Are giants the offspring of angels and humans?
- Thread starter Hakawaka
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Fallacy: gross misrepresentation.
You aren’t “ridiculed for being a bible believer” AND YOU KNOW IT. You’re ridiculed for using self-righteous loaded phrases like “Bible believer” which mean far more than the individual words convey. You’re ridiculed for insulting others who don’t only use the KJV with slander like “Bible corrector”. You’re ridiculed for using silly, easily refuted arguments to defend your position. You’re ridiculed for your martyr complex. Finally you’re ridiculed for ignoring correction.
You are saying, what, exactly? Do you also falsely accuse me of saying something I did not???
Most of what I'm reading says it's from genetic mutation. If giants with that mutation bred together, then I think it would tend to propagate.
Yeah, he was quoting me not Scripture. And I did NOT say God created Adam as an hermaphrodite.
Which is what he was trying to stick on me.
My apologies! I should have checked back before commenting. I wouldn’t think you’d say that.
Magenta, I apologize for the false accusation. Can you clarify your position of your statement?
All humans are called men in the Bible. KJV especially. That includes women in the classification of man.
Adam would seem to have originally been hermaphrodite.
Since Eve was taken out of him...
In the mean while...
The Bible can actually mean what it says.
Would you like to continue?
You are after something to make a point, and I do not know what it is.
Mind telling us the point you wish to make?
God created Adam with the ability to reproduce.
What if Adam (for whom God said, being alone was not good) got fed up with naming all the animals (which could have taken a very long time to do) and simply walked away from finishing the work God gave Adam to do?
Would God have given Adam his woman just the same?
Here is evidence that the idea of angels (sons of gods) impregnating women is pagan in origin. Ugarit was a city/kingdom in what is now northwestern Syria that worshiped the same gods as the Canaanites. Their writings mention Asherah, which is one of the Canaanite deities mentioned 40 times in the bible (H842 translated groves), and sons of gods. Ugaritic writings mention the 70 sons (gods) of Asherah mating with women to produce earthly rulers.
Claus Westermann claims that the text of Genesis 6 is based on an Ugaritic urtext.[11] In Ugaritic, a cognate phrase is bn 'il.[12] This may occur in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.[13]
- KTU² 1.40 demonstrates the use of bn il to mean "sons of gods".[14]
- KTU² 1.65 (which may be a scribal exercise) uses bn il three times in succession: il bn il / dr bn il / mphrt bn il "El, the sons of gods, the circle of the sons of gods / the totality of the sons of gods."[12]
The phrase bn ilm ("sons of the gods") is also attested in Ugaritic texts,[15][16][17][18][19] as is the phrase phr bn ilm ("assembly of the sons of the gods").[20]
Elsewhere in the Ugarit corpus it is suggested that the bn ilm were the 70 sons of Asherah and El, who were the titulary deities of the people of the known world, and their "hieros gamos" marriage with the daughters of men gave rise to their rulers.[21]
Wonder if Adam demanded time and a half overtime pay for all that naming....? Instead, he got Eve?
Fallacy: assumption of origin.
Just because you found evidence that the pagans wrote of angels "marrying" human women does not mean that the idea originates there. It is (far) more likely that actually happened and that both Scripture and pagan writings mention it. Just because the flood is mentioned in the epic of Gilgamesh doesn't mean that Moses "got the idea" from that story.
A corollary to my previous post:
When an honest investigator looks for evidence, they don't reject as false everything that doesn't line up with their first ideas. Instead they gather the evidence and weigh it, considering the likelihood of each piece being valid independently. We as Christians approach this slightly differently, starting with the certainty that the Bible is accurate.
There are two potential problems with this approach: the first is that we assume we hold to Scripture when in fact what we hold is merely an interpretation of Scripture (we MUST hold our interpretations gently, knowing that we as fallible humans don't know everything); the second is that we treat everything other than the Bible as "false", not true at all, and/or of no value whatsoever.
So let's put this thread topic into the light of these caveats:
Sources outside the Bible are NOT "necessarily" wrong. They may contain historical truth, even though that truth may be cloaked in "mythology" and in worldviews we now know to be incorrect. They probably are not wholly accurate and certainly aren't the word of God, but it's unlikely that they are completely false. Treat them accordingly.
Let's not let our understanding (interpretation) of Scripture, particularly on secondary or tertiary matters, limit our ability to consider alternate explanations for things. Simply put, Scripture does not tell us all the details about this topic (or really about anything), and doesn't instruct us to make up the details (or dogmatic extrapolations!) where it is silent.
When an honest investigator looks for evidence, they don't reject as false everything that doesn't line up with their first ideas. Instead they gather the evidence and weigh it, considering the likelihood of each piece being valid independently. We as Christians approach this slightly differently, starting with the certainty that the Bible is accurate.
There are two potential problems with this approach: the first is that we assume we hold to Scripture when in fact what we hold is merely an interpretation of Scripture (we MUST hold our interpretations gently, knowing that we as fallible humans don't know everything); the second is that we treat everything other than the Bible as "false", not true at all, and/or of no value whatsoever.
So let's put this thread topic into the light of these caveats:
Sources outside the Bible are NOT "necessarily" wrong. They may contain historical truth, even though that truth may be cloaked in "mythology" and in worldviews we now know to be incorrect. They probably are not wholly accurate and certainly aren't the word of God, but it's unlikely that they are completely false. Treat them accordingly.
Let's not let our understanding (interpretation) of Scripture, particularly on secondary or tertiary matters, limit our ability to consider alternate explanations for things. Simply put, Scripture does not tell us all the details about this topic (or really about anything), and doesn't instruct us to make up the details (or dogmatic extrapolations!) where it is silent.
If one witness tells you that something unusual happened (which you did not witness yourself), you will probably dismiss it as an interesting but irrelevant anecdote. If two relatively independent witnesses describe something unusual, even in different terms, you start to pay attention and consider that it really did happen (unless, as in your case, you hold a preconceived position that such cannot happen).