28:19

RTB 101: Who Were the Nephilim?
With astronomer Hugh Ross
Dig Deeper: www.reasons.org/explore/blogs...
Help us create even more empowering resources!
Support Reasons to Believe at: reasons.org/2819
Follow 28:19 for updates!
Facebook: / 2819-show-276730302832238
Twitter: / 2819show
Instagram: / 2819show
Website: www.reasons.org
Follow RTB_Official for updates!
Facebook: / rtbofficial
Twitter: / rtb_official
Instagram: / rtb_official
Website: www.reasons.org

[@kekort2]

I've wondered if the Nephilim were the inspiration for Greek stories like Hercules.

[@idahoduckhunter]

Dead on. All the religions in the world seem to tie back to Genesis 6 when the Sons of gods (biblically the watchers, high ranking angels part of god's divine council, aka the gods of the old world pagan religions) and the demigods (their hybrid human/angel offspring). But we're never taught that anywhere except youtube.

[@JoeCisneros]

Demons are fallen angels -- spirits. It's meta-physically impossible for them to mate with humans, let alone being spiritual beings, so it follows they weren't designed with physiological anatomy. That makes no sense. I love Hugh Ross, but this is bad theology. Jesus says, "In the resurrection, they will be like the angels" (who neither marry nor are given in marriage). Mark 12:25 When God raises people to life, they won't marry. They will be like the angels in heaven. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in heaven.

[@zixzysm]

Skipping a step in history / Gen 6, and skipping a step in the logic. Taking human women and making nephilim with them does _not_ equal marriage in the same sense as a human marriage, and Jesus’ words apply to angels not marrying _each other_, not that some of them could not rebel and overstep their own bounds, as Peter says. Also, demons are not fallen angels - they are the dead spirits of the nephilim; the result of the illicit union between man and watcher. Not the same.

[@stellablue7435]

Our Creator is God of the gods! Hallelujah!!

[@artifacthunter1472]

How about you go in the original Greek define the word Nephilim it means bully or tyrant.

[@bradbrown2168]

Dr Micheal Heiser: Unseen Realm

[@kenammi355]

Heiser does some great work in this area but sadly, utterly fails to interact with the Number 13 narrative and so he actually ends up believing the unfaithful, disloyal, self-contradictory, rebuked spies who presented an "evil report."

[@lynnv8501]

@@kenammi355 how so?

[@robwells5753]

@@kenammi355 no

[@bradbrown2168]

#13 narrative?

[@bradbrown2168]

@@kenammi355 I don’t see where you think he went off the rails? The hill country were where the giant clans located. Total destruction “Haram” sp? Were where these mixed blooded enemies were held up.

[@babylonhasfallen1329]

I respect how he encourages others to do their own study and draw their own conclusions instead of saying this is what it means and that’s that because the truth is, nobody knows for sure 100% exactly who the nephilim were. There are compelling theories but no definitive conclusion.

[@mikeburke1993]

Dr Hugh Ross always food. Always awesome.

[@skhrm91]

How does hugh not recognize or talk about the book of Enoch. This tells you everything about the watchers /sons of god. And the nephilim.

[@j.clements2093]

Because the book of Enoch is not in the Torah or the Christian Bible.

[@jonberry5816]

@@j.clements2093 Yet it's quoted in Jude and referenced in 1 Peter. And Jesus clearly knew it, too. 2nd temple Jews knew the book of Enoch very well. Open your mind, study, and think for yourself. And don't believe everything you hear from a pulpit or denominational headquarters.

[@user-qs7vl3zi7o]

Book of Enoch is not in canon of scripture

[@audreymartin2515]

I believe that things were quite different between creation and the flood or soon after. So I agree with Dr. Ross. Just because we don’t have Nephilim now, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

[@bradbrown2168]

Micheal Heiser: Unseen Realm!!!

[@revkevdglenn]

Heiser does some good work, but regarding this topic (Nephilim), he relies on Books of Enoch over and above canonical texts, since the canon doesn't support his hypothesis.

[@jayseth]

​@@revkevdglenn Peter and Jude quote the book of Enoch. And Genesis 6 was enough for his hypothesis

[@riders.oregon4474]

There is some things in this world you just can’t explain.

[@bosse641]

There are a LOT of things we don't know or understand. We know very little. But we are arrogant and full of pride and we think we know "it all".

[@nickcooper3412]

Its been ages since listened to Dr Ross!

[@kenammi355]

Too bad you caught up to him speaking WAY outside of his expertise since, for example, he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible does not.

[@beingfrank40]

Amazing man, Huge Ross, God bless him!

[@philnahenriet2550]

Awesome. All the books of the Bible! I never heard a sermon about Genesis 6 up till a few years back on you tube. Pulpits ignored this part.

[@navBUDDa]

Wwwwoww. That was much more interesting and profound than I expected. Esp. the "sons of God" insight.

[@donellebullock7404]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXnco4eof7SDiMk

[@ricknofzinger]

Jesus did refer to Goe as his Father, making Him the Son of God......before Pentecost.

[@sca8217]

With all due respect to Dr Hugh ross, his beliefs are just that - beliefs. There are no better and no worse than any other person's belief. That's one reason why Dr Ross does not debate with the opposing side, but is always seen providing interviews in echo Chambers. That said, he seems to be much more of a genuine individual than a lot of the other charlatans out there.

[@ronnywhite5602]

Maybe I'm dense, but there seemed to be little explanation on the subject. A big question I have is if demonic angels had children by human women, were these offspring created with no chance of redemption?

[@Russian.Roulette]

Yes. That is why the flood happened.

[@patrickrampy6885]

Jesus said that angels do not marry, therefore are neuter and cannot procreate.

[@sohailbarkat1656]

They were defying the natural law is the best explanation I ever heard. Thank you Sir, many blessngs!

[@pamelav4628]

That was great. Is he saying Earth is the abyss. Gave me a great laugh. I really like him.

[@seanorourke5137]

Each after it's own kind. 1 Corinthians 15:38 (ESV) . For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.

[@MC-sn2so]

Yes and both Peter and Jude tell you that the Angels who sinned gave up their “oiketerion “ their heavenly body for another . I’d also suggest you do some study on “the glory “ Ezekiel is a good start it will show you that “the glory of the lord “ is actually an embodiment statement .

[@seanorourke5137]

@@MC-sn2so jude and Peter say no such thing Read into it whatever you want to thought Godbless

[@MC-sn2so]

@@seanorourke5137 my mistake it is Jude and Corinthians. There's nothing to read into it. The Greek is pretty simple the words only used twice in scripture, In Jude 1:3 we are told the angels left their "oiketerion" "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation *(oiketerion)*, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." The "oiketerion" is the body/housing that they gave up. It's the same Body Paul says believers will be clothed in when they die, it's a body of Glory. 2 Cor 5:1-3 "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not *(oiketerion) *made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: ." We have an earthly body of one type , when we die and are raised to heaven we have another type. What other historical passage of scripture do you have multiple angels sinning ?

[@MC-sn2so]

@@seanorourke5137 You could simply just go back the old testament version used by the new testament writers anyay for a simple explanation of genesis 6. The Masoretic hebrew texts weren't structured into a single source until around 700AD when the masorites where established. The Septuagint was the only completed collection of the Jewish scriptures at the time of Christ and the apostles. It simply states with no ambiguity. "And Noah lived five hundred years, and Noah fathered three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And it happened, when humans began to become numerous upon the land, and they had daughters, the angels of God, having seen the daughters of humans, that they were beautiful, took for themselves women from all whom they picked out."

[@seanorourke5137]

@@MC-sn2so yeah and according to the King James unicorns exsist. Why wasn't the word malak used for angel then?

[@brittanylee4591]

So interesting and rewarding to learn about this, especially the word study he refers to about the sons of God. With each piece of knowledge I learn about the scripture and about the physics of the natural World, my Faith which is already solidified, remains steadfast.

[@db90990]

How can a spirit being impregnate a human being🤔

[@MountainMan.]

I know. I was thinking the same thing. Where did the sperm come from?

[@db90990]

@Mountain Man I guess it's a spiritual seed just as the Holy Spirit impregnated the Virgin Mary which resulted in Jesus' miraculous birth

[@MountainMan.]

@@db90990 Interesting. My brain cannot process this.

[@JoeCisneros]

Demons are fallen angels -- spirits. It's meta-physically impossible for them to mate with humans, let alone being spiritual beings, so it follows they weren't designed with physiological anatomy. That makes no sense. I love Hugh Ross, but this is bad theology. Jesus says, "In the resurrection, they will be like the angels" (who neither marry nor are given in marriage). Mark 12:25 When God raises people to life, they won't marry. They will be like the angels in heaven. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in heaven.

[@gerryhoerter8888]

Often angels described as men. See Sodom two angels/men. They eat. Described as men. Spirits/angels in natural world also walked/appeared as men. Read the book. 😉

[@lauracaskey2753]

Truth!🙏💯❤️

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Which goofy part?

[@Samadhigame]

Chaco canyon New Mexico had Nephilim that destroyed the Anasazi

[@CPJ0324]

Grace and Peace to all, the question I have is do you believe that the sons of God or fallen angels are demons or do you think the spirits of the nephilim are demons ?

[@michaelshannon6558]

The sons of God are fallen throne guardians (seraphim or cherubim), and likely not angels, since they were messengers. Demons are the disembodied dead Nephilim and Rephaim. See Michael Heiser’s Supernatural Seminar on KZbin.

[@E_Stew]

Wait...Dinosaurs and T-rex and some other prehistoric land-mammals were bigger than elephants...Even the Wooly Mammoths were bigger. Giraffes, though not necessarily as massive as elephants, are certainly much taller.

[@lynnv8501]

Perhaps different gravity, different atmospheric pressure, could be the reason?

[@vwilborn2538]

The earth during that time frame was a marsh, huge seas, which can support these animals, hence whales can be massive in water, not dry land.

[@E_Stew]

@@vwilborn2538 I've read that scientists plan to bring certain mammals back from extinction... The Wooly Mammoth being one of them... How is that gonna work since they are at least twice as massive as elephants?

[@MC-sn2so]

You have air trapped in amber that shows at least twice the oxygen content in the atmosphere to today . The fossilised dragon flies a meter in size couldn’t fly in today’s atmospheric conditions

[@jamespenny9482]

Hugh Ross has explained that the dinosaurs could exist because there were large shallow seas and these provided buoyancy. The largest whales are much larger than elephants, some 15-20 times heavier on average. The elephant has four massive legs to support it's weight, but the whale's weight is supported by the buoyancy of the water that it lives in, and thus it has no need of legs and can be much larger.

[@cubatogo2003]

Got some great steampunk lamps going on in that room.....

[@nashdrifter3629]

that's why I came to the comments hoping to get more info on them! ha

[@Russian.Roulette]

Lol... You guys didn't get anything from the teaching though?

[@jdubski5690]

This was in the book of Enoch. Which was removed from the Bible for some unknown reason.

[@jdubski5690]

Rod 1984 yea it was and his name is mentioned in the Bible as well

[@iggyfitzsimmons1168]

Cause it’s tring to prevent hristianitu to attack tall people probly

[@bradbrown2168]

Naked Bible podcast. Has addressed Book of Enoch non canonization. Excellent source.

[@bradbrown2168]

Reasons have been well discussed. Naked Bible podcast covers this topic. Dr M Heiser

[@louhernandez2384]

There are many stories of the nephilim , i don't think they died off in the time of king David. Its evident in the quote from Abraham Lincoln.

[@urnsane2userealname683]

They are the reason for the flood.

[@wtk6069]

I slightly lean toward them being non-supernatural creatures. Possibly Neanderthals breeding with human women. Modern humans do contain about 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Maybe these scriptures refer to that historical crossbreeding.

[@bradbrown2168]

If YHWH creates ex nihilo , And God is born of a virgin, what’s the hard pill to see the Unseen Realm in human history? See Dr M Heiser: Naked Bible podcast,

[@MC-sn2so]

Do you know that human brow ans jawlines change as we get older they get more pronounced , scientists have modelled what a human would look like at 800-900 years old … you’d be incredibly surprised thst it’s identical to a Neanderthal in looks

[@JoeCisneros]

Demons are fallen angels -- spirits. It's meta-physically impossible for them to mate with humans, let alone being spiritual beings, so it follows they weren't designed with physiological anatomy. That makes no sense. I love Hugh Ross, but this is bad theology. Jesus says, "In the resurrection, they will be like the angels" (who neither marry nor are given in marriage). Mark 12:25 When God raises people to life, they won't marry. They will be like the angels in heaven. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in heaven.

[@KnighteMinistriez]

I love this ministry. Thanks for this message, RTB. I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Ross on this topic 100%. I think that just because the guy had a big bed that doesn't mean he himself was as tall as his bed was long. I am pretty sure that none of these Nephilim were taller than 10 feet tall. I will be reading that book he mentioned, Navigating Genesis. It's on my to-read list, so I will read it at some point in the future. Awesome video. Great video, keep up the good work. God bless. Have a nice day/night. ---------------------------------------------------------- with luv from a nerdy Christian.

[@shimshonbendan8730]

You can't be serious. Nephilim have been measured up to 35 feet tall. As for Og's bed, look at the Hebrew. It means CRIB! This was his crib. His bed as an adult was much larger. Explain to me how these giant megaliths around the world were constructed and why they were so gigantic in size. Read your Bible. The Bible is not using metaphors for how tall these people were. They really were like trees.

[@KnighteMinistriez]

@@shimshonbendan8730 :: Hyperbole! Learn that word. Also, myths will evolve out of fear. These people were not that tall. Beds are always bigger than the person's actual size, especially if that person is royalty. You really are not that smart and no, the Nephilim were not like the giants in myth. And yes, I have read my Bible. It's you that needs to read your Bible and learn how Bible units convert to modern units. I'm the smart one here, not you. Good day to you.

[@RoanPretorius-de7xv]

@@shimshonbendan8730 settle down , Goliath was almost 10ft and if the king was 11-12 ft is necessary to fit?

[@RoanPretorius-de7xv]

@@KnighteMinistriez way to make friends and influence people 😂- tooting your horn ? I never got that one He’s a bit rude but you could easily draw him to your side with just a little patience and kindness

[@alexanderyalung5618]

why now they are not coming ?

[@kenammi355]

Nephilim died at the flood so that was the end of them. The sons of God/Angels were incarcerated and will some back in the Revelation 9 timeline when they are released.

[@bradhicks5558]

Read Michael Heiser for the most detailed and accurate exegesis of this topic

[@Pete451]

The Hebrew Bible actually warns against the belief that that nephilim were the product of angels cohabiting with humans. Before explaining why the nephilim were not of divine nature, the context of which the original translation is used needs observation. Genesis 6:2-4(NASB) reads as follows: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” In order to fully comprehend this passage, we need to establish what “sons of God” refers to. This phrase has long since been debated among the church and from it derive three main interpretations. One view is that “sons of God” refers to the bloodline of Seth, who was born of Adam and Eve after Cain killed Abel in order to carry on the Godly faith. The second interpretation is the “sons of God” refers to angelic beings. The third view is “sons of God” refers to great heroes of the mythical past which include mighty warriors and tyrant leaders. Gilgamesh, who was depicted as being part god and part human, is one of the archetypes we know of who bracket with this idea. It is important to note that the exact expression “sons of God” only occurs five times within the Hebrew Bible. The other four occurrences of this term reside in the following verses: Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, and Daniel 3:25. All of these instances of the term “sons of God” or “son of God” are clear and lucid references to angelic beings. Although the exact expression is only presented five times in the entire Bible, there are other places in scripture which indicate the relationship between God and humans is to be seen as a filial communion, such as the covenant God made with David which was a father-son relationship. Regardless, they are not referred to as a “son of God”. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the expression “sons of God” refers to angels. Someone might attempt to use Matthew 22:30 in which Jesus states that the angels who dwell in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage to confute the idea that Genesis 6:1-4 refers to angels. Jesus included the angels who are in HEAVEN do not marry, not the ones who left their proper dwelling place. Thus, there is no contradiction. So who are the nephilim? There are two major sentences in Genesis 6:4 which guide our understanding in who they were, the first one being “the nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterwards.” There are two possible interpretations of the expression “in those days and also afterwards.” Some people conclude that the nephilim were the offspring that resulted from angels marrying the women. This view appeals to texts of the 3rd century BC and 2nd century BC, such as the Enochian traditions, which suggest that the nephilim were giants. There is another interpretation to “in those days and also afterwards,” which concludes that the nephilim existed before the angels cohabited with the humans and after. This could be in theory saying that the nephilim had no relation to the angels marrying the humans. There are two reasons why this is the correct interpretation. First of all, whenever the expression “and also afterwards” is used, it is in the same context which makes this interpretation true. The second reason why this is the correct interpretation lies within the portion of the verse which says “They were the heroes who were from the ancient past, the men of renown.” It is important to note that this sentence does not begin with “and”. Almost every sentence in the Hebrew Bible begins with “and” and when it does not, it’s for one of two reasons; it’s either the beginning of a new section, or it’s acting as a footnote to the previous sentence. In this case, it is acting as a footnote. Basically, the verse is saying something along the lines of “the nephilim existed before the angels cohabited with humans and afterwards too,” then making a brief comment that they were the ancient heroes. In essence, what Moses is doing is demythologizing the nephilim. The reason that the text doesn’t tell us directly who they were is due to the fact that they were well known to the first readers. They didn’t need an explanation of who they were. Moses is predominately warning against the belief that the nephilim were offspring of angels and humans.

[@shadowbox99a]

@Luke - Your explanation makes sense. To add to your reasoning, ....The fact that the Nephilim were called “men” means they were human, so why would anyone think they were divine? Correct?

[@matsumoku1]

The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn't explain who the offspring of the angels and women are. It's also a strained reading of the passage to disconnect the nephilim from the offspring of the angels and women. Here's why: the passage as translated reads: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” To ascertain the natural reading of the first sentence, it helps to remove "and also afterward" --- "the Nephilim were on the earth in those days..., when the sons of god came in to the daughter of men, and they bore children to them". The "and also afterward" is an after thought to the main sentence. It can't be used to change the natural meaning and continuity of the sentence. The sentence would simply have no meaning whatsoever if the Nephilim have no connection to the result of the mating of women and angels. The sentence has no other meaning or significance. Why would they bring up the Nephilim, then talk about the mating of angels and women, and then go back to describing who the nephilim were? But oh, by the way, there's no connection at all between these two sentences. Butchering language this way can yield no positive result for normal human communication. The second sentence is just a further descriptor, it has no impact that can change the meaning of the prior sentence since all of this takes place well in the past. Who ever wrote this clearly meant to say the nephilim were the offspring. The translators could be wrong, I suppose, but it's not a good idea to butcher this sentence to suggest they didn't mean what they wrote. What we can conclude is that people don't want to come to terms with what the passage really says, plus, it leaves an unanswered question, so it explains very little.

[@matsumoku1]

@@shadowbox99a Genesis unfortunately refers to everyone alive then as men, even though it clearly says that Noah was the only one who was perfect in his generations just prior to the flood. So everyone else had genetic defects. Does that mean they aren't men? I think it does, I agree with you, but it doesn't mean they aren't Nephilim either. There is clearly this idea that they are not regular men, but we just don't get a lot of exposition. I think the biggest problem with all of this is that the Genesis story would have been much clearer if it had referred to these beings as what they really were and clarified that only Noah was a true human. We can see the same problem after the flood, that Hebrews should be thought of as humans and the Canaanites as inhuman descendants of Nephilim. That is what makes the most sense. They are all referred to as men which makes the story confusing and hard to understand.

[@ExplainingTheScriptures]

I agree that the NEPHILIM were already on the earth and "when" is a reference to the time in which they were there. I think the real problem lies in the word NEPHILIM, which has multiple understandings ,no simply giants and the translators of the KJV chose. The primitive root of the word is nefel which basically means bullies or tyrants. In Numbers, its said that the nephilim were their ,the sons of Anak were said to be "part" of the nephilim . I think this isn't referring simply to a race of giants but that giant men were also under the term nephilim, tyrants. Which would explain why nephilim were mentioned in Genesis 6 when speaking about how wicked mankind had become. That mankind was so corrupted that not only were those who worshipped God and who were called by and called upon His name ( sons of God) lusting after the daughters of the ungodly, but that during that same time there were nephilim ( bullies, barbarians, tyrants, pirates, men who only lived for war and destruction) who became known as the mighty men of renown.

[@MC-sn2so]

You said *The Hebrew Bible actually warns against the belief that that nephilim were the product of angels cohabiting with humans* When you say the "Hebrew" bible what do you mean the masoretic texts compiled in 600-1000AD or the Septuagint Hebrew translated to Greek in 300BC? Regardless both texts are clear how 'nephilim'-Hebrew and 'gigantes'-Greek occur. Not sure how you make that statement. Masoretic "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." Septuagint "Now giants were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants who were from long ago, the people of renown. "When" and "Whenever" children were fathered from the Sons of God and human women.The grammar is very clear here. Giant's is also the only translation - the Hebrew to English has been transliterated which means the Hebrew word(in English letters) is placed into the english text. Nephilim is the plural to the hebrew word Naphil , Naphil is not found in the bible in singular form but is found in the Hebrew Midrash and Talmud. It's a word of Aramaic origin and it means Giant. The Greek equivalent in the Septuagint is 'gigantes" *Gilgamesh, who was depicted as being part god and part human* He would be Nephilim. He is mentioned by name as being born of the union of divine being and human in the "Book of the Giants" found with the dead sea scrolls in Qumran. The images of Gilgamesh show him to be exceedingly tall, he holds a lion under his arm in one statue. “in those days and also afterwards,” does not mean before it can't. Simple Grammar Hebrew, English or Greek take tour pick. The conjunction WHEN or WHENEVER is used. "In those days" is joined to the event of sons of god entering women and fathering children, that's what a conjunction does. Moses is predominately warning against the belief that the nephilim were offspring of angels and humans. Where does he in scripture ?

[@russellnorth1418]

My question is how would these sons of God crossed over from a spiritual realm to the physical realm to procreate with the daughters of men, therefore giving rise to the Nephilim? Did they return back to the unseen realm ( heaven ) after procreation?

[@MC-sn2so]

Jude and Peter tell you they left their “oiketerion” which is a habitation / a housing and then sinned . they were bound in chains in eternal darkness in tartarus until the judgement of the great day. There’s a passage in Ezekiel that shows “abbadon “ being dragged down to the pit and all his allies and prodigeny with him when “God closed up the waters of the deep and the flood subsided “. It’s interesting that in revelation when the star that descends from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit unleashes those imprisoned … their leaders name in Hebrew is Abbadon .

[@peterthePiper777]

They didnt ! The nephilim is just a word meaning to fall, it is wrongly interpretated in the septuigent as fallen angels, it actually says the sons of God, not nephilim, this guy is teaching error. The sons of God are men and every passage in the bible are men or his direct creation demons are not and why in the world would God give demons the title as his inheritors, Luke 3 38 tells us Adam is the author of the sons of God, Job 38 v 7 is the sun and the moon

[@russellnorth1418]

@@peterthePiper777 I have more creditable evidence than what you have posted, it's not the reply I expected. It's more complicated than that. For example some Bibles say " giants " others say " Nephilim " Knowing that Jesus would come through man, " and He will crush your head " satan tried to infect the gene pool through " fallen angels " and nephilim.

[@peterthePiper777]

@@russellnorth1418 Sorry Russ I am so used to people stuck on this topic no matter what the bible clearly says and I was just trying to answer your simple question about how could angels have sex with humans, I could go all day on this topic as I have studied it for 6yrs as of now, I can debunct every single argument about the nephilum with anyone using only the bible * kjv) Its not that complicated once you discover it is men , the word nephilum is not a race or group of people which other translations try to give you the impression of by using that word it comes from the word nephal which means fallen ones not fallen angels as the septuigent translates. It originally says sons of God and giants, The confusion comes because angels cannot have sex with humans nor is there any biblical support for it anywhere, if you read every vs with the words sons of God which there are 5 in the old and 5 in the new they are all men, Genesis, Job, and all new test are clearly us as christians, it would make no sense whatsoever that God would give demons titles of sons of God, Satan does not have the ability to create nor demons they have to have permission from God on all counts, I know this topic is taught by many christians teachers today but it is a false gospel and it is clearly the doctrines of demons the epistles talk about, the nephilum theory leaves many unanswered questions and men as sons of God/giants does not

[@russellnorth1418]

@@peterthePiper777 thanks for your reply, different, but a reply. Take care 🙏

[@lw216316]

If you are undecided about this then use a search tool and search on the phrase "sons of God" in the Old Testament. The uses of it point to angels.

[@Norrin777Radd]

Captain Pedantic notes that the bit around 6:45 may be *technically* true, especially in the Synoptics, but there are a bunch of places in John's Gospel that are so close that I don't know that the claim is justified.

[@sarw9294]

So…was the Flood a failure, then? Or was it more meant to destroy the majority of wickedness, not necessarily everyone (besides Noah’s family)? When I hear that some Nephilim survived the Flood, I think “failure.” 🤷‍♀️ Can some explain to me, please? 🙏

[@bolt4694]

God sent the flood to destroy a population of corrupted, evil humans. NOT fallen angels. Nephilim were NOT fallen angels. They were great, powerful, men of renown. NOT physical giants. they were fully human, evil, and did not survive the flood.

[@ddbbloch4457]

My take is that the flood killed the Nephilim around then, but more were 'created' later, with whatever title you choose to give them.

[@michaelprince6798]

He should always encourage people to draw their own conclusions but most of the time he doesn't, instead he answers questions like what he is saying is scriptural fact when it's not. Also, here he advises that we should check all 66 books in order to come to the right conclusion, (Though it is not necessary to check all 66 books, just the books that speak on the said subject) but he doesn't apply that principle himself all the time. He doesn't apply it to the scriptural teaching of free will nor to his belief in the "trinity" because the trinity IS NOT a bible teaching.

[@61rdf]

Oh my... LOL!

[@canadiankewldude]

Was the term "Sons of God" in the Old Testament not referring to being created by God, like Angels and Adam and Eve only. Definitely agree it changed with Jesus salvation for us.

[@MountainMan.]

How did the fallen angels have human sperm? A human body?

[@cristinamacglaughlin6533]

Exactly! It doesn't make any sense!

[@charliedontsurf334]

The same way angels were able to eat with Abraham. If they can manifest a digestive tract, why not genitals?

[@robinthomason2585]

What does the Bible say? Be careful of how you entertain a stranger, you could be talking with an Angel, it wasn't talking about good angels only

[@TheQueensWish]

Here is my take on it: The so called angels in this case were not real angels just appearing to be them as to not be frightening. The women were fooled because these were actually extraterrestrial entities. There was no human sperm. Our Earth women were used this way. When God found out about it, he took care of it by destroying everything that had been compromised.

[@eternalbatteringram5916]

Nephelim is Antediluvian. Raphaim Postdiluvian.

[@a.wilkins1708]

Mr Ross seems to forget about Giraffes who are significantly taller than elefants.

[@ddbbloch4457]

Pretty sure he was talking about weight, not height... he also discusses this when he speaks of dinosaurs. The big ones could not support their own weight unless they were walking around in water or mud.

[@americanparser]

Why ask an astronomer who the Nephilim were?

[@Terrylb285]

Astronomer ,pastor,Christian apologist,minister of evangelism.

[@frankmiller9288]

Jesus did refere to himself as SON OF GOD during his incarnation: Joh 10:36 just to mention one of many other passages!...So brother Hugh Ross is erring Scriptures.

[@Terrylb285]

Can’t wait for Hugh’s new book,on hold because of paper shortage .why a paper shortage ,it was all made into toilet paper to supply what Americans thought was most important for the pandemic.

[@albertochoa7331]

Give me Chapter and Version where King David mighty men destroyed giants.

[@stevenfenster1798]

The Nephilim were "hybrids" between the watcher angels and the earthwomen. Moreover, these Nephilim reproduced. The "mighty men of old" are most likely well represented by Hercules and Perseus. Both of these men were sons of Zeus and both fathered children. Hybrids are possible between differing species, such as horses and donkeys producing mules, but these mules/hybrids, cannot reproduce. Since Zeus produced children with human women, and the other watcher angels did likewise and these children reproduced then Zeus and the watcher angels are necessarily the SAME SPECIES as the earthly humans, only in a different context. Perhaps like a modern human among hunter-gatherers or interdimensional humans among those confined to our dimensional context.

[@bolt4694]

Fallen angels were spiritual beings. Biologically impossible for them to mate with human women. There is no place in the Bible that talks about fallen angels breeding with human women. Thus the hybrid theory falls apart.

[@strawberry4450]

I think the super tall are not average therefore they aren’t usually the best with coordination or speed etc. however once the pool of tall people grows we can pick tall players with more speed and coordination. Height is not enough to be a great athlete or player. But when you pick a player based on height alone when he is a freak of nature it’s like expecting to find Einstein by only selecting 10 people in the world based on them having the biggest feet alone or some arbitrary attribute. There is no way that pool will contain what you want when you narrow it down to one attribute. The average nba player is selected for being great in every category whereas there aren’t enough super tall 8 footers to be able to select one great at anything.

[@shanli2693]

King David is not the last mention of them. In Ester 3:1 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote *Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite,* and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him. In 1 Samuel 15, Agag the king of the Amalekites. In the book of Ester, Haman is set in opposition to Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite. King Saul, a Benjamite was tasked with finishing off the Amalekites by God through Samuel. Haman has a special hatred for all Jews as he schemes to have the all Jews wiped out.

[@raslg7775]

did canaanites and philistines have nephilim among them?

[@silasr20]

Angels cannot procreate even fallen angels.

[@markp-yt6bv]

I believe the Bible. These fallen angels/ spirits inhabited male humans and produced highbreed soulless giants. There is much to learn about the spiritual realm from the Bible if you will study it.

[@lastchance8142]

Well, the bible doesn't say they 'cant', it just says they 'dont' marry or given in marriage. Given the fact that demons inhabited men, and Jesus cast them out, it's reasonable that Angels could at least inhabit the bodies of men and mutate their DNA to produce these abominations. Read the book of Enoch to see more on this. Rabbis during the intertestamental period held this book in high regard.

[@jamesmoore2143]

Clearly you haven't read your bible

[@Zomfoo]

You know this how?

[@Zomfoo]

@@lastchance8142The text doesn’t say that.

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

to be a Son of God, the marriage between the Soul and the Spirit must be must be realized.Jesus spoke of being the Groom .

[@cristinamacglaughlin6533]

Dr Hugh Rosss, are you saying that God had evil sons? how can evil angels be sons of God?

[@endofdaysprophet]

I appreciate Dr. Ross. He does however misquote the Bible when talking about the "Sons of God" . Dr Ross states people are NEVER referred to as "sons of God" until after the the day of pentecost. In The book of Genesis the Nephilim are refered to as children of the "Sons of God" this is thousands of years before Jesus!!!

[@Norrin777Radd]

That's his point.

[@gramps5157]

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say , “You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? So we know angels are not the sons of God and will never be sons of God. The sons of God are Jesus and Believers. Galatians 4:6 Because you are His sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

[@philipshaju]

Didn't get the Answer about Nephilim though demarcation between son of God ,son of Man

[@donellebullock7404]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXnco4eof7SDiMk

[@drose1526]

Shoot. I was hoping Dr. Ross would give us the answers. LOL

[@alexsandromariano3596]

Me too.

[@FredVanAllenRealtor]

How to get saved/born again:Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

[@BiglariProductions]

So what were they?

[@jcthomas3408]

In "Navigating Genesis" Hugh gives you the verses to make your own decision. It is not 100% clear. They are physically strong, evil and mortal. It seems the strongest idea is they could be offspring from immortal beings (fallen angels) and mortal women..... or they could be descendants of Seth (fully human) who were tall and had exaggerated strength,.... or there is a theory that they are offspring of men possessed by demons who altered genes when having intercourse with women. It seems likely that fallen angels no longer are willing to impregnate women because they know the punishment is being sent to the Abyss.

[@bemainvestments6215]

Dr. Heiser offers a brilliant, context driven cultural analysis - kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIKwaJSkeZqpias

[@mv7896]

Take a look at The Book of Enoch!!

[@dollmaker4ever]

Where are the skeletons of these giants?wouldn't there be skeletons?

[@neftalirosado5363]

Using the cubit measure Goliath was 11 feet not 9.

[@ddbbloch4457]

If you notice, he said the "shortest" conversion measure for the cubit... the conversion varies to some extent, depending who you talk to.

[@joeyburrell3207]

“ Draw our own conclusion” then how is their unity? With Christian’s.

[@thomaspick4123]

He went too fast. Also, he should back up everything he is saying by referring to the scriptures. He should have a screen with the sentences and references on it. Besides going too fast, he must document everything step by step. At least he was well groomed and put on a new shirt.

[@gegtosktoskgeg2066]

Nephilim=YLIRIAN=PELLAZGI..

[@jeffspearman5678]

Great explanation. Sons of God in the Old Testament are always angels. The Nephilim were the offspring of the fallen angels, who could take on human form, and human women.

[@kenammi355]

It's not accurate to claim that "Sons of God in the Old Testament are always angels": sometimes they are Angels and sometimes humans. I accept they're Angels in Gen 6 but there's no indication anywhere in he Bible that "angels...could take on human form, and human women" rather, they are always described as looking like human males which implies that is how they are ontologically. Yet, Ross' is not such a great explanation since he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn't.

[@jeffspearman5678]

@@kenammi355 Yes they are always males, you’re correct. I said the nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels and human women, as Ross said. In the Old Testament the “sons of God” always refers to Angels, most often in the book of Job. In the New Testament it usually refers to believers in Christ. The book of Numbers refers to nephilim, which of course was post-flood. Goliath is believed to have been the last of these nephilim. When angels appeared to Abraham and accompanied him to Sodom, he initially thought they were men, and so did the homosexuals in Sodom, verifying that they can assume human form.

[@kenammi355]

@@jeffspearman5678 Most interesting. I had noted that Ross “teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn't.” Yes, “The book of Numbers refers to nephilim” but “refers to” does not equate that they were actually alive and on the ground at that time: you are basing that on actually believing an “evil report” by guys whom God rebuked. Rather, you should accept Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5 which tell us that eight people and some animals made it past the flood. Yes, “Goliath is believed to have been the last of these nephilim” but “believed” is one issue but the contents of the Bible is another: he is referred to as having been a Repha, not a Nephil. Those examples don’t “verifying that they can assume human form” since they contain no indication that they were assuming human form. Rather, just take them as they are written: Angels are in human form naturally, that’s just how they look and we were made “a little lower” than then.

[@theflash1508]

I believe this perspective. Ken Ammi is not looking at it the same way. Hopefully he will get there.

[@leeBoB4257]

@@kenammi355 Hi you say that there is no were in the Bible that says that Angel can take on Human Form. Please read Genesis 19:1-11 This passage of Scripture speaks of Two Angels taking on Human Form EATING a meal with Lot and his family, the men of Sodom wanted to have Sex with them and Lot offered his Daughters, and the Angels then Blinded the men of Sodom.

[@smarttowel5656]

6:02 Oops... Joh_13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the "Son of man" glorified, and God is glorified in him. ...and after...Act_7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the "Son of man" standing on the right hand of God. 6:49 Oops... Joh_3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the "Son of man" which is in heaven. Joh_3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the "Son of man" be lifted up: Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten "Son of God". Joh_6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the "Son of the living God". Joh_9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the "Son of God"? Just making a note of his errors, because Jesus indeed was called, and called Himself both Son of Man, and Son of God -- Pentecost, not determining either.

[@jodamato6362]

But how did the Nephiliem survive the flood ?

[@michaelshannon6558]

There’s three possibilities: 1) The food was local or regional and some of them escaped to an area the flood didn’t get to. 2) Nephilim blood was in some of the people on the Ark. 3) in the phrase “when the sons of God went into the daughters of men” in v4, the Hebrew word translated “when” can also mean “whenever.” So sons of God could have copulated with human women after the flood. I think the third option is the most plausible.

[@harpin4God]

Sasquatch still exist.

[@Terrylb285]

Yes he does exist ,we can’t find him because he is hiding from Chuck Norris.

[@michaelprince6798]

Hugh Ross is wrong! Jesus, his apostles, and even his enemies all referred to him before his death and resurrection as God's son. (1) Jesus John 11:4: But when Jesus heard it, he said: “This sickness is not meant to end in death, but is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” John 10:36: do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (2) The Apostles John 1:49: Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” Mark 1:1: The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Math 16:16: Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (3) His enemies Mark 3:11: Even the unclean spirits, whenever they saw him, would fall down before him and cry out and say: “You are the Son of God.” Luke 22:70: At this they all said: “Are you, therefore, the Son of God?” He said to them: “You yourselves are saying that I am.” Math 27:43,; Luke 1:35;

[@kareng9376]

Sons of God were referring to the Sethites(righteous descendants of Seth Gen. 4:25-26, from the pure line of Adam...men, not angles) Daughters of men were considered the unrighteous descendants of Cain. God did not want the Sethites to intermarry with the Caainites, which they did, Gen.6:1-3. Their offspring were the Nephilim. This mixed breeding of riggteous and unrighteous produced the most wicked generation, thus bringing about the flood. Angels dont reproduce.

[@ChristopherUlery]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! What is your opinion on the theory that the Nephilim (fallen ones) were actually the angels that left heaven (fallen angels) and that the sons of God were the watchers referenced in Daniel, and that the Nephilim (fallen angels) worked with women to seduce the sons of God into rebelling as well?

[@MC-sn2so]

Nephilim is a plural word . It’s translated in a number of bibles poorly . The Hebrew word “to fall” is Naphal . Using Hebrew word formation rules the plural spelling would be Nephulim not the same word we see in Hebrew . A word that does not actually exist in Hebrew today or ever in any passage of writing . The word Nephilim would need come from a root word Naphil then pluralise it using Hebrew word formation rules . You find the word Naphil used in the Jewish Talmud and the Midrash. It’s an Aramaic word … It means . Giants …. The Septuagint translated Genesis 6 “nephilim” as gigantes or giants / titans. The KJV translates it as Giants

[@HmoobTxivKeebCag]

The Nephilim were the fallen angels from heaven, they were both men and women. The Giant were the demons fallen from heaven too. The son of God from heaven that transformed to mankind and married daughter of man

[@kelrogers8480]

​@@HmoobTxivKeebCag angels are neither male nor female.

[@ambrock1923]

@@kelrogers8480 but they are able to transform into male or female? Like the two angels in the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah…right? Lol

[@BUBBLESPOGO]

​@@HmoobTxivKeebCagno that is incorrect.

[@kenammi355]

It is actually not accurate that "this subject" of Nephilim "pops up again and again as you look at other books of Scripture": they are mentioned a grand total of two times (one reliably in Gen 6 and one unreliably, since it relates an "evil report" in Num 13). Also no, it does not say in "in Genesis 6[:4] that they were present before the flood and after the flood": the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verse later. By that "evidentially" it also happened after the flood means that he recognizes that there is no scriptural description of such. To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking: there is no indication whatsoever, except for the rebuked "evil report," that Anakim have anything to do with Nephilim: Anakim are a subgroup of Rephaim and they are all regular humans. There is no indication whatsoever that "King David King David's mighty men wiped out the last so than the Nephilim": this is what happens when you violate category distinctions and take it upon yourself to read "Nephilim" where that word (and that concept) does not appear. Gen 6 is the only reliable description we have of them and it provides no physical description. Also, he is only opting for the high range of possibilities for Goliath's height (he was a Repha) which is based on Greek manuscripts while Hebrew ones, plus Dead Sea Scrolls, plus Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft. We have no physical description of Og (another Repha) and his bed fits the exact dimensions of a ritual bed, not one upon which he slept, where the male and female gods supposedly copulated. There is no indication that "they," plural" had "birth defects like six fingers and six toes": that is only stated about one single person (another Repha). That they are "all evil" is something else that is unknown: again, Gen 6 being the only reliable reference has them as being mighty and of renown, that is all. The last of the Nephilim died in the flood so they could not have been "a threat to the emerging Hebrew nation" and there is no indication whatsoever that "God set up...a procedure where they could be eliminated from the human race": God tells us many, many, many times why He is commanding such things and never states one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them nor any such thing. It is unknown that "these individuals were tall and able to carry a minimum, in terms of Goliath, 250 pounds of weaponry and armor into battle": since Goliath is said to have had someone helping him with his armor and also, you can watch any strongman/powerlifting competitions and see guys that are right around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs. That "there's something non-human about these sons of God" is accurate: that is the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christian alike for centuries. In Job 38:7 the "sons of God" witnessed, at the very least, the creation of the Earth.

[@taylorj.1628]

If the nephalim of gen 6 aren't divine beings, then I'm unsure what is being referenced in Jude 1:6. Also a sidenote, 1 Peter 3:19 seems to be talking about the watchers being imprisoned who are the divine beings who fathered the nephilim

[@MC-sn2so]

*To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking* I'm not sure I follow Ken. You referenced - Numbers 13:32-33 (ESV) "So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report(dibbâh) of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” The word "dibbâh" doesn't make it untrue it makes it not a good report. That's consistent with it's scriptural use elsewhere. "The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander(dibbâh) is a fool." Prov 10:18 "For I hear many whispering(dibbâh). Terror is on every side! " Jer 20:10 "and you became the talk and evil gossip(dibbâh) of the people," Ezek 36:3 So the sons of Anak the Anakim were *Nephilim* that's what the passage says. Deu 2:10 "(The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim." Deu 2:19 "And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’ (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there-but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim-" The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim) are accounted Raphaim , the Moabite name for Raphaim is Emim and the Ammonite name is Zamzummim Not sure why you think that's people inventing anything. They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing.

[@MC-sn2so]

*that they were present before the flood and after the flood* You are correct, the flood doesn't appear to link to them at all. I'm not sure it matter's though. When and Whenever are conjunctions. They join the first statement or clause to another single or multiple events. Masoretic Text > English "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward," *when* "the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them." Septuagint Text > English "Now giants were upon the land in those days, and after that," *whenever* "the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants who were from long ago, the people of renown." The text is specific you are correct The floods irrelevant to their appearance, only the event that creates them matters. Nephilim/Giants occur *when/whenever* Sons of God have children with women.

[@kenammi355]

@@MC-sn2so Indeed, I am the one noting that “To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking.” The Numbers 13:32-33 issue is not the word dibbâh, is not how the report is labeled. The issue is that the report contains five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing-it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well. Friend, “that's what the passage says” is much too vague. What is the narrative of the passage, what is the context of the passage, who does the passage quote, why did those whom it quotes say such things, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc. are key questions. In order to just say “that's what the passage says” you would have to merely pick up one uncontextual statement, run with it, and build all-encompassing theories upon it since what “the passage says” are five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and which contradicts other, reliable, passages. Note that the texts you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).” Thus, when you say “They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing” you seem to miss that “Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix. In fact, we are told that the Anakim are named after a man named Anak-which is why they’re aka “the sons of Anak”-and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim. Indeed, “Nephilim/Giants occur when/whenever Sons of God have children with women” which was only pre-flood.

[@MC-sn2so]

@@kenammi355 *you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)* I didn't insert anything. In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says ... English "And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim" Hebrew " w šām rʾh ʾēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq min hǎ nep̄î·lîm " *it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.* Numbers 13:22 They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, *the descendants of Anak* , were there. Numbers 13:28 However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the *descendants of Anak there* Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim *the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim* What contradiction ? in all three references to the people who dwelled in the land we are told the Anakim dwelt there. Adding more detail to a statement doesn't make it untrue. Bass were there. We saw bass there. We saw fish , bass (who are fish) *Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix* *the sons of Anak-and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim* Greek - gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women. Hebrew - "ēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq " the Nephilim the sons of Anak Greek - "kai ekei oraō o gigas" there we saw the giants But we don't need the hebrew statement "the nephilim the sons of Anak" to tie Rephaim to Nephilim if you use the Septuagint. 2 Kings 22:22 "And these four were born descendants of the *gigas* in Gath, the *rapha* , a household. And they fell by David’s hand and by his servant’s hand. 1 Chronicles 20:8 "This *Rapha* was born in Gath. All four were *gigas*, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants. The Rapha (plural Raphaim) are Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim) .... Duet 2:10 Formerly the Emim dwelled in it, a great and mighty and strong people, like the Anakim. Just as the Anakim, these also should be considered Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim. Emim , Anakim are Repahim .... Gigas(Nephilim)

[@marioguzman9290]

She's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[@larrymoore2571]

Hugh Ross said, before the day of Pentecost humans were never called the sons of God. That is interesting because Moses called them sons of God in Genesis 6. Moses also called them sons of God in: Deuteronomy 14:1-2; “You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead. For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." Psalm 82:6; I said, “You are gods (this refers to human Jewish Judges), And all of you are sons of the Most High. Hugh also doesn't believe in a 6 day creation, and he says we can look at the stars and actually see the initial creation of the universe, so he isn't the utmost authority on the bible. Hugh must not believe Genesis 1 where God repeats 11 times that all creation reproduces 'after there own kind.'

[@peterthePiper777]

Left their estate is heaven, since when is estate related to your being ?, When satan fell he got the boot from heaven and one third of the angels went with them, that is leaving there first estate, what is so hard to understand about that?? The sons of God are men as it clearly says God destroyed all of whom he created, the nephilim/fallen angels are not Gods creation, Luke 3 38 tells you the sons of God are men

[@kenammi355]

Friend, indeed, "nephilim...are not Gods creation" but fallen Angels are since He created them. Exclusively appealing to Luke 3:38 is myopic. Who are the "sons of God" in Job 38:7?

[@peterthePiper777]

God did NOT create fallen angels, just like God did NOT create fallen man who now lives in a fallen world in a sinful nature, Job 38 vs 7, if you are really looking for the truth... are the sun and the moon, psalm 148 vs 3, God is telling Job you weren't there when I created everything the morning stars are exactly that the sun and the moon,, also check out all verses in Job that start with there was a DAY. There are no days in heaven as their is no time when your eternal, satan is not going to heaven and showing up, besides God never gives angels the title of Sons it makes no sense as they dont inherit anything, here is a clear explanation see what you think, youtube prophets have made this theory popular today but it is a lie and if not doctrines of demons what is kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2HCgHmDpc54adk

[@kenammi355]

@@peterthePiper777 It’s hard to understand your first run-on sentence but you seem to be saying that in Job 38:7 the “sons of God” are “the sun and the moon.” If that is the case then it’s just an assertion and incoherent as well-or so it seems to me. You say “There are no days in heaven as their is no time” but Revelation 8:1 notes, “there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.” Not sure what makes you think that “God never gives angels the title of Sons”: how about lowercase “sons”? BTW: that video has some issues such as making a point and missing the point it made and also, if being consistent, implying that Job chaps 1 and 2 are telling us that “there was a day when the [Sun and Moon] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them” which there is no reason to do except that he wants to deny the Angel view, I posted a comment to it.

[@jeremiahkirby6552]

Father gave me a waking vision of in the clouds, HE let me see how FEW of you have a relationship with Jesus. This is fatal! MANY of you are Christian by name only and will experience the pestilence. Soon The Holy Spirit will be taken out and the pestilence comes down. Until then HE is still listening. Will you call out? Your choice.

[@garyzimmerman62]

But the Dead Sea scrolls have Goliath at around 7 ft tall (depending on the exact measure of a cubit). Everyone wants to inflate the height of the "Giants" but should be lowering the height of normal men.

[@joannloves8232]

WHY are you asking an astrophysicist a biblical question when you should be asking a biblical expert about fallen angels and the Nephilim! Ask an astrophysicist about his career, his work, but a subject on the bible, especially a topic that is not easily understood you should be asking a person who is an EXPERT ON THE SCRIPTURES.

[@herengone]

What make you think he cannot be well versed in the Scriptures?

[@danielcrowe9324]

Chuck Missler's videos shed a lot of light about the nephalim. I encourage anyone to check out his videos about this subject.

[@lessingtom]

The Bible was not wriiten for us to draw our own conclusions. It is God's book in which the phrase "Thus ays theh Lord" rings true from Genesis tro Revelation.

[@ExplainingTheScriptures]

Sons of God are those led by the Spirit and men were being led by the Spirit before and after the flood which is why God says His Spirit shall not always strive with man for he also is flesh. So men, whom the Spirit of God strived with and those who called upon His name would be called sons of God. The children of Israel are called sons and daughters of God and their multitude OT scriptures to support men being called sons.

[@kenammi355]

So, "Sons of God are those led by the Spirit" so it's they who committed such sins that it brought about the flood?

[@ExplainingTheScriptures]

@@kenammi355 in part, those who were led by the Spirit were grieving the Spirit and living contrary to the will of God; living as those who were totally contrary to God, lived.

[@ExplainingTheScriptures]

@@kenammi355 we see history repeating itself today. Many professing leaders are being caught in adultery and fornication, just as it was in the days of Noah.

[@kenammi355]

@@ExplainingTheScriptures What “adultery and fornication…in the days of Noah”?

[@End_of_Days]

The angel view is false, Genesis 5 which are the Patriacrhs are the sons of God, which is listed just before Genesis 6. Genesis 5 is an offspring list, for an offsrping list/genealogy line to happen the sons of God would have to take (marry) the daughters of men gor that to happen. You also find that same offsrping list/genealogy line in Luke 3 that lead to Christ who is the Son of God When the scripture there was no chapter breaks or verse breaks. The genealogy list from Adam to Noah would be the sons of God. Also this line leads to Jesus who is the Son of God found in Luke 3. On this list which comes from Luke 3 starting with 1) Adam too 11) Shem is what a person finds in Genesis 5 the sons of God, when you view the entire list it leads to Jesus. Luke 3 1) Adam (Luke 3: 38)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Genesis 5 2) Seth (Luke 3: 38) 3) Enosh (Luke 3: 38) 4) Cainan (Luke 3: 37) 5) Mahalael (Luke 3: 37) 6) Jared (Luke 3: 37) 7) Enoch (Luke 3: 37) 8) Methuselah (Luke 3: 37) 9) Lamech (Luke 3: 36) 10) Noah (Luke 3: 36) 11) Shem (Luke 3: 36)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Genesis 5 12) Arphaxad (Luke 3: 36) 13) Cainan (Luke 3: 36) 14) Shelah (Luke 3: 35) 15) Eber (Luke 3: 35) 16) Peleg (Luke 3: 35) 17) Reu (Luke 3: 35) 18) Serug (Luke 3: 35) 19) Nahor (Luke 3: 34) 20) Terah (Luke 3: 34) 21) Abraham (Luke 3: 34) 22) Isaac (Luke 3: 34) 23) Jacob (Luke 3: 34) 24) Judah (Luke 3: 33) 41) Judah (Luke 3: 30) 58) Judah (Luke 3: 26) 25) Perez (Luke 3: 33) 42) Simeon (Luke 3: 30) 59) Joseph (Luke 3: 26) 26) Hezron (Luke 3: 33 43) Simeon (Luke 3: 29) 60) Semei (Luke 3: 26) 27) Ram (Luke 3: 33) 44) Matthat (Luke 3: 29) 61) Mattathiah (Luke 3: 26) 28) Amminadab (Luke 3: 33) 45) Jorim (Luke 3: 29) 62) Maath (Luke 3: 26) 29) Nahshon (Luke 3: 32) 46) Eliezer (Luke 3: 29) 63) Naggai (Luke 3: 25) 30) Salmon (Luke 3: 32) 47) Jose (Luke 3: 29) 64) Esli (Luke 3: 25) 31) Boaz (Luke 3: 32) 48) Er (Luke 3: 28) 65) Nahum (Luke 3: 25) 32) Jesse (Luke 3: 32) 49) Elmodam (Luke 3: 28) 66) Amos (Luke 3: 25) 33) David (Luke 3: 31) 50) Cosam (Luke 3: 28) 67) Mattathiah (Luke 3: 25) 34) Nathan (Luke 3: 31) 51) Addi (Luke 3: 28) 68) Joseph (Luke 3: 24) 35) Mattathah (Luke 3: 31) 52) Melchi (Luke 3: 28) 69) Janna (Luke 3: 24) 36) Menan (Luke 3: 31) 53) Neri (Luke 3: 27) 70) Melchi (Luke 3: 24) 37) Melea (Luke 3: 31) 54 Shealtiel (Luke 3: 27) 71) Levi (Luke 3: 24) 38) Eliakim (Luke 3: 30) 55) Zerubbabel (Luke 3: 27) 72) Matthat (Luke 3: 24) 39) Jonan (Luke 3: 30) 56) Rhesa (Luke 3: 27) 73) Heli (Luke 3: 23) 40) Joseph (Luke 3: 30) 57) Joannas (Luke 3: 27) 74) Joseph as suppposed Mary’s husband (Luke 3: 23)>>>>>>Jesus the Son of God

[@flcougar]

Interesting hypothesis? Lady,do you believe the Bible or not?

[@philippinestroppoholic7996]

Spirit beings have zero capability to impregnate human women. They aren't even 'male' as we define a human male. So a beautiful woman would not attract them in any sexual sense though they might acknowledge her beauty as an attribute. In any case, if fallen angels found human women to be beautiful way back then, we'll the same would hold true today too. And supposing a bad angel really could generate sperm (🙄) why would the offspring have to be 'tall'? That theory is absurd.

[@eyeonart6865]

Now are you ready to hear who the Nephilim Giants are then see h5303 in strong’s concordence that is where you find the word Nephilim. Now for the answer turn to numbers 13:33 the same giants named Nephilim are the sons of Anak. Then go to deut. 1:28 then just follow each reference. The bible intreprets the bible. This is why you much study. The bible says precept upon precept, here alittle there alittle, line upon line, line upon line. Isaiah 28:10 that is God telling us how to study his word. If you listen to man then you will be led down the wrong road. God wrote the bible, go to him and his word for the answer not a man.

[@kenammi355]

Friend, biblically "Nephilim Giants" reads as "Nephilim Nephilim." Now, it is generally thought that the reference to Anakim in Numbers 13:33 is a gloss (compare Masoretic to LXX) with assuming it's there then the assertion within a "evil report" by guys whom God rebuked, so no one should believe them, is that there were post-flood Nephilim (an assertion that causes LOTS of problems) and that Anakim were related to them (which is impossible). Ross actually believes the "evil report" and incorporates it into a grand narrative.

[@oscardavis7796]

PAY ATTENTION.... ***SON'S OF GOD *** = ADAM AND SETH, oo..... = Luke 3:38 = Genesis Adam and Seth, on.... ***SON'S OF GOD***

[@ricknofzinger]

God sent His only begotten Son....Jesus is referred as the Son of God....before Pentecost.

[@HmoobTxivKeebCag]

The Nephilim, the fallen angels, the God’s grand children. They were not evil, they just fallen angels from heaven, and transformed to human form, they were both men and women. The giant were the demons from heaven, and they were evil one. Yes, The Nephilim survived the flood and still survived up to now.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

This is like someone trying to pretend that Game of Thrones is actual history. Embarrassing

[@deliverancefornow]

No where in the Bible Are the angels referred to as sons of God. Look at the Bible closely, Gen: 6 state that There were Giants in the land. When the sons of God, got married to the daughters of man. All it says is that is when people started getting married. It does not say Giants got married to the daughter of man. LOOK AGIN ! As for after the flood, the word says male and female of every living thing, so that means they were on the ark. Boy giants, Girl giants Duh.

[@pegc9889]

This topic is a little hard to understand, but this is what I've been taught: The Fallen Angels took human wives (Genesis 6) who bore them Nephiliim (giants). The Fallen Angels were already condemned by God, and their bodies were buried under Antarctica, but they could still manipulate their spirits in and out of harvested (hybrid) bodies, including Nephiliim. The Fallen Angels mingled their blood with animals and created the hybrid gods of Egypt (Thoth.....) and possessed these bodies. There were many of these hybrids on the Earth, and that's why Noah's Flood was sent. God needed Noah's family to repopulate the Earth because their bloodline was not corrupted. The evil hybrids needed to be destroyed. ***Today, the Fallen Angels (with IQs of 8000) are still harvesting hybrid bodies to inhabit (Pleiadians, Greys, Lizard People....). All Aliens are Fallen Angels in harvested bodies, DEMONS. Dead Nephiliim are also DEMONS>

[@kelrogers8480]

Sounds like a load of hogwash. Definitely not biblical.

[@BUBBLESPOGO]

No. The bible does not support this

[@GalileanInvariance]

Who taught you this understanding, or can you provide a reference(s) upon which it is based?

[@pegc9889]

@@GalileanInvariance There are, probably, dozens who teach this. I'm most familiar with L.A. Marzulli, who has done extensive research, even with elongated skulls dug up in Peru (DNA non-human origin). He also interviews abductees and people who have come in contact with hybrids.

[@bolt4694]

Let's start with Gen 6. It does NOT say fallen angels had relations with human women. It does say that Sons of God (lineage of Seth) took these women for wives. These women were of pagan lineage from Cain. They produced the Nephilim who were great, mighty men of renown and power. They were NOT physical giants and were fully human.

[@JeansiByxan]

This was disappointing. I lile Dr. Ross and I was hoping to hear a nuanced explanation of who they might have been. Instead we got fairy-tales about supernatural beings we really know nothing about. It is simply dishonest to claim that they were supernatural beings when ”sons of god” could mean any number of things.

[@kenammi355]

Wore yet, he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn't. Note that just because "'sons of god' could mean any number of things" it can mean Angels in Gen 6 (which was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians alike--for centuries).

[@ExplainingTheScriptures]

God destroyed ALL THAT HAD THE BREATH OF LIFE in the flood, therefore if nephilim were the seed of fallen angels, they would be none after the flood. Unless fallen angels continued to breed after the flood. Their seed would not have survived the flood and they wouldn't have come through Noah's seed.

[@MC-sn2so]

While Noah was unblemished in his generations as the scripture says .. the wives of his Son's aren't mentioned. So there's capacity there for the blemished generations to be carried on in a diluted form. The passage actually says "when" the sons of God went into the daughters of adam . When is a conjunction... it can mean a singular time or at any time the event occured. The Greek septuagint (which is older than the masoretic texts by about 1300 years) says "Whenever" the sons of God went into the daughters of adam. Both Hebrew and Greek renderings don't specifically say it only occured prior to the flood. If you look outside biblical sources all of the cultures of the early world held beliefs that the "gods" regularly took human wives, for what thats worth.

[@kenammi355]

There were none after the flood, Ross actually believes an "evil report" by men whom God rebuked. So no, there's no reason to invent that "angels continued to breed."

[@kenammi355]

@@MC-sn2so Well, hello again--queue evil laughter ;o)--unsure why you need to get Nephilim past the flood but "when...any time the event occured...Whenever" is "specifically...prior to the flood" since Gen 6:4 tells us that "those days" was when they first did it and so "also afterward" merely refers to that they kept doing with but with every immediate and greater contextual indication that it all came to an end with the flood.

[@MC-sn2so]

@@kenammi355 not sure why some comments appear out of order on YT I think we agreed to disagree there already :) I don’t believe the report was incorrect just bad, you believe it was deliberately incorrect . I don’t think that’s going to make any difference to either of us and our faith now :)

[@kenammi355]

@@MC-sn2so Let YT be YT ;o) Interestingly, I once (as the opening to a debate) listed the problems with the evil report and it took me about 10 minutes.

[@trinny881]

Hello! Job 1:6&7 KJV Job 2:1&2 KJV is the sons of God and it wasn't good to God Jude 6 KJV which resulted in Revelation 12:9 KJV

[@beenay212]

I don’t see how incorporeal beings such as angels could have caused human women to have children. It sounds a lot like Greek mythology. I like this ministry a lot and am very encouraged by it, but this bothers me. I’m much more inclined to believe that these “men of renown” were just remarkable humans. Tall and strong. I am also concerned that extra biblical sources like the Book of Enoch may have informed this view.

[@oldearthcreationguy6082]

I know what your saying. Hank hannagraph strongly believes they are just human but I don't know This would make sense of some of the old testament stories if they were particularly evil hybrids but it is a tough one to swallow.

[@avastevens2272]

@@oldearthcreationguy6082 I just finished reading The Book of Enoch. This is a book that the Jews have used and the early church was very familiar with and mentioned in our scripture. Enoch describes his vision to his son and it speaks of the future flood with the future Noah....speaks of the fallen angels and all of these topic. A VERY good read and I wish it had been included in our scriptures. Sheds a LOT of light on Genesis and God's reasons for the flood.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

You are correct. Jesus Himself said as much. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZSac3-io7h4mNE

[@bradbrown2168]

So do you have data suggesting they can’t impregnate humans? Tradition or Biblical data points?

[@matsumoku1]

Galatians 4:24 says the story of Abraham and his two sons is an allegory. So at some point at or after Genesis 11 it becomes allegory. If Abraham existed as a real person. Galatians makes it clear the two sons did not, and that the two wives are symbols. The actual implications of this passage are so staggering to fundamentalists.

[@marktester5799]

The Bible speaks of shadows and types. Things happened in the past as an illustration of things in the present (or more recent past). Antiochus Epiphanes was a type of anti-Christ, but he was not the coming anti-Christ of the tribulation. Nevertheless, he was a real man. The first Passover was an illustration of Christ's sacrifice, but being an illustration of some future event doesn't mean it didn't happen. Men tell stories around campfires to impart some deeper truth, God shapes history.

[@End_of_Days]

What an oxymoron...the “angel view” which is thought in Genesis 6, which follows Genesis 5 a genealogy line that lists sons. To have a son a man would have to take a wife and produce offspring. The “angel view” of Genesis 6 is a myth. God created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman. Each kind produces after its own kind. The angel view which are non human spirit beigs and can not marry as well as procreate. The point of the oxymoron, because two opposite ideas are joined to create an effect.

[@johnharrison6745]

Show me where it says that a rebellious angel is incapable-of making/taking a physical form that can get a human female pregnant.

[@End_of_Days]

@@johnharrison6745 Sure an angel may take a human form, but does not mean they have physical capabilities to marry women, procreate and start a hybrid family with women that is just foolishness. Bottom line the angel view is a marriage debate, it redfines marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman!!!! The angel view is false, Genesis 5 which are the Patriacrhs are the sons of God, which is listed just before Genesis 6. Genesis 5 is an offspring list, for an offsrping list/genealogy line to happen the sons of God would have to take (marry) the daughters of men for that to happen. You also find that same offsrping list/genealogy line in Luke 3 that lead to Christ who is the Son of God When the scripture there was no chapter breaks or verse breaks. The genealogy list from Adam to Noah would be the sons of God. Also this line leads to Jesus who is the Son of God found in Luke 3. On this list which comes from Luke 3 starting with 1) Adam too 11) Shem is what a person finds in Genesis 5 the sons of God, when you view the entire list it leads to Jesus. Luke 3 1) Adam (Luke 3: 38)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Genesis 5 2) Seth (Luke 3: 38) 3) Enosh (Luke 3: 38) 4) Cainan (Luke 3: 37) 5) Mahalael (Luke 3: 37) 6) Jared (Luke 3: 37) 7) Enoch (Luke 3: 37) 8) Methuselah (Luke 3: 37) 9) Lamech (Luke 3: 36) 10) Noah (Luke 3: 36) 11) Shem (Luke 3: 36)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Genesis 5 12) Arphaxad (Luke 3: 36) 13) Cainan (Luke 3: 36) 14) Shelah (Luke 3: 35) 15) Eber (Luke 3: 35) 16) Peleg (Luke 3: 35) 17) Reu (Luke 3: 35) 18) Serug (Luke 3: 35) 19) Nahor (Luke 3: 34) 20) Terah (Luke 3: 34) 21) Abraham (Luke 3: 34) 22) Isaac (Luke 3: 34) 23) Jacob (Luke 3: 34) 24) Judah (Luke 3: 33) 41) Judah (Luke 3: 30) 58) Judah (Luke 3: 26) 25) Perez (Luke 3: 33) 42) Simeon (Luke 3: 30) 59) Joseph (Luke 3: 26) 26) Hezron (Luke 3: 33 43) Simeon (Luke 3: 29) 60) Semei (Luke 3: 26) 27) Ram (Luke 3: 33) 44) Matthat (Luke 3: 29) 61) Mattathiah (Luke 3: 26) 28) Amminadab (Luke 3: 33) 45) Jorim (Luke 3: 29) 62) Maath (Luke 3: 26) 29) Nahshon (Luke 3: 32) 46) Eliezer (Luke 3: 29) 63) Naggai (Luke 3: 25) 30) Salmon (Luke 3: 32) 47) Jose (Luke 3: 29) 64) Esli (Luke 3: 25) 31) Boaz (Luke 3: 32) 48) Er (Luke 3: 28) 65) Nahum (Luke 3: 25) 32) Jesse (Luke 3: 32) 49) Elmodam (Luke 3: 28) 66) Amos (Luke 3: 25) 33) David (Luke 3: 31) 50) Cosam (Luke 3: 28) 67) Mattathiah (Luke 3: 25) 34) Nathan (Luke 3: 31) 51) Addi (Luke 3: 28) 68) Joseph (Luke 3: 24) 35) Mattathah (Luke 3: 31) 52) Melchi (Luke 3: 28) 69) Janna (Luke 3: 24) 36) Menan (Luke 3: 31) 53) Neri (Luke 3: 27) 70) Melchi (Luke 3: 24) 37) Melea (Luke 3: 31) 54 Shealtiel (Luke 3: 27) 71) Levi (Luke 3: 24) 38) Eliakim (Luke 3: 30) 55) Zerubbabel (Luke 3: 27) 72) Matthat (Luke 3: 24) 39) Jonan (Luke 3: 30) 56) Rhesa (Luke 3: 27) 73) Heli (Luke 3: 23) 40) Joseph (Luke 3: 30) 57) Joannas (Luke 3: 27) 74) Joseph as suppposed Mary’s husband (Luke 3: 23)>>>>>>Jesus the Son of God

[@egzonnaka2518]

Nephillim in Albanian ( ne fillim ) means "at the beggining"..

[@XaeeD]

I once read the passage in Genesis, reflected on it, and came to some conclusions, and later I found that the Jewish exegetes have always interpreted it in basically the exact same way as I did. I concluded that "sons of God" must refer to the offspring of righteous believers, and "daughters of man" refers to the women from among the pagan societies. Basically, the text is warning believers not to intermarry with disbelievers. That's what I got from the text, and that's pretty much what classical Jewish commentaries have said for centuries. I therefor side with the Jews on this one. I find the idea of evil angels breeding with human beings and producing gigantic hybrids extremely problematic. A lot of what was said here lacked textual evidence, and I heard a lot of conjecture, wild assumptions, and bold claims.

[@kenammi355]

Friend, I literally wrote the book on Jewish exegetes and that they "have always interpreted" as regarding, "righteous believers...women from among the pagan societies" is not the case. The Angel view was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians alike--for centuries: see my book "On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including notes on giants and the Nephilim." Note that we've no indication that during the Gen 6 timeline there was any sort of commandment against "righteous believers" (who turned out to not be so righteous after all, right?) and "women from among the pagan societies." To what sin of Angels were Jude and 2 Peter 2 referring?