One Year® Bible Online Forum

I checked these guys out on Wikipedia. I’m not sure what to think! Is there any real agreement [short easy explanation], among modern learned church folk, on where these characters came from and/or if they’re still here messing around with us humans or is it just left up to each of us to fantasize a senario [perish the thought!] ?

SHORT ANSWER
To answer your last question, Yes we do still have the Nephilim to deal with, but they are not who many think they are. They were basically Mighty Men, Men of Renown, Heroes and/or Giants. Not offspring of angels. I also originally held this idea, but further research removed that. In biblical intrepretation, its better to go with the mundane literal answer, than jump into the supernatural/spiritual realm, unless we have no other choice. Most respected scholars hold to Nephilim being just men of incredible size. Still you may find a small handful adhering to the other belief. The Easton's Bible dictionary provides some nice definitions that I have included at the end of the Long Answer.

LONG ANSWER
Let's take a look at the scripture in question:

Genesis 6:1-22 (New International Version)
The Flood
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Avoiding Dogmatically Interpretation
With verses like these, it’s best to avoid dogmatically interpretation until we check all of the facts. I also had to flip-flop on this topic years ago when more facts came to light. The records are sparse concerning these Nephilim, but let’s see what we can do with what we do have.

Who Are The Sons Of God
The sons of God marry the daughters of men; and Nephilim are said to be on the earth (6:1–4). Until this point Genesis has dealt only with the sins of individuals—Cain, Lamech, Eve, Adam. Now the emphasis is on the sin of a group, the sons of God. Who are these sons of God? The term sons of God elsewhere in the Old Testament designates angels

Job 1:6 (New International Version)
6 One day the angels (Hebrew: the sons of God ) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

However; we also find that believers are called the sons of God throughout the New Testament.

Galatians 3:26 (New International Version)
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

Characteristics Of Angels
In addition, Jesus Himself taught that angels do not marry. Everything that we know about angels leads us to conclude that they are asexual and not able to reproduce. Furthermore, if the angels are the villains, then why is God’s anger directed against man?

Matthew 22:29-30 (New International Version)
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Sethites and Cainites Unequally Yoked
So the next logical lead to follow is that the sons of God may be the Sethites (the godly line), while the daughters of men are the Cainites (the ungodly line). The trespass would be the unequal yoking together of believer and unbeliever. This interpretation is not without its problems, but it is quite entrenched in Christian tradition.

Whatever the correct interpretation, the union is wrong, for God is provoked. It is interesting that the reference to God’s displeasure (v. 3) comes before the reference to the Nephilim (v. 4). This shows that God’s annoyance is with the nuptial arrangement itself.

Also as a side note; the 120 years does not refer to a shortened lifespan (for only Joseph lives less than 120 years in Genesis), but to a period of grace before the flood commences. As such it may be compared with Jonah 3:4, “forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.”

The text does not say that the Nephilim (“those who were made to fall”) are the offspring of this alliance. Rather, they are contemporaries of the other two parties (sons/daughters/Nephilim). According to Numbers 13:33, they form part of the pre-Israelite population of Palestine.

There is a clear-cut reason for the flood (6:5–22). The sons of God see how beautiful the daughters of men are. The Lord sees how terrible the earth has become (wickedness). The problem is not only what man does; even his thoughts are evil. Sin is both extensive and intensive. Verse 6 says God repents (KJV); the New International Version reads that he “was grieved.” In the majority of cases when the Hebrew verb to repent is used, surprisingly the subject is God.

Because of this wickedness, God informs Noah that he intends to destroy the earth and instructs him to begin construction of the Ark. The Sons of God then are not the Nephilim as we explored above, but rather Mighty Men or even Giants.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
I enjoy showing the tools of Bible Study, so lets try a Bible Dictionary tonight. By using the Easton's Bible dictionary we find definitions for the following related terms that help use to better understand who these people were. Here they are for your reference.

NEPHILIM — (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33, R.V.), giants, the Hebrew word left untranslated by the Revisers, the name of one of the Canaanitish tribes. The Revisers have, however, translated the Hebrew gibborim, in Gen. 6:4, “mighty men.”

REPHAIM — lofty men; giants, (Gen. 14:5; 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, marg. A.V., Rapha, marg. R.V., Raphah; Deut. 3:13, R.V.; A.V., “giants”). The aborigines of Palestine, afterwards conquered and dispossessed by the Canaanite tribes, are classed under this general title. They were known to the Moabites as Emim, i.e., “fearful”, (Deut. 2:11), and to the Ammonites as Zamzummim. Some of them found refuge among the Philistines, and were still existing in the days of David. We know nothing of their origin. They were not necessarily connected with the “giants” (R.V., “Nephilim”) of Gen. 6:4. (See GIANTS.)

ANAKIM — the descendants of Anak (Josh. 11:21; Num. 13:33; Deut. 9:2). They dwelt in the south of Palestine, in the neighbourhood of Hebron (Gen. 23:2; Josh. 15:13). In the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:5, 6) they inhabited the region afterwards known as Edom and Moab, east of the Jordan. They were probably a remnant of the original inhabitants of Palestine before the Canaanites, a Cushite tribe from Babel, and of the same race as the Phoenicians and the Egyptian shepherd kings. Their formidable warlike appearance, as described by the spies sent to search the land, filled the Israelites with terror. They seem to have identified them with the Nephilim, the “giants” (Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33) of the antediluvian age. There were various tribes of Anakim (Josh. 15:14). Joshua finally expelled them from the land, except a remnant that found a refuge in the cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. 11:22). The Philistine giants whom David encountered (2 Sam. 21:15–22) were descendants of the Anakim. (See GIANTS.)

GIANTS — (1.) Heb. nephilim, meaning “violent” or “causing to fall” (Gen. 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying “wonder,” and hence “monsters” or “prodigies.” In Num. 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, “the sons of Anak.” The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads “Nephilim.”
(2.) Heb. rephaim, a race of giants (Deut. 3:11) who lived on the east of Jordan, from whom Og was descended. They were probably the original inhabitants of the land before the immigration of the Canaanites. They were conquered by Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:5), and their territories were promised as a possession to Abraham (15:20). The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock.
In Job 26:5 (R.V., “they that are deceased;” marg., “the shades,” the “Rephaim”) and Isa. 14:9 this Hebrew word is rendered (A.V.) “dead.” It means here “the shades,” the departed spirits in Sheol. In Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22, “the giant” is (A.V.) the rendering of the singular form , which may possibly be the name of the father of the four giants referred to here, or of the founder of the Rephaim. The Vulgate here reads “Arapha,” whence Milton (in Samson Agonistes) has borrowed the name “Harapha.” (See also 1 Chron. 20:5, 6, 8; Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:13; Josh. 15:8, etc., where the word is similarly rendered “giant.”) It is rendered “dead” in (A.V.) Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16: in all these places the Revised Version marg. has “the shades.” (See also Isa. 26:14.)
(3.) Heb. ‘Anakim (Deut. 2:10, 11, 21; Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12, 15; called “sons of Anak,” Num. 13:33; “children of Anak,” 13:22; Josh. 15:14), a nomad race of giants descended from Arba (Josh. 14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Gen. 23:2; Josh. 15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the Egyptian shepherd kings. David on several occasions encountered them (2 Sam. 21:15–22). From this race sprung Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4).

Hey Everybody!

Hope everyone is hanging tough and enjoying the Daily Bible Readings. We are covering alot of ground, but when we start hitting the other books like Numbers and Leviticus, many of us will likely come back to these postings to catch-up on the details from the Genesis reading. So I just wanted to put in my two cents here.

I believe that the Philistine giant Goliath from Gath, who David as a shepard boy killed with a sling shot, was related soemhow to the Nephilim. He was supposedly a descendant of the Anakim. Josuha also encountered these giants while spying the land in the book of Numbers. Sorry, I'm reading ahead! Ha ha...

Numbers 13:32-33
32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." NIV

I really enjoy seeing how interconnected these books and stories are. They collaborate one another time and again. Love it!

The detail in these postings are awesome! Keep them coming cartoonbug! I also love how you are now providing a Short and Long answer. I may not be able to recall all of the details of the Long answer, but I will remember the Short one! Thanks again!

Striving for Christ,

Paul

3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

By "My Spirit" am I correct to assume He is referring to THE Holy Spirit?

Is the Lord just revealing his exasperation with man here... before the flood?

In the end, He will be dealing with some of us "forever"... won't He? Isn't that what eternity is about?

Is He just referring Here to the entirety of "man", and more specifically: the behavior of "all" of humankind's behavior and attitudes at the time before the flood?

These are such immature questions.

Before beginning, I would like to reiterate that in Romans 14, Paul states, “ Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.”

As Christians we all must have the same basic belief, that Jesus is Lord, that He is the Son of God and that He is God. That through repentance of sins and the acceptance of the gift of eternal life, we are forgiven in, through and by Him to that end. There is no argument.

But, because of interpreting the bible differently on other issues, much of the time we hold different views. This is O.K, being careful not to let the “doubtful things” divide us.

Personally, I feel that the more we grow in Christ Jesus the more we understand. That would mean then that when I was a babe in Christ I might have “seen” one aspect in a bible verse that now means something completely different to me today. I believe as we continue on in our spiritual growth in life, He reveals more of Himself to us and His mysteries.

Because of the articles and writings I have read including the specific biblical references and logic, I believe the Nephilim were the offspring of angels who had “left their place” and taken the daughters of men as their wives.

Although there are many writings on the subject, my favorite is G. H. Pember’s “Earth’s Earliest Ages”. And the appendix to pp. 129-135 by G. H. Lang, the editor, is quite good.

Praise the Lord. P.S. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

"Personally, I feel that the more we grow in Christ Jesus the more we understand. That would mean then that when I was a babe in Christ I might have “seen” one aspect in a bible verse that now means something completely different to me today. I believe as we continue on in our spiritual growth in life, He reveals more of Himself to us and His mysteries."

Thank you for the encouragement Yearling. I am so looking forward to growing from this childish level.

I'm not a Wikipedia disciple, but it serves in a pinch... a starting place so to speak. I wish I had the time to look up more references for myself. At this point, I am grateful that I am motivated to read the Bible in one year. It is about time and it is a HUGE step here. I feel fortunate to have found a place where others are patient, knowledgeable, excited about the exporation, and respectful of each other. Kudos for your response. Let's keep at it...

Hello from Houston,

This is a very interesting discussion on a topic I actually know something about. I attended Dallas Theological Seminary, so I have some background on this subject as well as having read the book, "Earth’s Earliest Ages".

I have this book because I had bought it at a garage sale after it was discussed in our class on Genesis studies. Everyone in the class except for one well meaning person dismissed it as not being a feasible. He was trying to argue it as strong arguement for the "Gap Theory" and was very passionate about the theory like he had found some hidden knowledge.

Our professor described it as the “ruin-reconstruction” version of the gap theory and gave us several versions that have been bouncing around since it was first presented. He concluded that unfortunately the book was another example of how humans can try to prove any belief with various Bible texts, no matter how crazy or unsubstantiated by archeological or scientific data He asked the student how he would explain that Biblical scholars have come to remarkably different conclusion. He couldn't answer that one. The profession then cautioned the class to be careful about adopting any unusual views without scholarly validation. And to avoid looking for material that just reinforces an existing prejudice.

I read it just to give "the other side" an opportunity to present their case. The book was written in the late 1800's so the language is a bit awkward for the modern reader, but I have had to read many classics so I managed well. The theory is an attempt to harmonize Genesis with the prevailing geological theories which I feel is dangerous. It should be the scriptures that validates those theories. As my theology training dictates, be careful what you use as your ultimate authority.

I also did some research outside the book and found that this Gap Theory began with Thomas Chalmer, a Scottish theologian as he struggled to incorporate long geological time periods. It also gained some popular support because it was published within the Scofield Bible

My biggest difficulty in accepting it is that it is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11)

Also it puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12)

Finally I am surprised that the Lord did not have his divinely inspired writers put more information in the Bible about Lucifer's Flood as proposed by this Theory. I think that if God had allowed it to happen (he is in control of everything) then there would have been a purpose that we would at least have some information. There is none.

I could go on and dive into the Hebrew and discuss the differences of "Creating" and "making" (Hebrew: bara and asah), but that has already in another posting on Genesis on this site.

Adopting any theory without fully harmonizing it with scripture is dangerous and this theory has serious implications concerning the Gospel. We don't want to paint ourselves into a corner unless it squares fully with the Bible.

I do think that a healthy Christ-like discussion on this theory and any other is vauable to edify each of us and to better prepare all of us to contend for the Gospel.

I think that there should be a forum string created seperately for this topic since it keeps popping up in other scripture discussions and is likely confusing new believers being so off topic. Probably should be done in the apologetics section.

God Speed,

Brian

Praise the Lord! He is Wonderful.

Before I list the following let me say that I am not trying to convince anyone. To me this is just a discussion in love and for spiritual growth. It is good for us to be thinking.

FYI: (Sorry. When I saved this in my documents I failed to save the source.):

Web sites especially worthy of review include:
Historical Evidence of the Gap Theory - Courtesy of Charis Theological Seminary.
Christian Geology Ministry - A of view creation using the Gap theory as a basis for interpretation.
Perspectives on Science and Scripture - The Arthur C. Custance Library.
Jesus Is Lord - does an expose on the origins of evil, and how the Gap theory applies to these events.
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ focused creation ministry.


One last point! As criticism foreign to a Christ-like spirit is often cast upon Gap theorists, the following list includes just a few of the well-known Christian men, of the past and present, who embraced this view. Among the “Brethren,” there is J. N. Darby, William Kelly, R. C. Chapman, George Muller, F. W. Grant, C. A. Coates and G. H. Pember, as well as numerous others. Outside the Brethren are names such as Hudson Taylor, Robert Govett, D. M. Panton, Jessie Penn-Lewis, T. Austin-Sparks, G. H. Lang, Watchman Nee, Clarence Larkin, Dr. C.I. Scofield, Billy Graham, John Hagee, Finis Dake (Dake’s Bible), and Benny Hinn.

As these Godly men felt this was not only a viable, but also a sound Biblical view, perhaps you should decide for yourself.

The following resources are recommended for a study of the Gap theory:
“The Mystery of Creation,” by Watchman Nee.
“An Outline of Genesis,” by C. A. Coates.
“Without Form and Void,” by Arthur C. Custance.
“The Great Prophecies,” Vol. 2.
“Earth’s Earliest Ages,” by G. H.Pember.

I agree, we should probably post on Apologetics. But not because I would be afraid to confuse the new ones. The Lord will lead them.

I'm so new that I, for one, am not even up at the confusion level yet. [Frustration level... maybe, sometimes.] It is very very good see different points of view, especially when references are sited, and posters are interested in intelligent thoughtful conversation and not seeking to be the winners of arguments. God is the final arbitrator, to say the least!

I started this here because I wasn't sure where to ask. If you two think this is better on Apologetics, let's go there... >>>