Ethnicity created in Genesis?

brionne · Nov 6, 2011

veteran said:
The following Scripture proves there was a second irruption of the nephilim AFTER the flood also. That's what the "and also after that" phrase is pointing to. That's why many Bible Scriptures exist about 'giants' also existing AFTER the flood.

the preceeding verses Genesis 6:1-3 tell of “the sons of the true God taking wives for themselves" so God pronounces his decision to only allow men a 120 year lifespan...it then says in Gen 6:4 "The Neph′i‧lim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that" So really, the preceeding verse offers the clue as to the timing... it was in the days that God pronounced his decision to cut the lifespan of man down to 120 years AND AFTER THAT that the nephilim proved to be in the earth. And take not that the verse says that the sons of the true God 'CONTINUED' to have relations with the women thus producing more nephilim in the earth.

This all happened before the flood occured.

veteran said:
I wasn't trying to use DNA as a proof of God creating the races of mankind in the begining. It was you that wanted to use DNA as proof that all races were of 'one' stock.

DNA proves there are differences between the races of man, which is logical since even today two of one race does not produce offspring of another race. If DNA revealed what you're wanting to believe, then everytime a child is born of any woman the child should randomly be of any race. We well know that is not so today, nor was that ever shown happening anywhere in God's Word, including with the sons of Noah.

selective breeding, isolation of genetic material produce the races... God made it that way in order to produce variety. I dont think you understand what im talking about.

veteran said:
Now that's evolutionary science at its best, which is of course pseudo-science. Lot of theories, but not one single link to prove it. Moreover, if it were true, then people would be randomly born into different races still today. We know that's not the case. What? If that were so, then Scandanavian people ought to be having a lot of African offspring!! And even African peoples ought to be producing a lot of Caucasian offspring, etc. Obviously, that's not the case, which makes that a truly wild assumption, which is a marker of pseudo-science.

im not going to keep discussing science with you because you havent got a clue what you are talking about. You should look up how the genetic process works. In plants and animals, some traits are “dominant.” That is, if one parent possesses a genetic factor, or gene, that produces a given trait in the offspring, it dominates over or overshadows the factor, or gene, contributed by the other parent. The submerged or repressed gene is called “recessive.” In the body cell of every human, for example, there are two genes, or factors, for hair color. (It is not quite that simple, but the principle can be illustrated here in an understandable way.) The gene for dark hair is dominant; the one for blonde is recessive. If one parent contributes a gene for dark hair and the other parent one for blonde hair, the “dark” gene will dominate. So you can hopefully now imagine what happens when both parents have similar genes...their colurs and sizes dominate the childrens genes because they become the dominent genes passed onto the offspring and this is why individual nations all look very similar... its because the dominent traits are passed on from generation to generation and tribes tend to breed among themselves rather then mixing with other races. So traits become dominant...thats all it is.

veteran said:
Well, The Bible does... point to other peoples already existing in other lands when Cain was cast out, with Cain going to "the land of Nod" and taking a wife, and also his fear he complained to God that anyone finding him would slay him. To counter that, some have tried to infer that Adam and Eve had many other children by that time, and they populated "the land of Nod". The archaeological histories fit The Bible better that there were 'other' peoples already established outside Eden where Cain left. The Assyrian Tablets of the Sumerian's own histories declare Sargon of another people from another land.

the only other people were the other offspring of Adam and Eve. How old was Adam when he fathered Seth? 130yrs. So Cain was the first born, and Able was the 2nd born... that leaves a lot of time for more childre to be born in between which is what genesis says without naming them all:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day of God’s creating Adam he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created.
3 And Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died

So cain married one of his sisters and took her with him. He was fearful that someone from his family would kill him to take revenge for killing his brother. That makes sense because why would people who didnt know him or Able be concerned about the death of a man they didnt know? His family were angry with him, he was banished by God for his action so he was sent away from the family in shame.

im coming back to the rest of your post shortly.

veteran · Nov 6, 2011

Pegg said:
the preceeding verses Genesis 6:1-3 tell of “the sons of the true God taking wives for themselves" so God pronounces his decision to only allow men a 120 year lifespan...it then says in Gen 6:4 "The Neph′i‧lim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that" So really, the preceeding verse offers the clue as to the timing... it was in the days that God pronounced his decision to cut the lifespan of man down to 120 years AND AFTER THAT that the nephilim proved to be in the earth. And take not that the verse says that the sons of the true God 'CONTINUED' to have relations with the women thus producing more nephilim in the earth.

This all happened before the flood occured.

Sorry, you can't just leave the object and subject of the Gen.6:4 verse like you did...

Gen 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
(KJV)

There were giants in THOSE DAYS, and ALSO AFTER THAT. The "and also after that" phrase has to pick up the subject of the previous phrase of "There were giants in the earth in those days." That's pointing to this event of the Nephilim happening TWICE; once prior to the flood, and then again after the flood. The flood wiped out the 'giants' from the first irruption. But God commanded the children of Israel to wipe out the 'giants' of the second irruption that was after the flood. And it was so.

selective breeding, isolation of genetic material produce the races... God made it that way in order to produce variety. I dont think you understand what im talking about.

Oh, I understand, but I really don't think you realize how that idea is about theories of evolution. We have mixing of races today to produce a modified race. It does not modify the original races that produced the mix. That modification is not God's creation, has nothing to do with God's creation. Like I said before about the mule, God did not create the mule, man 'modified' God's creation by mixing a donkey with a horse to produce the mule (which pretty much cannot reproduce). God's Way is do not mix up seed, not even plant or animal seed (Lev.19:19).

I'm well aware of the 'variety' direction you're coming from that modern Biology teaches. Supposed to be greater strength and survivability from variety per evolution theory of 'natural selection'. Yet the mixed peoples of today came from 'modifications', not God's creation of them. Though there exists many mixed peoples today, evidence of the existence of races that God created still exists; meaning not everyone has mixed up their race origin to the point where no one can distinguish the existence of original races God created in Genesis 1. For example, we still can distinguish today between certain specific origin of races; Indian, Black, Caucasian, and Oriental. Those mixed are pretty much from a combination of those origins.

I recall someone sent me an article in a newspaper in Scotland of DNA tests among northern Europeans, looking for a Celtic link between them. It was because of how the Anglo-Saxons have claimed to be a separate race from the Celtic Welsh, Irish, Gauls, etc. What was discovered was that they were of all the same Caucasian origin.

im not going to keep discussing science with you because you havent got a clue what you are talking about. You should look up how the genetic process works. In plants and animals, some traits are “dominant.” That is, if one parent possesses a genetic factor, or gene, that produces a given trait in the offspring, it dominates over or overshadows the factor, or gene, contributed by the other parent. The submerged or repressed gene is called “recessive.” In the body cell of every human, for example, there are two genes, or factors, for hair color. (It is not quite that simple, but the principle can be illustrated here in an understandable way.) The gene for dark hair is dominant; the one for blonde is recessive. If one parent contributes a gene for dark hair and the other parent one for blonde hair, the “dark” gene will dominate. So you can hopefully now imagine what happens when both parents have similar genes...their colurs and sizes dominate the childrens genes because they become the dominent genes passed onto the offspring and this is why individual nations all look very similar... its because the dominent traits are passed on from generation to generation and tribes tend to breed among themselves rather then mixing with other races. So traits become dominant...thats all it is.

You say you're not going to discuss science, and then you try to do so. I'm not disagreeing with science per se, but I disagree with EVOLUTION THEORY as applied like it's science, when it's actually pseudo-science. A recessive gene DOES NOT produce a person of a different race, period. And that's the matter under discussion. I could imagine how much turmoil would be created in a Black family if two of their race birthed a white Caucasian child or of another race. They deffinitely would NOT be thinking of recessive genes, but infidelty outside their race!!!

the only other people were the other offspring of Adam and Eve. How old was Adam when he fathered Seth? 130yrs. So Cain was the first born, and Able was the 2nd born... that leaves a lot of time for more childre to be born in between which is what genesis says without naming them all:

Continual affirmations that something is true, does not make it true. The Gen.4 Scripture actually suggests in the Hebrew that Cain and Abel were twins. The phrase "And she again" in the Hebrew (yacaph) means 'to continue to do a thing', so Eve continued in what? in labor, and then she bare Abel. Notice in Gen.4:1 only one time of Eve's conception is mentioned.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day of God’s creating Adam he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created.
3 And Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died

So cain married one of his sisters and took her with him. He was fearful that someone from his family would kill him to take revenge for killing his brother. That makes sense because why would people who didnt know him or Able be concerned about the death of a man they didnt know? His family were angry with him, he was banished by God for his action so he was sent away from the family in shame.

im coming back to the rest of your post shortly.

Cain's birth happened PRIOR to Seth's birth, Seth being born at least 130 years AFTERWARDS like that Scripture states. What you're suggesting is that it took God 130 years to cast Cain east of Eden to the land of Nod. Not very likely.

brionne · Nov 6, 2011

veteran said:
Sargon is simply a title like 'king', like Pharaoh, Caesar, etc. Sargon the first was the first one over the area of ancient Sumer-Babylon. He arrived among the Sumerians, built their first city, and gave them science of agriculture and canal building. He also began the first written history of pagan idol worship of the devil. That's where pagan culture on the earth originated.

well here is a little tidbit for you... the building of the city of babylon/babel was conducted AFTER the flood as per the bible says:

Genesis 10:8 And Cush became father to Nim′rod. He made the start in becoming a mighty one in the earth. ...10 And the beginning of his kingdom came to be Ba′bel and E′rech and Ac′cad and Cal′neh, in the land of Shi′nar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into As‧syr′i‧a and set himself to building Nin′e‧veh and Re‧ho′both-Ir and Ca′lah 12 and Re′sen between Nin′e‧veh and Ca′lah: this is the great city.

If Nimrod was the original builder of Babylon.., and Nimrod is a descendant of Ham through Canaan. Trust the bible and what has been recorded. Its the only honest record of the early history of mankind.

veteran said:
There's much reason to believe that God created other peoples than Adam and Eve on His 6th day, because the Hebrew manuscripts show it in Gen.1:26-27 with Hebrew distinction between 'mankind' and 'the man Adam'. And God's law later given through Moses also aligns with that, since God said one of mixed race was not to enter the congregation of Israel to his 10th generation (Deut.23). That's God revealing His creation of the races, not evolution of races from one man.

the name 'adam' is the hebrew word for 'red' and it means 'of the earth'

it can be used as a proper name, but it is also used in general as the name for all of us because we are all from the original man 'of the earth'

I think you are over analyzing this.

veteran said:
That indeed was about the 'specific' offspring of Noah's three sons, as we're given all their offspring, including those of Ham's son Canaan that made up the Canaanite peoples. Yet, among the Canaanites in Gen.15 four peoples are mentioned with them that have absolutely no... trace back to any of the sons of Noah.

Gen 15:18-21
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
(KJV)

Good, you can read. Now tell me who those four peoples in bold are descended from. By the same way you posted Genesis Scripture above, you must also do that with the lineage of these four peoples. You won't find them at all in any of Noah's lineage. And that would point to what?

a Kenite is mentioned at Numbers 10:29 who is associated with the Midianites. Moses married a Midianite woman...her father was related to the Kenites Judges 4:11 Incidentally He′ber the Ken′ite had separated from the Ken′ites, the sons of Ho′bab, whose son-in-law Moses was

the Perizites were living in the land of Canaan, and like the Canaanites, they were to exterminated out of the land. This is likely because they were related to the canaanites and carried on the same religious practices. But the fact that they are not mentioned in the list of the 70 families who were disperesed after the flood, doesnt mean that they are a separate creation. The liklihood is that they formed as a tribe some time after these 70 groups had dispersed and spread out in their groups. Even the name 'kadomites' is derived from the hebrew word for 'east'... so they are of eastern tribes

i have to tell you that your line of reasoning is just doing my head in :wacko:

veteran said:
Moses was under the pen of The Holy Spirit. And The Holy Spirit left us enough evidence there that point to other peoples than Noah's lineage on earth at that time after the flood. So how did they make it through the flood, since they were not of Noah's lineage?

they weren't born yet...just like the chinese and americans weren't born yet. Its pretty simple really. New nations form when a small group set out and occupy a piece of land...as the family grows, so the tribe grows until they are large enough to call themselves a nation.

veteran said:
Yet even quite a few scholars of history have used that false assumption about Ham for the Black people's origins, even trying to use the meaning of Ham's name which means 'hot'. In Gen.6, we were told that Noah was "perfect in his generations". The Hebrew word for 'perfect' there is NOT in the moral perfect sense. It's in the blood lineage sense because the Hebrew word is the same one used for an unblemished sacrificial animal per the Old Covenant. So if Noah's lineage was perfect from the man Adam, then how is it that no longer matters after the flood? It does matter per God's Word, even as Deut.23:2 later showed.

Is it in the 'blood lineage' sense?

the hebrew word means righteous... not sure why the want to put 'perfect blood lineage' as its meaning, but i guess thats one way of giving creedence to their teaching.

veteran said:
I'm aware of small undeveloped extra appendages some are born with, which are mutations. But I've yet to see anyone born with fully developed six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot (24 digits). That's what 2 Sam.21:20 is pointing to with the hybrid giants.

http://c3.yousaytoo.com/rss_temp_image/pics/57/58/4/5736757/remote_image20110622-27475-xgktdc-0.jpg

are the people who are today born with this deformity to be considered to be from some hybrid race of mankind???

veteran said:
Uh, yes they are the offspring of the Nephilim, as Gen.6:4 showed us they existed "and also after that", mean after the days of Noah (which of course means after the flood). So it's like I said, they did not originate from some guy named Rephah, for Rephah was a later son of Ephraim, and Ephraim was not born yet at Gen.15 when the Rephaims were mentioned.

impossible. the Nephilim were hybids...they cannot reproduce. You seem to think the nephilim were the angles...but they weren't. They were the offspring of the angles and the women. Like mules and ligers, they could not reproduce....and besides that, they were all destroyed in the flood.

brionne · Nov 6, 2011

veteran said:
Sorry, you can't just leave the object and subject of the Gen.6:4 verse like you did... Gen 6:4 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,

after what?

After what happened in Vs 1-3 where God expresses his displeasure at the angles who took wives for themselves. And after that, they 'CONTINUED' to have children to them.

You are actually taking the 4th verse out of context by ignoring the first 3.

veteran said:
Yet the mixed peoples of today came from 'modifications', not God's creation of them.

Thats exactly right... its the same today just as it was back then. God doesnt have to create new nations today because nations form slowly over time by family groups isolating themselves from other family groups...they spread out and before long, they develop dominant features by the isolation of their genes and thus a new race has developed... all still from the same stock of Adam and Eve, yet distinguishable from other family groups.

veteran said:
I'm not disagreeing with science per se, but I disagree with EVOLUTION THEORY as applied like it's science, when it's actually pseudo-science. A recessive gene DOES NOT produce a person of a different race, period. And that's the matter under discussion. I could imagine how much turmoil would be created in a Black family if two of their race birthed a white Caucasian child or of another race.

you are kidding right?

you need to re-read what i posted, you haven't understood it.

I'll try for the last time: Dominant genes produce dominant features in the offspring. Its that simple. And that is why the various races have their own dominant features.

veteran said:
The phrase "And she again" in the Hebrew (yacaph) means 'to continue to do a thing', so Eve continued in what? in labor, and then she bare Abel. Notice in Gen.4:1 only one time of Eve's conception is mentioned.

she didnt only fall pregnant 3 times in 100 years did she? If I can have 4 children in 10 years, then she can have at least 40 children in 100 years. Cain Able and Seth were not their only kids.... Genesis 5 shows they had many more who Moses did not name.

veteran said:
Cain's birth happened PRIOR to Seth's birth, Seth being born at least 130 years AFTERWARDS like that Scripture states. What you're suggesting is that it took God 130 years to cast Cain east of Eden to the land of Nod. Not very likely.

and what you are saying is that for probably 100 years, Adam and Eve only had 2 children. So they come out of Eden, Eve falls pregnant and gives birth to Cain and later Able... but no more children until Adam is 130 years old???

Without contraception, do you really believe its possible to have a whole lifetimes worth of sexual relations without falling pregnant?

Moses didnt write a chronological account, nor did he name all the daughters born to Adam and Eve... so why do you assume that no more children were born between Able and Seth?

veteran · Nov 6, 2011

Pegg said:
well here is a little tidbit for you... the building of the city of babylon/babel was conducted AFTER the flood as per the bible says:

Genesis 10:8 And Cush became father to Nim′rod. He made the start in becoming a mighty one in the earth. ...10 And the beginning of his kingdom came to be Ba′bel and E′rech and Ac′cad and Cal′neh, in the land of Shi′nar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into As‧syr′i‧a and set himself to building Nin′e‧veh and Re‧ho′both-Ir and Ca′lah 12 and Re′sen between Nin′e‧veh and Ca′lah: this is the great city.

If Nimrod was the original builder of Babylon.., and Nimrod is a descendant of Ham through Canaan. Trust the bible and what has been recorded. Its the only honest record of the early history of mankind.

You've got your Bible timeline wrong. Here's the city I refer to with the first Sargon that appeared in ancient Sumer...

Gen 4:17
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
(KJV)

The city in ancient Sumer I link that to was called Urech (not sure of the spelling). That was way... before the city of Babylon. When you see me write a label like 'Sumer-Babylon', it's a location pointer. Ancient Sumer existed prior to the kingdom of Babylon. Yet Sumer later became... Babylon per archaeological history. Cain was before the flood, Nimrod and Babel was after the flood.

the name 'adam' is the hebrew word for 'red' and it means 'of the earth'

Yes, as some Bible scholars have translated it. Makes sense, since God created our flesh bodies from the clay of the earth, and even compares us to clay in The Potter's hands.

it can be used as a proper name, but it is also used in general as the name for all of us because we are all from the original man 'of the earth'

There's that affirmation again that we are all descendents from one man and woman. That's a tradition of men. Have you Biblically traced those four peoples of Gen.15 among Canaan back to Noah's sons yet?

I think you are over analyzing this.

God's Word includes true science ya know. Yet some treat It as a mere Book like a novel, or man's poetry, and not as containing any real science.

a Kenite is mentioned at Numbers 10:29 who is associated with the Midianites. Moses married a Midianite woman...her father was related to the Kenites Judges 4:11 Incidentally He′ber the Ken′ite had separated from the Ken′ites, the sons of Ho′bab, whose son-in-law Moses was

You've missed an important timeline matter. Midian (father of the Midianites), was a descendent of Abraham and Keturah per Gen.25. Yet those Kenites in Gen.15 are shown to exist PRIOR to Abraham and thus Midian's birth. Dig deeper on this and you'll discover that Moses' father-in-law was a Midianite priest descended from Abraham, and was only living... in the land of the Kenite.

the Perizites were living in the land of Canaan, and like the Canaanites, they were to exterminated out of the land. This is likely because they were related to the canaanites and carried on the same religious practices. But the fact that they are not mentioned in the list of the 70 families who were disperesed after the flood, doesnt mean that they are a separate creation. The liklihood is that they formed as a tribe some time after these 70 groups had dispersed and spread out in their groups. Even the name 'kadomites' is derived from the hebrew word for 'east'... so they are of eastern tribes

Sorry, but "likely" does not mean they were related to the sons of Canaan from Ham from Noah. The consolation is that quite a few Bible scholars of history have 'assumed' that also; even though they never did prove a Bible link back to Noah's sons.

What's unique with those scholar's reasoning, is that many of them DO admit the origin of the Rephaims being from the 'giants', and those Rephaims are... mentioned among the nations of Canaan in Gen.15 too. Run into a similiar problem with the Kadmonites and Perizzites also mentioned among the peoples of Canaan.

Have you not yet considered just WHY... (other than doing abominations against Him), that God told the children of Israel to specifically wipe out the specific list of nations in Canaan per Deut.20? He literally told Israel to leave alive nothing that breatheth among those peoples. And in Judges 2 & 3 He rebuked the children of Israel for not completing that command, and said He would leave them among Israel to try the children of Israel to see if they would follow Him, or not.

i have to tell you that your line of reasoning is just doing my head in :wacko:

Not my intention to be a headache, nor give you a headache. Many simply don't go this far in-depth in God's Word.

they weren't born yet...just like the chinese and americans weren't born yet. Its pretty simple really. New nations form when a small group set out and occupy a piece of land...as the family grows, so the tribe grows until they are large enough to call themselves a nation.

That right there is a major fallacy which evolution theories have caused for many today. The foundation of the nations in the Americas like Canada, the U.S., and many nations of South America, was by Caucasians from northern Europeans. Anthropology has long since traced the Caucasian peoples of northern Europe from the east under the name Cimmerians and Scythians. They know the Cimmerians came from the East, but they don't know (or won't admit) who they were 'while'... in the East. The Cimmerian peoples who migrated westward into Asia Minor and Europe all make up the Caucasians who crossed through the Caucasus Mountains around the Black Sea. (Celts, Gauls, Normans, Germani, Franks, Jutes, Picks, Welsh, Angles, Saxons, Norsk, etc.).

When I was in Spain and told my mother I was dating a girl from Spain, she got worried. She asked what she looked like; asked if she looked like someone from Mexico with dark skin, eyes, and hair. When I told her the girl had auburn-red hair and blue eyes, she couldn't believe it. The original Spanairds were northern European Caucasians like the Celts or Gauls (another name for the Celts really). Around 700 A.D. when the Moors (Black people) invaded southern Europe, a mixing took place, and that's when many of the Spanairds inherited darker features, but not all of them. There still exists today original northern Europeans of ancient Spain that did not mix in that time. My Spanish girlfriend was one of those of ancient Spanish families (and they were very protective of it just like my mother was of ours). How many have missed this about Shakespeare's play Othello (who was a Black Moor) that was in love with a Caucasian princess?? If you think what I said sounds unusual, imagine what the people of Shakespeare's day thought about his Othello play!

Is it in the 'blood lineage' sense?

the hebrew word means righteous... not sure why the want to put 'perfect blood lineage' as its meaning, but i guess thats one way of giving creedence to their teaching.

Do yourself a favor, get a Hebrew Lexicon (or use the link this Forum provides for a Lexicon), and look up that word for "perfect" (Hebrew 'tamiym') in Gen.6:9 about Noah's blood lineage. You'll discover it's translated as "without blemish" in many KJV Scriptures about the flesh purity of sacrificial animals. Now those who refuse to recognize that specific meaning from the Hebrew, well, they opt for a tradition of men instead. It's not an error, nor an accident that it's written there in Gen.6 in context of what was happening in Noah's day to cause God to bring that flood. It points to Noah and his family being the only ones left that had not mixed their lineage from Adam.

are the people who are today born with this deformity to be considered to be from some hybrid race of mankind???

Where's his 12 toes? Yes, it is a deformity, since the majority of mankind is born with only five fingers on each hand. Unless that guy is around 9 to 13 ft. tall, then he's not of the hybrid giant race. And Biblically, the Rephaims point to certain physical features that established them as a group. And who's to say some of the traits were not passed on, since there was a second irruption of the giants AFTER the flood per Gen.6:4.

http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Tallest-People.jpg

impossible. the Nephilim were hybids...they cannot reproduce. You seem to think the nephilim were the angles...but they weren't. They were the offspring of the angles and the women. Like mules and ligers, they could not reproduce....and besides that, they were all destroyed in the flood.

Well, the word Nephilim literally means 'fallen ones'. And the fact that it's written Noah was "perfect in his generations" means he had not mixed with them as others obviously had.

2 Sam 21:19-22
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Ja'are-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.
22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
(KJV)

What does that Scripture reveal? It reveals they were able to produce offspring, which would make even more sense as to why God had Israel wipe them out, and why He brought the flood of Noah's days.

brionne · Nov 6, 2011

Nephilim does not mean 'fallen one'

its a plural word for a start... the 'im in hebrew is plural

it literally means to 'cause something to fall down' ... 'fellers' is the literal rendering of the hebrew word - like tree fellers who go around cutting down trees in a forest. The nephilim/fellers were called such because they were violent nasty people who injured others. they were the hybrid offspring of the angels and greek mythologies such as hercules (a hybrid child of a god with superhuman strength) were likely based on such ones.

veteran · Nov 6, 2011

Pegg said:
after what?

After what happened in Vs 1-3 where God expresses his displeasure at the angles who took wives for themselves. And after that, they 'CONTINUED' to have children to them.

You are actually taking the 4th verse out of context by ignoring the first 3.

Which is closer to the "and also after that" phrase, the phrase "There were giants in the earth in those days", or... the 3rd verse? Simple English grammar demands we go back to the previous phrase to pick up the subject and object, and in the case of "and also after that", it's the "There were giants in the earth in those days". You're actually the one taking the 4th verse out of its context, and even grammatical requirements.

Thats exactly right... its the same today just as it was back then. God doesnt have to create new nations today because nations form slowly over time by family groups isolating themselves from other family groups...they spread out and before long, they develop dominant features by the isolation of their genes and thus a new race has developed... all still from the same stock of Adam and Eve, yet distinguishable from other family groups.

No, that's not even close to what I said. If you 'isolate' groups, THEY DO NOT PRODUCE DIFFERENT RACES. Absolutely no evidence for isolation creating different races; instead, that's a theory of evolution, a theory, not scientific proof. Instead, the evidence for peoples in 'isolation' is that they do NOT experience modification from mixing with another different race! That's not only scientifically true, but it's common sense.

you are kidding right?

you need to re-read what i posted, you haven't understood it.

I'll try for the last time: Dominant genes produce dominant features in the offspring. Its that simple. And that is why the various races have their own dominant features.

I really believe now, you're the one that's kidding. Recessive genes among one race does NOT produce offspring of another different race, period. Different color hair and eyes among Caucasian people does NOT even come close to producing offspring of a different race! They're still Caucasian, or whatever race their parents were!!

she didnt only fall pregnant 3 times in 100 years did she? If I can have 4 children in 10 years, then she can have at least 40 children in 100 years. Cain Able and Seth were not their only kids.... Genesis 5 shows they had many more who Moses did not name.

Adam and Eve had other children, but they aren't mentioned until the Gen.5 chapter. So if the chronology from Gen.1 through 5 is not really chronological, then do you understand how messed up that would make even Gen.1 about the timeline of God's creation?? One could simply move those Gen.1 through 5 chapters in any chronological order they wanted to. And that's exactly what you're trying to do with moving the Gen.5 chronology back to Cain and Abel's days.

and what you are saying is that for probably 100 years, Adam and Eve only had 2 children. So they come out of Eden, Eve falls pregnant and gives birth to Cain and later Able... but no more children until Adam is 130 years old???

Without contraception, do you really believe its possible to have a whole lifetimes worth of sexual relations without falling pregnant?

Moses didnt write a chronological account, nor did he name all the daughters born to Adam and Eve... so why do you assume that no more children were born between Able and Seth?

Well, like I said about you're trying to take the chronology of Gen.1 through 5 out of its order....

Pegg said:
Nephilim does not mean 'fallen one'

its a plural word for a start... the 'im in hebrew is plural

it literally means to 'cause something to fall down' ... 'fellers' is the literal rendering of the hebrew word - like tree fellers who go around cutting down trees in a forest. The nephilim/fellers were called such because they were violent nasty people who injured others. they were the hybrid offspring of the angels and greek mythologies such as hercules (a hybrid child of a god with superhuman strength) were likely based on such ones.

Nephilim is from the Hebrew root 'naphal' which means 'to fall' (Strong's no. 5307).

I fear for your ideas if you ever consider reading the book of Enoch about them (Ethiopic version of Enoch).

I very much believe they were the deimgods of the various ancient mythologies, not as Steve Reeves in the old Hercules movies.

brionne · Nov 6, 2011

veteran said:
Adam and Eve had other children, but they aren't mentioned until the Gen.5 chapter. So if the chronology from Gen.1 through 5 is not really chronological, then do you understand how messed up that would make even Gen.1 about the timeline of God's creation?? One could simply move those Gen.1 through 5 chapters in any chronological order they wanted to. And that's exactly what you're trying to do with moving the Gen.5 chronology back to Cain and Abel's days.

its not in chronological order.

Look at Genesis chpter 2... Adam is created before the animals, yet in Gen chpt 1, Adam is created last.

In Gen chpt 4:25 "And Adam proceeded to have intercourse again with his wife and so she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth, because, as she said: “God has appointed another seed in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.” 26 And to Seth also there was born a son and he proceeded to call his name E′nosh"
Did Seth have a child immediately after he was born as this verse says?

Now how old was Seth when Enosh was born? See Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived on for a hundred and five years. Then he became father to E′nosh

So between Genesis chap 4 and Gen chpt 5, there is at least 105 years of history... If you are reading these accounts as if they are chronological and in order of appearance, you are reading them wrong. Just add up the numbers and use a bit of reasoning and you'll see that it is impossible for Adam to have only had 3 children by the time he was 130 years old.

veteran said:
Nephilim is from the Hebrew root 'naphal' which means 'to fall' (Strong's no. 5307).

I fear for your ideas if you ever consider reading the book of Enoch about them (Ethiopic version of Enoch).

I very much believe they were the deimgods of the various ancient mythologies, not as Steve Reeves in the old Hercules movies.

i dont read the apocrypha as if its a part of the inspired record... its not. Its interesting to see false teachings some Christians had adopted, but the fact is that the apocryphal books were not from those authorized to teach Christianity... they are false books with false teachings and that is why they contradict Gods word.

veteran · Nov 7, 2011

Pegg said:
its not in chronological order.

Look at Genesis chpter 2... Adam is created before the animals, yet in Gen chpt 1, Adam is created last.

Since Gen.2 is a summary of events of Gen.1, along with more details, it is chronological.

In Gen chpt 4:25 "And Adam proceeded to have intercourse again with his wife and so she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth, because, as she said: “God has appointed another seed in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.” 26 And to Seth also there was born a son and he proceeded to call his name E′nosh"
Did Seth have a child immediately after he was born as this verse says?

Now how old was Seth when Enosh was born? See Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived on for a hundred and five years. Then he became father to E′nosh

So between Genesis chap 4 and Gen chpt 5, there is at least 105 years of history... If you are reading these accounts as if they are chronological and in order of appearance, you are reading them wrong. Just add up the numbers and use a bit of reasoning and you'll see that it is impossible for Adam to have only had 3 children by the time he was 130 years old.

No time marker is given at the end of Gen.4 with Seth and his son Enos, except that it is given after Cain's genealogy, so that's not proof against the chronology of Genesis.

Gen.5:6 does have a time marker, Seth being 105 years old when his son Enos was born. Same kind of marker with Adam in verse 3 having lived 130 years before Seth was born. The reason is because to the end of Gen.4 about Seth is chronological, and so is Gen.5 more detail on that chronology, just as Gen.2 gives more detail of the Gen.1 chronology. The biggest difference is that Cain is not in Adam's genealogy of Gen.5.

But what you're trying to do, is to move Seth being born up farther during the time of Cain and Abel.

Therefore:
Gen.1 - chronological creation events
Gen.2 - summary and detail of those Gen.1 events
Gen.3 - chronology of the fall and casting out
Gen.4 - chronology of Cain and Abel, and Cain's genealogy
Gen.5 - chronology of Adam's genealogy

The problem with the theory that Adam's other sons and daughters populated "the land of Nod" is that it would have taken 130 + 105 + ? number of years for Cain to arrive at the land of Nod and take a wife. Not likely. Sargon appearing among the ancient Sumerians at 3800 B.C. (original date by British Assyriologist A.E.Sayce), a mere 204 years from the creating of Adam, with a different people already established there (per their own written histories), suggests that Sargon I was Cain, and the land of Nod was ancient Sumer. Then there's the problem of Sargon being of Semitic origin while the Sumerians were not. And then ideas that races somehow 'evolved' in the space of 204 years is even a ludicrous idea for evolutionists even to believe. The more logical solution is that God also created the races of mankind outside His Garden of Eden, and they were already in the "land of Nod" when Cain appeared there. And if Sargon was Cain, which I believe, the Sumerian history confirms that.

i dont read the apocrypha as if its a part of the inspired record... its not. Its interesting to see false teachings some Christians had adopted, but the fact is that the apocryphal books were not from those authorized to teach Christianity... they are false books with false teachings and that is why they contradict Gods word.

The book of Enoch (Ethiopic version) has enough direct parallels with the Bible Canon to at least be read. But regardless, for at least 4 centuries, the early Church adhered to the Gen.6 account of the sons of God mating with flesh women to mean angels literally cohabitating with flesh women to produce a hybrid giant race.

brionne · Nov 7, 2011

veteran said:
But what you're trying to do, is to move Seth being born up farther during the time of Cain and Abel.

im not trying to do anything of the sort.

Im reading Genesis 5 which states "4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died."

Can you tell me how old Cain was when he killed Able? Or how old Adam was when Cain was born? The fact is the bible doesnt state their ages... so they may have been older men...we really dont know.

veteran said:
The problem with the theory that Adam's other sons and daughters populated "the land of Nod" is that it would have taken 130 + 105 + ? number of years for Cain to arrive at the land of Nod and take a wife.

Use your noggin.

Lets assume Adam was 50 years old when Cain was born and 5 years later Able was born (that is very conservative in terms of pregnancy rates)
If Cain and Able were both grown adults of say 30 years old, Adam is 80 and in the 25 years since Able was born, Adam could have easily fathered 15 children by Eve. If half are girls and the other half boys, thats at least 7 sisters for Cain to choose from as a wife.

So when Moses wrote: 'Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters'.. he would have been talking about ALL the children Adam fathered over his 930 year lifespan. So Cain would have had numerous sisters to choose from by the time he was exiled.
And if you insist that he married some other woman who was not of Adams offspring, then you are playing into the hands of those who would discredit the bibles account of how 'mankind' spread over the earth. They also say that there were other humans on earth and we did not all come from Adam.

Yet, science has since confirmed that all mankind are of one family. So real science has backed the bibles account of how mankind spread over the earth...you should take heed.

veteran said:
Not likely. Sargon appearing among the ancient Sumerians at 3800 B.C. (original date by British Assyriologist A.E.Sayce), a mere 204 years from the creating of Adam, with a different people already established there (per their own written histories), suggests that Sargon I was Cain, and the land of Nod was ancient Sumer. Then there's the problem of Sargon being of Semitic origin while the Sumerians were not. And then ideas that races somehow 'evolved' in the space of 204 years is even a ludicrous idea for evolutionists even to believe. The more logical solution is that God also created the races of mankind outside His Garden of Eden, and they were already in the "land of Nod" when Cain appeared there. And if Sargon was Cain, which I believe, the Sumerian history confirms that.

you can take the word of sayce over the word of God if you want. Dating methods are iffy at best in archeology. Im not going to fall for that.

veteran said:
The book of Enoch (Ethiopic version) has enough direct parallels with the Bible Canon to at least be read. But regardless, for at least 4 centuries, the early Church adhered to the Gen.6 account of the sons of God mating with flesh women to mean angels literally cohabitating with flesh women to produce a hybrid giant race.

yes, thats what I believe too... because that is what the genesis account states. But you said that the 'nephilim' were the angels. And that is not what the genesis account states. The angels who sinned are not the nephilm. The children born to those angles are the nephilim....and according to genesis, they all perished in the flood.

if they all died in the flood, then they were not the ones appearing at different times in Israels history every time someone mentioned a giant.

veteran · Nov 7, 2011

Pegg said:
im not trying to do anything of the sort.

Im reading Genesis 5 which states "4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died."

Can you tell me how old Cain was when he killed Able? Or how old Adam was when Cain was born? The fact is the bible doesnt state their ages... so they may have been older men...we really dont know.

You're right, no specific age for Cain was given when he murdered Abel. But based on the Genesis chronology about Cain, we're told he was cast away from Eden to the land of Nod after doing that. The Gen.5 dating of when Seth and Enos were born does give us a timeframe reference, for we know they were born after Cain and Abel.

Use your noggin.

Lets assume Adam was 50 years old when Cain was born and 5 years later Able was born (that is very conservative in terms of pregnancy rates)
If Cain and Able were both grown adults of say 30 years old, Adam is 80 and in the 25 years since Able was born, Adam could have easily fathered 15 children by Eve. If half are girls and the other half boys, thats at least 7 sisters for Cain to choose from as a wife.

That would of course have to assume that those 'sisters' were also cast out, and went to the land of Nod before... Cain did, to be vagabonds and fugitives in the earth like Cain...

Gen 4:13-14
13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from Thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
(KJV)

The simplest logic is that other peoples were already in the "land of Nod" when Cain was cast out from God's presence. If it were Cain's sisters and brothers from other offspring Adam and Eve had, then how is it God didn't mention why they would have been in Nod BEFORE Cain was even cast out to Nod?

Gen 4:16
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
(KJV)

That verse is important in that it reveals Cain going to the land of Nod as a result of God's punishment. So did supposed sisters and brothers of Cain also do something against God which would have caused them to have to go to Nod also like Cain? especially since Nod is where Cain took his wife from??? Thus the supposition of co-existing sisters and brothers of Cain being where Cain got his wife in Nod falls into difficulties relating to Cain's punishment.

So when Moses wrote: 'Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters'.. he would have been talking about ALL the children Adam fathered over his 930 year lifespan. So Cain would have had numerous sisters to choose from by the time he was exiled.
And if you insist that he married some other woman who was not of Adams offspring, then you are playing into the hands of those who would discredit the bibles account of how 'mankind' spread over the earth. They also say that there were other humans on earth and we did not all come from Adam.

I don't know who that "they" is you speak of, because the idea that all the races of mankind originated from Adam and Eve goes against the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27, and also the act of God's creation. Your idea instead pushes the theory of evolution of races from one man and woman, which is pseudo-science. Like the expression I've used in other threads, all you've done is tried to put perfume on a tradition of men that stinks like a hog.

Yet, science has since confirmed that all mankind are of one family. So real science has backed the bibles account of how mankind spread over the earth...you should take heed.

The only thing science has done on that is confirm that all the races of man belong to human kind. They theorize how the races came about only according to their theories of evolution. How can we easily know this? simply because if races evolved from one man and woman, even TODAY we should have direct visual evidence of those changes from one race to another in their various stages. Because no such evidence exists, evolutionists have come up with the theory that climate and environmental change causes race changes over time. They haven't been able to prove that theory either, but only keep affirming it as truth just as you do here with what you're saying. Continual affirmations does not make something true. A hog will still stink no matter how much perfume is put on it.

you can take the word of sayce over the word of God if you want. Dating methods are iffy at best in archeology. Im not going to fall for that.

I have listened to both on the matter, as archaelogical artifacts of history with those like Sayce have much to do in PROVING God's Word as The Truth; God's Word and those artifacts are not in contradiction to each other. But your line of reasoning on the matter suggests that you'd rather those artifacts not be counted in support of The Bible, even though God left those artifacts for His servants to discover. Those who want to deny those artifacts are usually more interested in following traditions and doctrines of men instead. In your case, it's man's theories of evolution about racial origin.

Sayce wasn't using stuff like carbon dating to establish the 3800 B.C. date in the ancient Sumerian history. It's a date he translated directly from the Assyrian Tablets.

yes, thats what I believe too... because that is what the genesis account states. But you said that the 'nephilim' were the angels. And that is not what the genesis account states. The angels who sinned are not the nephilm. The children born to those angles are the nephilim....and according to genesis, they all perished in the flood.

The Hebrew word Nephilim (5303), with its root 'naphal' (5307), means 'to fall'. Jude 1 tells us those angels kept not their first estate (beginning) and left their own habitation (residence) to do that cohabitating with flesh woman. That reveals a direct connection with fallen ones and their offspring the 'giants' as a hybrid unnatural race. It's of how those angels 'fell'...

http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append25.html

So we cannot disconnect the relation of the 'giants' as Nephilim with the 'fallen ones' (i.e., fallen angels, the angels which rebelled per Jude 1).

if they all died in the flood, then they were not the ones appearing at different times in Israels history every time someone mentioned a giant.

Like Gen.6:4 also revealed, there was a second irruption of the giants by the fallen angels with, "and also after that".

James Forthwright · Nov 12, 2011

Interesting discussion! Some related questions:

1. Any idea of when the fallen angels, i.e., the fathers of the evil giant Nephilim, were bound in chains in hell? Since they are eternal/spiritual in nature the flood would have no effect on them.

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2. Do you think that we may encounter yet another irruption of fallen angels in the turbulent tribulation of the Last days?

3. Could dinosaurs, likewise be a corruption of satanic and animal seed? If I'm not mistaken, footprints of dinosaurs and man have been found on the same sub-strata levels?

1 Enoch 7:1,4 And the giants began to kill men and to devour them. 5 And they began to sin against the birds and beasts and creeping things and the fish, and to devour one another’s flesh. And they drank the blood. 6 Then the earth brought accusation against the lawless ones.

brionne · Nov 12, 2011

James Forthwright said:
Interesting discussion! Some related questions:

1. Any idea of when the fallen angels, i.e., the fathers of the evil giant Nephilim, were bound in chains in hell? Since they are eternal/spiritual in nature the flood would have no effect on them.

In the days of Noah, the Nephilim were in the earth. But who were the nephilim...they were hybrid humans. the angels had married women and the children produced by them were the nephilim. Unlike their angelic fathers, they could not change their bodies into spirit bodies...they were fleshly humans and when the flood came, they were all killed. But their fathers were able to take on their true form and return to the heavens as Jude 1:6 shows, they were still alive long after the days of Noah.

Its interesting to see that the greeks had myths and legends of superhumans who had angelic/godlike fathers. Hercules is one of their legends... but I dont believe these characters are mere myths or legends...they are actually the ones the bible speak of as the Nephilim.

James Forthwright said:
2. Do you think that we may encounter yet another irruption of fallen angels in the turbulent tribulation of the Last days?

we have already encountered it....we have been living under the influence of the wicked angels for a long time.

See Job 2:1-3 where Satan says that he's been roving about in the earth...the demons have been active in the earth, they were causing trouble for people when Jesus was on earth, they even tried to get Jesus to disobey God and that is what they do with mankind too. They want people to be disobedient and they influence earthly society to do just that.
Revelation 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha‧el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say:...12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.”

1John 5:19 We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one

veteran · Nov 22, 2011

James Forthwright said:
Interesting discussion! Some related questions:

1. Any idea of when the fallen angels, i.e., the fathers of the evil giant Nephilim, were bound in chains in hell? Since they are eternal/spiritual in nature the flood would have no effect on them.

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The angels themselves were not born into flesh, but their offspring the giants, like Pegg said. Genesis 6:4 reveals those angels did it again sometime after the flood, with the phrase "and also after that". So those angels being cast into "everlasting chains" reserved until the judgment had to have happened sometime after the flood.

2. Do you think that we may encounter yet another irruption of fallen angels in the turbulent tribulation of the Last days?

I think it very possible, for the very end of days of this present world, especially since our Lord Jesus forewarned us that the last days before His return would be just like the days of Noah (Matt.24:37).

3. Could dinosaurs, likewise be a corruption of satanic and animal seed? If I'm not mistaken, footprints of dinosaurs and man have been found on the same sub-strata levels?

1 Enoch 7:1,4 And the giants began to kill men and to devour them. 5 And they began to sin against the birds and beasts and creeping things and the fish, and to devour one another’s flesh. And they drank the blood. 6 Then the earth brought accusation against the lawless ones.

That idea in Enoch was about how the giants could not satisfy their physical needs. But I don't see that being in connection with the dinosaurs which God created in the beginninng. God mentions His creation of the dinosaurs in Job 40 about the "behemoth". Some scholars have wrongly tried to claim that as a hippopotamus, but obviously it's not, since the behemoth's tail is described there being like a cedar tree.

I'm not a geologist, but once digging pretty deep on the matter of fossil layers, there's evidence of a sudden formation of plant and animal life, and then a catastrophic destruction, a barren layer, and then another formation of different plant and animal species. God's Word agrees with this, concerning the existence of a previous world prior to Adam being formed in His Garden. I believe Genesis 1, a section of verses in Jeremiah 4, and in Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3 point to that.

But how does that account for the footprints of man found within dinosaur footprints, both dated at the same time by scientists? I believe it points back to a time on this earth with God's original creation prior to Satan's rebellion, when the angels once literally walked upon the earth with God having dwelt here also, in Person. Afterall, that does appear what God's future Eternity is going to be like, which goes with what Paul taught in Romans 8 that even the creation seeks to be delivered from bondage of corruption along with the sons of God. And Christ did say those of the resurrection are as the angels of God in Heaven.

Search

Search

Ethnicity created in Genesis?

brionne

Active Member

veteran

New Member

brionne

Active Member

brionne

Active Member

veteran

New Member

brionne

Active Member

veteran

New Member

brionne

Active Member

veteran

New Member

brionne

Active Member

veteran

New Member

James Forthwright

Member

brionne

Active Member

veteran

New Member

Similar threads