons of God came to present themselves before God... one of them is named because that one was about to sift Job.




You have made up your mind that there is no serpent seed on earth... even though the bible explicitly states there is a serpent seed.

So you go out of your way to misinterpret the bible to fit your personal prejudice based on a lack of knowledge.

You think your interpretation of the bible is always right... but so did the pharisees.

So you're not in so good company.

 

[elsbet]

For those who are interested...

The Book of (1ST) Enoch is not required to show the Nephilim were a product of the Sons of God & the Daughters of Adam (not Cain).

Genesis covers it, and goes on to say, as a result-- all flesh was corrupted, with the exception of Noah.

Noah was a just (righteous) man ​

and ​

perfect in his generations. 6:9​

Meaning--> his lineage had not been corrupted or polluted by the fallen sons of God.

Spoiler: Tamim

The verse notes he was both righteous and genetically undefiled, so there is no confusion concerning the meaning. Perfect (in his generations) or undefiled, as it is used here (8549; tamim), is the same word used to describe a perfect, unblemished sacrifice in Exodus 12:5.

We are even told beforehand what is going to happen. Back in the garden, God told the serpent...

... I will put enmity between you​

and the woman,​

and between your seed ​

and her seed.​

He will crush your head,​

and you will strike his heel.​

The seed of the woman, who will crush his head, is Christ, who will reconcile the world to God, through His perfect, undefiled sacrifice. So it is easy to see why Satan would be motivated to pollute and defile the lineage of the human race.

This stuff is in Technicolor throughout the Old Testament (see Psalm 82, also)-- and the New Testament, specifically referenced in Jude and 2 Peter 2. Imho, the bible as a whole makes more sense, in light of this knowledge.

The Book of Enoch is just bonus material... it changes nothing.


NOTE: If marrying and starting a family with "sinful women" automatically resulted in children who were giants, we would ALL be giants-- and blissfully unaware of it. Just saying.
---

 

[Maldarker]

For those who are interested...

The Book of (1ST) Enoch is not required to show the Nephilim were a product of the Sons of God & the Daughters of Adam (not Cain).

Genesis covers it, and goes on to say, as a result-- all flesh was corrupted, with the exception of Noah.

Noah was a just (righteous) man ​

and ​

perfect in his generations. 6:9​

Meaning--> his lineage had not been corrupted or polluted by the fallen sons of God.

Spoiler: Tamim

The verse notes he was both righteous and genetically undefiled, so there is no confusion concerning the meaning. Perfect (in his generations) or undefiled, as it is used here (8549; tamim), is the same word used to describe a perfect, unblemished sacrifice in Exodus 12:5.

We are even told beforehand what is going to happen. Back in the garden, God told the serpent...

... I will put enmity between you​

and the woman,​

and between your seed ​

and her seed.​

He will crush your head,​

and you will strike his heel.​

The seed of the woman, who will crush his head, is Christ, who will reconcile the world to God, through His perfect, undefiled sacrifice. So it is easy to see why Satan would be motivated to pollute and defile the lineage of the human race.

This stuff is in Technicolor throughout the Old Testament (see Psalm 82, also)-- and the New Testament, specifically referenced in Jude and 2 Peter 2. Imho, the bible as a whole makes more sense, in light of this knowledge.

The Book of Enoch is just bonus material... it changes nothing.


NOTE: If marrying and starting a family with "sinful women" automatically resulted in children who were giants, we would ALL be giants-- and blissfully unaware of it. Just saying.
---

DING!!! Exactly!

 

[phipps]

What does Jude 1:6 mean?

Here is what it says, "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day."

Some Christians mistakenly think that this verse means that the fallen angels didn't keep their spiritual estate and took on human form for which God put them in chains and darkness until the judgment day.

Jude 6 says the angels lost their first estate or abode which is heaven. It does not say they lost their spiritual state. Satan and the rest of the demons, rebelled against God in heaven. There was even a war in heaven that ended with Satan and his angels cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:7-10).

The chains and darkness are not literal because you can't really chain an angel. They are spiritual beings, not flesh and blood like humans. Being separated from God, anyone including evil angels are in chains and darkness. The only difference is that people have a chance to get out from that state but Satan his evil angels can't. Their fate is set. They've already been judged. They are going to end up in hell and will die eternally. In fact Christ said that hell was really only ever meant for Satan and his angels, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41).

When the demons possessed the man by the Sea of Galilee? They said, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God?" Have You come here to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:29).

 

[phipps]

2 Peter 2:4-5 is a similar passage to Jude 6.

2 Peter 4-5 says, "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly."

Peter is discussing the work of false teachers. According to him, their presence among God’s people is not new, "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1). One thing is certain, however: they will experience the judgment of God. To support his argument, Peter uses three biblical examples of sin leading to judgment: the experience of the angels, the punishment of the 
antediluvians (people who lived before the flood), and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The context in Jude is similar. He also deals with false teachers, and his three examples of divine judgment are: the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness, the fall of the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah. These cases show that God will intervene against false teachers. These passages are not specifically about the nature of the sin of angels, or about the place they are sent.

Peter uses vivid language to describe the fate of evil angels. God “sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons.” In the Bible “hell” is the realm of the dead, the tomb. The common Greek word for “hell” is hadēs, which designates the place of the dead, the underworld. But in this case Peter uses a different word, a verb: tartaroō, “to cast into/to hold captive in tartaros.” In Greek mythology tartaros designated the deepest area of hades, reserved for the punishment of disobedient gods. Peter uses this image to express the idea that fallen angels are now in prisons of darkness and death, separated from the divine source of 
life. This is not a literal prison, because demons are still active in the world of humans (1 Peter 5:8; Jude 9).

This is supported by Jude, who simply says they are chained and imprisoned in darkness. By the way, the phrase “gloomy dungeons” in Peter is sometimes rendered in Greek manuscripts as “fetters of darkness.” In the ancient world, prisons were in many cases dark dungeons, an appropriate symbol for the tomb (Revelation 1:18). Apparently, ancient prisons did not have the purpose of incarcerating criminals as a form of punishment. Those in jail were often committed to hard labour. But in most cases, the prisoners were awaiting judgment or the execution of the penalty already pronounced against them. According to Peter, fallen angels are incarcerated in spiritual darkness, in the realm of death, awaiting the execution of their sentence. They have already been judged.

Neither Peter nor Jude tells us the nature of the sin of the angels. According to Jude, the angels “did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home.” The fall of the angels from heaven is described as abandoning their appointed roles in heaven, their original home. The common view among scholars is that Jude used Genesis 6:1-4, as interpreted by Jewish inter-testamental literature, to refer to the fall of the angels when they abandoned heaven and had sexual relations with women. They argue that the context in Jude is about sins of immorality. That interpretation hardly fits the context of Peter. Although one cannot totally rule out that possibility for Jude, it is always better to go with the witness of Scripture itself and avoid speculation. The idea expressed in both passages seems to fit Isaiah 14 better, where the fall of Lucifer is narrated: “Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit” (verse 15); as well as Revelation 12:1-4, 7-9, where the casting out of the angels is preceded by a war in heaven.

To conclude: The final fate of evil angels is fixed. Meanwhile, beware of false teachers in your church, and beware of their greed, "And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed." (2 Peter 2:2)!

 

[elsbet]

Bigotry is the act of prejudice against someone because of their background or race so it does essentially, depending on the context, count as racism.

Unified white race? Literally "white" is an umbrella term to unify all who are white. Just like "black" is an umbrella term to unify all who are black, no matter if they're African American, African, Afro-Latino, Blasian, Blexican, Black Native American, Black Indian, Aboriginal, they are all still in that category.

I said "white people" because I'm not about to give you a list of exactly specific nationalities of white people who did what they did to the Bible. It's easier to just say "white" and it really isn't a bad thing. Unless it's some sort of important speech pertaining to your job, I don't see why I have to go deep with this when you can understand when I say white people, I mean white people of almost every nationality,

Because the act of translating the Bible was general among them.

Spoiler: bigotry

obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot​

I asked about the point you introduced into the discussion, yourself-- who set the scriptures on fire?

The lines drawn are of a spiritual and religious (manmade) nature-- so the distinction is quite relevant; especially since the offenders are targeting all the world's inhabitants.

I know of one time, in particular, in which bibles were burned, as well as the man who did the translation. He was English, and he was a Protestant-- early 16th century. The Catholics, who did not want laypeople reading the bible-- much less, an authentic translation from the Hebrew and Greek-- did the burning and the killing.

William Tyndale​

TYNDALE BIBLE - EUROPE ​

... the religious foment caused by Wycliffe's Bible (translated into middle English from the Latin Vulgate) in the late 14th century led to the death penalty for anyone found in unlicensed possession of Scripture in English...​

Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts (rather than the Vulgate favored by Catholics), the first English translation to take advantage of the printing press, the first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation, and the first English translation to use Jehovah ("Iehouah") as God's name as preferred by English Protestant Reformers. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony both of the Catholic Church and of those laws of England maintaining the church's position.​

The translation was condemned in October 1526 by Bishop Tunstall, who issued warnings to booksellers and had copies burned in public. Marius notes that the "spectacle of the scriptures being put to the torch... provoked controversy even amongst the faithful." WIKI​

As for misinterpretation... in this case, Genesis-- one of the earliest of which I'm aware was in the 5th century. Honorary Catholic "saint", Augustine of Hippo assured us through personal, anecdotal evidence, in City of God, the giants were just really tall people-- because he once saw a really tall person, himself. He seemed to be suffering a case of the vapours, at the notion of the Sons of God intermingling with the daughters of men, and found the (false) Sethite theory far more palatable.

I think Julius Africanus offered the Sethite theory before Augustine, but I haven't found material I can quote directly from Africanus.
---

I'm still curious-- what is the significance of being an original Hebrew?

Is it this group in the wiki article: black Hebrews?
-

 

[elsbet]

Jude 6 says the angels lost their first estate or abode which is heaven. It does not say they lost their spiritual state. Satan and the rest of the demons, rebelled against God in heaven. There was even a war in heaven that ended with Satan and his angels cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:7-10).

The chains and darkness are not literal because you can't really chain an angel....

No... it doesn't.

The verse does not say they "lost" their first estate-- Jude 1:6 very clearly states, they abandoned it.

620 • apoleipó​

to desert, forsake: a place, Jude 1:6.​

​

Spoiler

to leave, leave behind​

Part of Speech: Verb​

Definition: to leave, leave behind​

Usage: I leave, leave behind; pass: I am reserved, remain; I desert, abandon.​

​

From apo and leipo; to leave behind (passively, remain); by implication, to forsake -- leave, remain.​

​

We will gain a heavenly estate, ourselves. 2 Corinthians 5

... earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation (or estate; oikētērion) which is from heaven...​

that mortality may be swallowed up by life.​

​

Oikētērion, the Greek word used for dwelling or estate, is used only twice in the bible.

οἰκητήριον, ὀικητηριου, τό (οἰκητήρ), a dwelling-place, habitation: Jude 1:6; of the body as the dwelling-place of the spirit, 2 Corinthians 5:2​

Obviously, they had forsaken their heavenly-- that is, their spiritual-- state.

The chains and darkness are not literal because you can't really chain an angel....

Astounding!
Are you really going to argue GOD cannot bind an angel (or a demon), if He so chooses?

As though you haven't read His account of Leviathan in the book of Job.

The liberties you take with the bible are disturbing, indeed.

 

[phipps]

If the sons of God were indeed fallen angels as the book of Enoch claims, how did they manage to have sexual relations with humans? Did they morph into humans? Because angels are not humans nor do they have mortal physical bodies.

I read somewhere where one person was trying to explain that the fallen angels took on human form temporarily to be able to procreate with human beings. But is this biblical at all? In the Bible we have examples of angels appearing in the form of humans and even eating with them. For example in Genesis 18:1-8 Abraham was visited by three men who he fed butter, milk and bread. They ate what he gave them. This has been used as proof that angels can have sexual relations because they ate human food. Yes the angels morphed into men but were their bodies mortal like ours? Does that mean they could suddenly procreate if they chose to even though that is not an ability God created in them? And more importantly where in the Bible is this teaching supported? Not one passage is written in the Bible telling us angels can procreate from Genesis to Revelation.

In fact Jesus said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). When God created all the angels, they were not created to procreate at all. So even after Satan and his angels rebelled, that is not an ability they developed on their own. God would have to create it in them wouldn't He? Lets not forget the sons of God married the daughters of men. Angels cannot marry, that is why the institution of marriage is human not angelic.

After Jesus returns the second time for His people, they will be like angels. This is supported by other scripture in the Bible. The apostle Paul wrote, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). At the resurrection we will be given new bodies that, like the angels (the unfallen), will never die. Angels are spiritual but also have bodies, although they are not mortal like our own; they live in a dimension we find hard to comprehend.

When did the unfallen angels stop procreating with humans? How come we don't see these 450 feet giants of their offspring today as the book of Enoch claims they were? Why would they stop procreating with humans?

The answers to these questions are not in the Bible just as the unfallen angels being the sons of God isn't.

Some Christians use the story of Christ's conception to say that is how fallen angels could have intercourse and procreate with humans.

Matthew 1:18-23, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Firstly, if we look at the above verses we see Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God and is obviously higher than angels who are created beings. God is all powerful and can do anything. He enabled Mary to become pregnant in order for Christ to be born into this world as a human being in order to save us.

Secondly, this was a one off. Christ was only going to be born once in this world and He would save us once too.

Thirdly, the fallen angels did not have the Holy Spirit with them obviously. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit had departed from them before they were thrown out of heaven. So therefore God did not give them the ability to have intercourse and procreate with humans and angels cannot create that ability in themselves.

 

[Axl888]

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” - Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propagandist)

 

[Maldarker]

Btw angels can take the form of humans do you not remember the story of LOT?