Are giants the offspring of angels and humans?

[keepingthingsreal]

Angels. The Masoretes changed angels to sons.

And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them. Job 1:6​

​

And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord. Job 2:1​

​

When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice. Job 38:7​

Can you prove this? I mean, the Septuagint or LXX was translated to Greek from Hebrew texts which preceded the Masoretic texts. How do these passages read in those texts? I honestly do not know, and if anybody can link me to those older Hebrew texts, then I would certainly appreciate it. If nobody can (and maybe you can...I just don't know where to find them), then maybe the translators of those passages in Job said "angels" simply due to the obvious context. Again, I honestly do not know, so if anybody can link me to the Hebrew texts from which the Septuagint was translated, then I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[Mem]

Nope. They ate (Gen. 18:8, 19:3).
Whether or not they had the power to do so, that was clearly their desire. So much so that the angels needed to smite them with blindness in order to stop them.

I imagine the sodomites imagined that they had anuses. For sure, none of them ever found that out. I'm not arguing whether they did or did not, just that it is of no concern of my personal interest.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Can you prove this? I mean, the Septuagint or LXX was translated to Greek from Hebrew texts which preceded the Masoretic texts. How do these passages read in those texts? I honestly do not know, and if anybody can link me to those older Hebrew texts, then I would certainly appreciate it. If nobody can (and maybe you can...I just don't know where to find them), then maybe the translators of those passages in Job said "angels" simply due to the obvious context. Again, I honestly do not know, so if anybody can link me to the Hebrew texts from which the Septuagint was translated, then I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you.

The Masoretes changed many things to suit their traditions. Look at all of the OT quotes in the NT that match the LXX, but not the MT. The original Hebrew texts do not exist anymore; the LXX is the closest thing we have to what they were.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

I imagine the sodomites imagined that they had anuses. For sure, none of them ever found that out.

I agree, and hence the term "sodomy."

What I am really asking is if the angels resembled men in the parts of their bodies which could be seen, isn't it likely that they also resembled men in the parts of their bodies which could not be seen because they were covered by some manner of clothing? That seems reasonable/rational to me.

With these things in mind, let's take a closer look at this:

Jde 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jde 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Unless I am hallucinating, Jude made a direct comparison ("even as" and "in like manner") here between the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, and the men of Sodom, and that direct comparison is that they BOTH gave themselves over to fornication while going after strange flesh.

Is anybody else seeing this?

 

[keepingthingsreal]

The Masoretes changed many things to suit their traditions. Look at all of the OT quotes in the NT that match the LXX, but not the MT. The original Hebrew texts do not exist anymore; the LXX is the closest thing we have to what they were.

So, you cannot prove it. That is what I thought. Again, it is quite possible/probable that the translators of the Septuagint said "angels" simply due to the obvious context. In other words, simply due to the fact that Satan was one of those who was being referenced, and he is an angelic being.

 

[Mem]

I agree, and hence the term "sodomy."

What I am really asking is if the angels resembled men in the parts of their bodies which could be seen, isn't it likely that they also resembled men in the parts of their bodies which could not be seen because they were covered by some manner of clothing? That seems reasonable/rational to me.

With these things in mind, let's take a closer look at this:

Jde 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jde 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Unless I am hallucinating, Jude made a direct comparison ("even as" and "in like manner") here between the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, and the men of Sodom, and that direct comparison is that they BOTH gave themselves over to fornication while going after strange flesh.

Is anybody else seeing this?

I don't know if we should skip over donkeys as inclusive of the definition of 'strange flesh'. Just saying, strange is an antonym of familiar.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So, you cannot prove it. That is what I thought. Again, it is quite possible/probable that the translators of the Septuagint said "angels" simply due to the obvious context. In other words, simply due to the fact that Satan was one of those who was being referenced, and he is an angelic being.

It's quite obvious that sons has no scriptural basis apart from the changed MT in Job. Of course I can't prove it, but the fact that the Masoretes changed the text in numerous places is indisputable.

Tell me, what sense would it have made to the original readers of Hebrews to hear the question "To which of the angels did he ever call his son" if the MT version is correct? They would have all said, "Huh? They're all called sons in Job." So the author's point would have been completely lost. Just more evidence that angels is the correct version.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

I don't know if we should skip over donkeys as inclusive of the definition of 'strange flesh'. Just saying, strange is an antonym of familiar.

Perhaps, but in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, we know that the "strange flesh" included men with men and/or men with angels who appeared in the form of men.

I have another question to ask, and, again, it is just a question. I am sorry if it has already been addressed here, but I honestly have not read the entire thread, so I am asking sincerely.

For those of you who believe "the sons of God" in Genesis 6 are but men, who do you believe the giants were?

If you would not mind elaborating your beliefs on that, then I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

It's quite obvious that sons has no scriptural basis apart from the changed MT in Job. Of course I can't prove it, but the fact that the Masoretes changed the text in numerous places is indisputable.

No, it is not quite obvious, and you just admitted as much when you said that you cannot prove it. In other words, it is biased speculation on your part. As far as differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts are concerned, I agree that several exist. However, this still does not address the fact that the Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew texts which preceded the Masoretic texts, and, as you have already admitted, neither one of us knows how they read.

Tell me, what sense would it have made to the original readers of Hebrews to hear the question "To which of the angels did he ever call his son" if the MT version is correct? They would have all said, "Huh? They're all called sons in Job." So the author's point would have been completely lost. Just more evidence that angels is the correct version.

It made perfect sense to them because two specific prophetic quotes were given, and both of those prophetic quotes pertain directly to Jesus Christ. I can elaborate on this more later, if need be, but I have to get ready for work now. Lord willing, I will check back later.

 

[John146]

Being as the angels in heaven pertains to not having sex, which means angels don't have sex organs

Men but not having sex organs…wow. verse please

 

[John146]

Stupid question. Cheap shot. Grow up.


We can conclude (not ‘concur’) nothing at all.


Yes it is crazy, and no, it isn’t valid.


Don’t be dense. You know (or certainly should) that male pronouns were used collectively in English until our generation.

You stated nothing, nor gave any insight.

 

[Mem]

Perhaps, but in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, we know that the "strange flesh" included men with men and/or men with angels who appeared in the form of men.

I have another question to ask, and, again, it is just a question. I am sorry if it has already been addressed here, but I honestly have not read the entire thread, so I am asking sincerely.

For those of you who believe "the sons of God" in Genesis 6 are but men, who do you believe the giants were?

If you would not mind elaborating your beliefs on that, then I would greatly appreciate it.

"Fellers," which is the literal translation of 'Nephilim.' That is, these cause many to fall, due in large part, no doubt, to their larger stature, and who are, btw, scripturally connected to the Anakim, or 'sons of Anak"

 

[John146]

You just answered your own question.

Men with spiritual bodies…without blood.

 

[John146]

"Fellers," which is the literal translation of 'Nephilim.' That is, these cause many to fall, due in large part, no doubt, to their larger stature.

Giants in the earth

 

[Mem]

Giants in the earth

They are descended from Anak, a human male.
Just be careful not to devote yourself "to myths and endless geneologies which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God's work, which is by faith" -1Tim 1:4

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

For those of you who believe "the sons of God" in Genesis 6 are but men, who do you believe the giants were?

If you would not mind elaborating your beliefs on that, then I would greatly appreciate it.

The godly seed of Adam are listed in Chapter 5 and 2 sentences later the term sons of God is used. There were no chapters in the original text

There term giant possibly means apostate.

Giant
H5303 נְפִיל nphiyl (nef-eel') n-m.
נְפִל nphil (nef-eel')
(properly) a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant

From Clarke's commentary

There were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, “he fell.” Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.

From Gill's commentary

There were giants in the earth in those days,.... That is, in the days before the sons of God took the daughters of men for wives, in such a general manner as before declared, or before the declension and apostasy became so universal; even in the times of Jared, as the Arabic writers understand it, who say that these giants were begotten on the daughters of Cain by the children of Seth, who went down from the mountain to them in the days of Jared, see Gen 5:20 the word "Nephilim" comes from a word which signifies to fall; and these might be so called, either because they made their fear to fall upon men, or men, through fear, to fall before them, because of their height and strength; or rather because they fell and rushed on men with great violence, and oppressed them in a cruel and tyrannical manner; or, as some think, because they fell off and were apostates from the true religion, which is much better than to understand them of apostate angels, whom the Targum of Jonathan mentions by name, and calls them Schanchazai and Uziel, who fell from heaven, and were in the earth in those days:

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Men but not having sex organs…wow. verse please

Because if they had sex organs they would want to have sex. It would be cruel for God to give angels sex organs and not allow marriage, which is the only sanctioned relationship for sex. By this we can deduce that they do not have sex organs

 

[SpeakWhatYouSee]

Then men called upon the name of the Lord is a mis quote from the original.
Actually the scripture reads.....then men began to profane the word of the Lord.
In both lines of Seth and Abel were good and bad. Cain off spring for example had names that reflected God's name in them.
I personally don't hold the view of the Cain and Seth line.

How the angels left there first estate remains a mystery but it was done. Satan's attack on the human gene pool fits better when we read about Noah. He was not contaminated. We see also that giants were in the land after words with Joshua's spy's and David and Goliath.
Many of the ancient religions also record giants.
Also if you look at the roman pagan gods you will notice all kinds of freaks that are renowned. Just a few examples.
If everyone except Noah's family perish how did the giants survive? Are these the demons Jesus rebuked when he walked the earth?
Also his teaching on house cleaning comes to mind.
Why did the men in Sodom "prize" the angles. Very interesting study GEN 6.

Just thought I'd share what I have found.

The book of Enoch states the fallen angels possessed and taught knowledge. Should we rule out the knowledge of reproduction biology even though not mentioned.
Also, it doesn't make sense that you have feelings of attraction to these beautiful dtrs of men but physically not able to consumate those feelings.
I can see the dtrs of men being very unhappy at not ever being able to have children when marrying one of these beings.
In such situations What's does a fallen angel do?

 

[John146]

They are descended from Anak, a human male.
Just be careful not to devote yourself "to myths and endless geneologies which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God's work, which is by faith" -1Tim 1:4

Anak being a giant himself. We were as grasshoppers in their sight. Ever see the relation between a grasshopper and a man?

 

[John146]

Because if they had sex organs they would want to have sex. It would be cruel for God to give angels sex organs and not allow marriage, which is the only sanctioned relationship for sex. By this we can deduce that they do not have sex organs

Everything stated is opinions, no scripture.