Are giants the offspring of angels and humans?

[Genez]

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]​

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God​

Pagans at times stole ideas from God's system...

Well, their demons did that.

The pagans just accepted it.

 

[Omegatime]

Next Step

Notice the long lives many of the Patriarchs lived and not one mention of sickness in those who were living almost 1000 years.

There were no evil spirits to cause sickness then.

Yes, angels and daughters of men did have children called the Nephilim ( Giants ), and those killed during the flood became evil spirits for the Lord made no place for them.

And if you seek the gift of healing how can you possibly go before the Lord asking for this gift without knowledge.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

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).

That's not evidence. That't justifying a preconceived position based on your interpretation of Genesis 6.

 

[Genez]

Wonder if Adam demanded time and a half overtime pay for all that naming....? Instead, he got Eve?

In that case.
Satan could have been the union organizer. Like he had one third of the angels go out on strike against God
when they were placed in charge of the prehistoric creation.... (The one we find fossils from today)

There is a pattern to everything we find in history.

 

[Genez]

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.

When eight humans stepped off the Ark to replenish the earth with humanity, they brought with them accounts of what took place before the flood happened.

And, eventually, some of the accounts got passed down to ignorant people who distorted the accounts, and evolved into pagan myths.

.....

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

When eight humans stepped off the Ark to replenish the earth with humanity, they brought with them accounts of what took place before the flood happened.

And, eventually, some of the accounts got passed down to ignorant people who distorted the accounts, and evolved into pagan myths.

.....

It could mean that Noah and his sons recounted how pagans of their time believed their rulers were the offspring of angels and women mating together. Not that it actually happened, but that's what they believed

 

[Dino246]

That's not evidence. That't justifying a preconceived position based on your interpretation of Genesis 6.

Um, no. That’s basic treatment of evidence. I said nothing in that post about Genesis 6.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Um, no. That’s basic treatment of evidence. I said nothing in that post about Genesis 6.

But your whole hypothesis is based on your interpretation of Genesis 6

 

[Dino246]

When eight humans stepped off the Ark to replenish the earth with humanity, they brought with them accounts of what took place before the flood happened.

And, eventually, some of the accounts got passed down to ignorant people who distorted the accounts, and evolved into pagan myths.

.....

Yes… which explains the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the cubical “ark” described therein. Look for the common elements in both sources.

 

[Dino246]

But your whole hypothesis is based on your interpretation of Genesis 6

Actually, it isn’t. My interpretation of Genesis 6 goes hand in hand with all the other evidence, both in and outside the Bible. It isn’t “based” on any one part.

 

[Magenta]

My apologies! I should have checked back before commenting. I wouldn’t think you’d say that.

Well, the fact of the matter is I did NOT say what John would have you believe I did.

Saying "it seems" is NOT saying GOD DID. People's lack of discernment here is cause for concern.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Actually, it isn’t. My interpretation of Genesis 6 goes hand in hand with all the other evidence, both in and outside the Bible. It isn’t “based” on any one part.

There is no other evidence. 2 Peter and Jude have nothing to do with Genesis 6 in the sense you 're claiming. What other scriptural evidence are you claiming?

 

[Magenta]

My apologies! I should have checked back before commenting. I wouldn’t think you’d say that.

PS thank you for the apology! ..I appreciate it...

 

[Dino246]

Well, the fact of the matter is I did NOT say what John would have you believe I did.

I accept that. Again, sorry it seemed like I was accusing you; I certainly was not.

 

[Magenta]

I accept that. Again, sorry it seemed like I was accusing you; I certainly was not.

Thank you again, I appreciate it...



If the fine folks here like John himself can claim that angels have male "members" and pretend
it is what Scripture actually says, I do not see why he should take exception to my speculations
about Adam, which I never stated as facts presented in the Bible as he does with his speculations...

 

[Dino246]

There is no other evidence.

That's your opinion.

2 Peter and Jude have nothing to do with Genesis 6 in the sense you 're claiming.

Please don't accuse me of "claiming" anything unless you quote my exact words.

What other scriptural evidence are you claiming?

Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, the existence of demons and false gods throughout Scripture which lack other explanation, and the flaws in any other explanation of Genesis 6.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, the existence of demons and false gods throughout Scripture which lack other explanation, and the flaws in any other explanation of Genesis 6.

Deuteronomy 32 reads angels in the LXX, so it can't be used as conclusive evidence. Psalm 82 is too obscure to use as evidence; no one really knows what it means

 

[Dino246]

Deuteronomy 32 reads angels in the LXX, so it can't be used as conclusive evidence.

"So" it can't? That's exactly the evidence I mean. It doesn't say "sons of Israel".

Psalm 82 is too obscure to use as evidence; no one really knows what it means

Says you.

Again, I don't base my position on any one passage. I consider the explanations offered and have chosen the one that best fits all the evidence. You're free to do the same, but again I encourage you to read Dr. Heiser's book before you consider your investigation complete.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

"So" it can't? That's exactly the evidence I mean. It doesn't say "sons of Israel".

What do you think it says?

 

[Dino246]

What do you think it says?

"Sons of God". While I don't hold that angels and sons of God are synonymous, they are closer in concept than angels and sons of Israel.