1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Nephilim the sons of God?

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by Bope, Apr 16, 2006.

  1. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    25. THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS"Of GEN. 6, &c. The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3:15). This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Pet. 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14). But we read of the Nephilim again in Num. 13:33 : "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Gen. 6:4, where we read : "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (i.e. in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men (Heb. gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (lit. men of the name, i.e. who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness). So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before. As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Gen. 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated : "The Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land." And in Gen. 14:5 they were already known as "Raphain" and Emim", and had established themselves at Asteroth Karnaim and Shaven Kiriathaim. In ch. 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples : "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Gen. 15:19-21; cp. Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deut. 7; 20:17. Josh. 12:8). These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deut. 20:17. Josh. 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Josh. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judg. 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we known not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology. As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from on Anak which came of the Nephilim (Num. 13:23), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them. From Deut. 2:10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (v. 20, 21) and Avim, &c. As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned : but, unfortunately, instead of this, their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead", "deceased", or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isa. 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased," and v. 19, where it is rendered "the dead"). It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26:5. Ps. 88:10. Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16. Isa. 14:8; 26:19). It is rendered "deceased" in Isa. 26:14. It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Gen. 14:5; 15:20. Josh. 12:15 (marg.). 2Sam. 5:18, 22; 23:13.& b31 nbsp; 1Chron. 11:15; 14:9; 20:4 (marg.). Isa. 17:5. In all other places it is rendered "giants", Gen. 6:4; Num. 23:33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16:14, where it is gibbor (Ap. 14. iv). By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings. It is certain that the second irruption took place before Gen. 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrha, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5). Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak's father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Gen. 35:27. Josh. 15:13; 21:11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Arbahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deut. 2:10, 11, 21, 22, 23; 9:2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Num. 13:33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deut. 3:11. Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" to-day; and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem. Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Num. 13:22. If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day? Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Gen. 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks. Thus the Babylonian "Creation Tablets", the Egyptian "Book of the dead", the Greek mythology, and heathen Cosmogonies, which by some are set on an equality with Scripture, or by others adduced in support of it, are all the corruption and perversion of primitive truths, distorted in proportion as their origin was forgotten, and their memories faded away. Appendix List these Bible appendix were written by Bulinger
     
  2. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    Now as you can see the early church accepted the Fallen angels as fact untill 5th century when it started causing them embrassment So as par for the course Men decided to come up with a new theroy thus we have sons of Seth everyone must decide this for themselves as for me I take Gods word over mens and Enoch over what isnt said in Jasher
     
  3. kkboldt

    kkboldt New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;25617)
    Well all I can tell you is for the Sons of god to be from Seth you have to ingnore parts scripture and sense there are no contradictions in Gods word. Hi Kriss,I don't personally see any contradictions in God's word. That's why I presented canonical Biblical verses first to present my argument.Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).Yes, and these verses coincide nicely with the Book of Jasher and Adam and Eve Book II.When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).there were giants in the World proven not only in scripture but ArcheologyActually no, archaeology has NOT proven that there were a "race of giants". Now that's not to say that were not a few genetic anomolies. HOWEVER, there is no documented, authentic archaelogical evidence of a "race of giants", that is physical tall men over 7 or 8 ft tall. Believe me I've search long and hard for pictures and authentic evidence.Now if you are going use Jasher and other Apochl. Books how do explain the Book Enoch are you not just picking and choosing works to support your view???http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/I also question some of your word definitions as complete.(see next post)Ah yes, the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch also coincides nicely with Jasher and Adam and Eve Book II. Because I have demonstrated that God called the children of Seth, "angels". So the "fallen angels" that are referred to in the book of Enoch is "figurative language". We must be careful not to take these books at full literal face value. As Bullinger wrote, the Bible is full of "figure of speech".Origin of the Sethite View It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.) Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view. Problems with the Sethite View Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following: 1. The Text Itself Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.") The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5 The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth. If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.) And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support. The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12 The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term. 2. The Daughters of Cain The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?) Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful. 3. The Inferred Lines of Separation The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth. 4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16 The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?) It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17 If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood? 5. The Unnatural Offspring The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood. The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18 Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly. A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19 6. New Testament Confirmations "In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah. Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus. The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process: 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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24) These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies. 7. Post-Flood Implications The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan. One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty. 8. Prophetic Implications Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.") In Summary If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record. It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known. For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!) For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following: George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975. John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879. Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976. Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952. Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.
    Yes, I read this and I know where you found this I've had this page bookmarked for 2 years!NOTE: One of the reference books is the "Genesis Record" published by Baker Book House. That is the VERY company I work for. It is now called "Baker Publishing Group". My company published that book! Many of the biblical scholars I work with agree that the Nephilim were "not" literal "giants", men of large or tall stature, but "mighty men or warriors". They were the "giants" of their day.They do not believe that supernatural angels came down from heaven and mated with human women. Believe me, I used to believe in the "fallen angels" theory. I'm not so quick to believe these things anymore.Kim
     
  4. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    As I said each must believe what they want but E. W. Bulinger himself believed they were literal Not Figuartive it was he who gave the Word definations I used So I dont know where your getting Bulinger didnt believe this?? I know Bulingers figues of speech but unless we are talking father and son you are mistaken about what he believed. You will never change my mind understaning the entirety plan of God makes no sense without the fallen Angels and I will never comprimise what the word says for some man rationalization. and if you can get figurative out of Enoch your mind is already made up there is really nothing to debate here you either get it or you dont.Some where on this site I have presented a side by side study of both ideasFood for thought do you believe Satan was a fallen Angel?If so why does he have to be alone? He obviously has frieds held in the Abyss so who are his friends
     
  5. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    I might also add the danger of this kind of thinking is when you make up your own rules to decide what is literal and what is figuative you can make all kinds of mistakes in fact it is probably one of the biggest reason for arguments among Christians if you do adhere to strick rules of rightly divideing the Word you get in big trouble you must let the bible interpt itself and use the Subject and object as your guide.Example: Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the ***** sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.in this verse waters is said to be symbolic for people,nations ect.Now by that can I assume that when the waters began to rise Noah built an ark to float on people??? Of course not the surrounding words the subject and object make it very clear that waters in this case are just that Water (h2o)So this is the logic you follow when just because the sons of God term was used one way in one place you can not assume it means the same in another if the surrounding words subject and object do not support it and in Gen 6 /Job ect. we are clearly talking about something else
     
  6. kkboldt

    kkboldt New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;25673)
    As I said each must believe what they want but E. W. Bulinger himself believed they were literal Not Figuartive it was he who gave the Word definations I used So I dont know where your getting Bulinger didnt believe this?? I know Bulingers figues of speech but unless we are talking father and son you are mistaken about what he believed. You will never change my mind understaning the entirety plan of God makes no sense without the fallen Angels and I will never comprimise what the word says for some man rationalization. and if you can get figurative out of Enoch your mind is already made up there is really nothing to debate here you either get it or you dont.Some where on this site I have presented a side by side study of both ideasFood for thought do you believe Satan was a fallen Angel?If so why does he have to be alone? He obviously has frieds held in the Abyss so who are his friends
    Hi Kriss,Yes, I understand you. I was in your position once. And I believed many of these things without question.Fallen angels and supernatural things are quite exciting and I defended those beliefs just as you are now. It made complete sense to me then, too.As I study more and meditate on these things, and God speaks to my mind and my heart, I'm not so sure anymore. I am now questioning many things. That doesn't mean I do not believe that there things in the Bible that should "not" be taken literally. I haven't "spiritualized" away everything as some have done.I believe Jesus is real and died and literally resurrected. But I also think there's a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to reading the Bible.I have become more "humble" in my understandings.I believe Satan is a real being. I was taught he was a fallen angel, too. I've been reading your posts to get a feel for what you believe. I see myself in you about 10 years ago. We believe basically the same things foundationally.I've presented to you the Bible passages which state that now that we believe on Jesus, WE are "sons of God".You see, it was ADAM who FELL from the face of God back then. Adam and Eve had "immortality". They disobeyed God and become mortal. They were then subject to a mortal death.It makes more sense to me that If Jesus is the son of God and Adam was a son of God according to the book of Luke, and Jesus is referred to by the Apostle Paul as the "first and the last Adam", that when those passages that speak of the "angels that sinned", or the "sons of God" who sinned were indeed our "human" ancestors.You see, it was ADAM who fell from the face of God in the Garden. It was Jared's sons who went unto the daughters of Cain and FELL from the face of God.It answers the question why Noah was righteous in ALL of his generations. Because ENOCH, the last of Jared's sons did not sin after the flesh as his brothers did, and Noah is descended from Enoch.In examining the original Hebrew and Greek languages as I pointed out, there IS NO reference to "supernatural beings", or "extra-terrestrial" beings. That's why I consult The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1984 edition, to find these meanings. As you are probably aware, Strong's was compiled in the late 1800s. It took 30 years to compile and has the blessing of over 100 of James Strong's colleegs.As for Satan being a fallen angel, I can accept that. But just WHO he is I cannot be absolutely sure of.The Hebrew word for "Serpent" as it is used in the book of Genesis, is "Nachash", which means "divine enchanter".And the word "Satan" in the original Hebrew means, "The accuser". He is the one who accuses us before God as he did with Job.There is also the argument that "Lucifer" in the book of Isaiah is referring to Satan. HOWEVER, on close examination of those passages, you see that the Kings of Babylon and Tyre are the subject of those passages and not Satan.This is important because those passages tie into the Book of Revelation regarding "Mystery Babylon".I have discovered many new an exciting things and I only ask of you to consider that not all we've been taught is absolutely true or the way things were back then when Adam's people roamed the earth.Your friend in fellowship,Kim
     
  7. whirlwind

    whirlwind New Member

    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    30
    (kkboldt;25823)
    Hi Kriss,I believe Satan is a real being. I was taught he was a fallen angel, too. I've been reading your posts to get a feel for what you believe. I see myself in you about 10 years ago. We believe basically the same things foundationally.It makes more sense to me that If Jesus is the son of God and Adam was a son of God according to the book of Luke, and Jesus is referred to by the Apostle Paul as the "first and the last Adam", that when those passages that speak of the "angels that sinned", or the "sons of God" who sinned were indeed our "human" ancestors.As for Satan being a fallen angel, I can accept that. But just WHO he is I cannot be absolutely sure of.Your friend in fellowship,Kim
    Satan is a real entity....He is a fallen angel, the main guy actually. There is an enormous difference in angels and humans. Souls have come to earth and taken on a flesh body....while angels, the fallen angels refused and bypassed the born of woman part. Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.There are fallen angels that are presently being held in chains but will be released with him as the above scripture shows....they are not sons of man because they were never born of woman.......Whirlwind
     
  8. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    kkboldtJust a word of caution here be very careful here I have also studied the Word and the lanuage for over 20 yearsYou are stepping very close to the lie of the new agers and Satan lie in the garden eat of this tree and you will become like gods Believing we are all become sons of god by just believing in the context you are putting it is very close to the line. This will be one of Satan lies to the masses.I do not like the new strongs concordance it is set up to use with the more modern translation of scriptures and I do not accept most of them either.
     
  9. kkboldt

    kkboldt New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;25874)
    kkboldtJust a word of caution here be very careful here I have also studied the Word and the lanuage for over 20 yearsYou are stepping very close to the lie of the new agers and Satan lie in the garden eat of this tree and you will become like gods Believing we are all become sons of god by just believing in the context you are putting it is very close to the line. This will be one of Satan lies to the masses.I do not like the new strongs concordance it is set up to use with the more modern translation of scriptures and I do not accept most of them either.
    Hi Kriss,No, actually, I'm not "new age". Far from it! I am a Reformed Historicist. You greatly misunderstand me. I follow mainly the theology of the Reformation fathers. Trust me, there is nothing "new age" about their beliefs, especially Sir Isaac Newton. I am a firm believer in the British Israel theology as well. And trust me, there is nothing "new age" about that either. I don't understand why you challenge me when I'm on your side.I went back to the OLD teachings. I am merely pointing out that there was ANOTHER interpretation of who the "Sons of God" were and it was held by the Reformation fathers and many people who believe in the British Israelite theology. Regarding Strong's Condordance, I purposefully "avoid" the new translations. That's why I emphasized I use the 1984 edition which still has the old translations from the time of the late 1800s. It was the "last" edition BEFORE they started making translation changes. I avoid the Strong's on the internet as their ARE some new translations which I do not trust nor agree with having studied the Greek and Hebrew languages from the past and having some understanding how the King James Bible was translated by William Tyndale. Believe me, it is not my goal to make enemies here. But that we should not rely on "men" to tell us how to read the Bible, but let the Bible and God teach us through relevation knowledge. So what does the Bible have to say? That's what I'm interested in.E.W. Bullinger, though I greatly respect his works, I have "Witness of the Stars", "Numbers in Scripture" , etc., but Bullinger was a "Dispensationalist", and he rejected the Anglo-Israelism belief, here,1899 Article. Anglo-Israelism: The Root of Its Error. Address at Prophetic Conference, n.d.Did you know this?Here is a list of ALL of Bullinger's works.http://www.geocities.com/thatblessedhope/plin9k1.htmMy company has reprinted many of them.Who are the sons of God and the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4?If the Nephilim were a race of giants, how could they appear both before and after the Flood, which destroyed everyone except Noah and his family?How do account for that? Genesis 6:1-4When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."Gen 6:4 "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."They were the heroes of old, men of renown.HERE it IS! The very Hebrew definition I gave you right here in the Bible from The New Strong's Exaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1984 edition. "Heroes of old, men of renown." NOTE: It does NOT say they were huge men of large stature, or some kind of "hybrid" humans.* "Sons of God" in the Job passages refers to "good" angels, and distinguishes them from Satan, the fallen angel. Since only fallen angels would be marrying humans, they wouldn't be referred to as "sons of God."* Mark 12:25 and Matthew 22:30 state that angels don't marry. (Supporters of this view respond that these passages say that angels don't marry in heaven, not that they can't marry on earth.)* Num 13:33 could be an exaggeration of the faithless spies. Why? Because the Israelites were constantly "whining" and fighting Moses when it came to warfare. They were "cowards".* God seems to condemn mankind for the intermarrying in Gen 6:3, but says nothing about the angels, though they were at least as responsible for it as the humans.* Humans are referred to as children of God elsewhere in the Bible (Deut 14:1, Is 43:6, etc.* Genesis 5 describes godly descendents of Seth (Enoch, Noah), while Lamech, one of Cain's descendents, was also a murderer (Gen 4:23).* To support the "Nephilim weren't offspring of the marriages" view: Gen 6:4 doesn't explicitly say the Nephilim were offspring, only that they showed up at the same time the intermarriage was happening.* Contemporary rulers referred to themselves as sons of God - the Egyptian king was called "son of Re."* The Hebrew word in the phrase "sons of God" is Elohim, which is elsewhere in the Bible translated as "judge" or other human authority (Ex 21:6, Ps 82:1)* Early translations of "sons of Elohim" rendered it as it as "sons of nobles" or "sons of kings"* The word "Nephilim" is associated in Gen 6:4 with "gibborim", which means "mighty man of valor, strength, wealth, or power."I only ask that one take a closer look. You will ultimately believe what you want in the end, but there is ANOTHER interpretation that the Reformation fathers believedWhat has archaeology discovered? They discovered that the "giants" or "Titans" that the Greeks referred to were from their inadvertant dinosaur digs. Did you know this? Yes, they have found femur bones of giant sauropods, such as brontosaurs buried in Greek Temples! The Greeks mistook dinosaur bones for the leg bones of giant men! And their demon stories came from the bones of a tyranosaur ALSO buried in their temple ruins!Recently the "History Channel International" aired a program on this. What archaeology has NOT found is a whole race of giant beings! Only hoaxes and stories and hearsay. Believe me, if archaeologists found a cemetary filled with giant human skeletons, I would be the first to say, wow! there may be some truth to the giant race of men theory. But so far none have been found.Go ahead and search the internet high and wide, you won't find any reliable and authenticated evidence! Only stories. I've tried. It's not there. And I wanted to find it!God Bless you for reading this,Kim
     
  10. kkboldt

    kkboldt New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;25726)
    I might also add the danger of this kind of thinking is when you make up your own rules to decide what is literal and what is figuative you can make all kinds of mistakes in fact it is probably one of the biggest reason for arguments among Christians if you do adhere to strick rules of rightly divideing the Word you get in big trouble you must let the bible interpt itself and use the Subject and object as your guide.Example: Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the ***** sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.in this verse waters is said to be symbolic for people,nations ect.Now by that can I assume that when the waters began to rise Noah built an ark to float on people??? Of course not the surrounding words the subject and object make it very clear that waters in this case are just that Water (h2o)So this is the logic you follow when just because the sons of God term was used one way in one place you can not assume it means the same in another if the surrounding words subject and object do not support it and in Gen 6 /Job ect. we are clearly talking about something else
    Yes! This is exactly what I mean by understanding the difference between what should be read as "figure of speech" or what is to be read at full literal face value.You are right, the Bible does do this. Genesis, chapter 6 DOES explain who the "figurative" giants (Nephilim) were!Right here: 4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."Here the Bible is telling us who these people were. There were NOT giant men over 9 cubits tall. They were NOT human/angel hybrids.This is the very definition of the Hebrew word "ghibbor" which means, "mighty men, warriors, men of reknown." And they were "bullies and tyrants" which caused much corruption in the world back then. The very translation of "nephyl" which means "bully or tyrant" in the Hebrew language.Don't you see, I DO follow the rules of "figure of speech".Kim : )
     
  11. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    5
    (kkboldt;26254)
    (Kriss;25874)
    kkboldtJust a word of caution here be very careful here I have also studied the Word and the lanuage for over 20 yearsYou are stepping very close to the lie of the new agers and Satan lie in the garden eat of this tree and you will become like godsBelieving we are all become sons of god by just believing in the context you are putting it is very close to the line. This will be one of Satan lies to the masses.I do not like the new strongs concordance it is set up to use with the more modern translation of scriptures and I do not accept most of them either.
    Hi Kriss,No, actually, I'm not "new age". Far from it! I am a Reformed Historicist. You greatly misunderstand me. I follow mainly the theology of the Reformation fathers. Trust me, there is nothing "new age" about their beliefs, especially Sir Isaac Newton. I am a firm believer in the British Israel theology as well. And trust me, there is nothing "new age" about that either. I don't understand why you challenge me when I'm on your side.I went back to the OLD teachings. I am merely pointing out that there was ANOTHER interpretation of who the "Sons of God" were and it was held by the Reformation fathers and many people who believe in the British Israelite theology. Regarding Strong's Condordance, I purposefully "avoid" the new translations. That's why I emphasized I use the 1984 edition which still has the old translations from the time of the late 1800s. It was the "last" edition BEFORE they started making translation changes. I avoid the Strong's on the internet as their ARE some new translations which I do not trust nor agree with having studied the Greek and Hebrew languages from the past and having some understanding how the King James Bible was translated by William Tyndale. Believe me, it is not my goal to make enemies here. But that we should not rely on "men" to tell us how to read the Bible, but let the Bible and God teach us through relevation knowledge. So what does the Bible have to say? That's what I'm interested in.E.W. Bullinger, though I greatly respect his works, I have "Witness of the Stars", "Numbers in Scripture" , etc., but Bullinger was a "Dispensationalist", and he rejected the Anglo-Israelism belief, here,1899 Article. Anglo-Israelism: The Root of Its Error. Address at Prophetic Conference, n.d.Did you know this?Here is a list of ALL of Bullinger's works.http://www.geocities.com/thatblessedhope/plin9k1.htmMy company has reprinted many of them.Who are the sons of God and the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4?If the Nephilim were a race of giants, how could they appear both before and after the Flood, which destroyed everyone except Noah and his family?How do account for that? Genesis 6:1-4When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."Gen 6:4 "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."They were the heroes of old, men of renown.HERE it IS! The very Hebrew definition I gave you right here in the Bible from The New Strong's Exaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1984 edition. "Heroes of old, men of renown." NOTE: It does NOT say they were huge men of large stature, or some kind of "hybrid" humans.* "Sons of God" in the Job passages refers to "good" angels, and distinguishes them from Satan, the fallen angel. Since only fallen angels would be marrying humans, they wouldn't be referred to as "sons of God."* Mark 12:25 and Matthew 22:30 state that angels don't marry. (Supporters of this view respond that these passages say that angels don't marry in heaven, not that they can't marry on earth.)* Num 13:33 could be an exaggeration of the faithless spies. Why? Because the Israelites were constantly "whining" and fighting Moses when it came to warfare. They were "cowards".* God seems to condemn mankind for the intermarrying in Gen 6:3, but says nothing about the angels, though they were at least as responsible for it as the humans.* Humans are referred to as children of God elsewhere in the Bible (Deut 14:1, Is 43:6, etc.* Genesis 5 describes godly descendents of Seth (Enoch, Noah), while Lamech, one of Cain's descendents, was also a murderer (Gen 4:23).* To support the "Nephilim weren't offspring of the marriages" view: Gen 6:4 doesn't explicitly say the Nephilim were offspring, only that they showed up at the same time the intermarriage was happening.* Contemporary rulers referred to themselves as sons of God - the Egyptian king was called "son of Re."* The Hebrew word in the phrase "sons of God" is Elohim, which is elsewhere in the Bible translated as "judge" or other human authority (Ex 21:6, Ps 82:1)* Early translations of "sons of Elohim" rendered it as it as "sons of nobles" or "sons of kings"* The word "Nephilim" is associated in Gen 6:4 with "gibborim", which means "mighty man of valor, strength, wealth, or power."I only ask that one take a closer look. You will ultimately believe what you want in the end, but there is ANOTHER interpretation that the Reformation fathers believedWhat has archaeology discovered? They discovered that the "giants" or "Titans" that the Greeks referred to were from their inadvertant dinosaur digs. Did you know this? Yes, they have found femur bones of giant sauropods, such as brontosaurs buried in Greek Temples! The Greeks mistook dinosaur bones for the leg bones of giant men! And their demon stories came from the bones of a tyranosaur ALSO buried in their temple ruins!Recently the "History Channel International" aired a program on this. What archaeology has NOT found is a whole race of giant beings! Only hoaxes and stories and hearsay. Believe me, if archaeologists found a cemetary filled with giant human skeletons, I would be the first to say, wow! there may be some truth to the giant race of men theory. But so far none have been found.Go ahead and search the internet high and wide, you won't find any reliable and authenticated evidence! Only stories. I've tried. It's not there. And I wanted to find it!God Bless you for reading this,KimHi Kimthe sons of God is difinately the fallen angels in Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4. We were once in our spiritual body in the First Earth Age.God did not condemn people marrying their own kind (FLESH) (as each races of men are a different kind) as it is said in ...Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.The reason for the flood is the fact that these sons of God which is the FALLEN ANGELS which marries the daughters of men in Genesis 6:2. FALLEN ANGELS are not FLESH but, the daughters of men are.It is ABOMINATION to God for the FALLEN ANGELS which are not FLESH to marry the daughters of men which are FLESH.SPIRITS and FLESH can not mix, yet this sin was done to try to destroy the lineage of Christ to come through. And it will happen again in the tribulation.Love you so much Kim.JagLovest ye in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
     
  12. crooner

    crooner New Member

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    0
    KrissThese definitions come froms Strongs for Nephilim and sons of God. I dont see the angels in the definition. Sons of God dont seem to be angels either. say what you?CroonerH5303נפל נפילnephîyl nephilnef-eel', nef-eel'From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.H1121בּןbênbaneFrom H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.
     
  13. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    5
    The sons of God...Hebrew Strongs, #430 430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.The giantsHebrew Strongs #5303 5303 nphiyl nef-eel' or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.Besides to come to a conclusion. Angels are ought to be taller, much taller than any FLESH in order to have create a deformed giant human which is called Nephilim.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
     
  14. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    (kkboldt;26254)
    Hi Kriss,No, actually, I'm not "new age". Far from it! I am a Reformed Historicist. You greatly misunderstand me. I follow mainly the theology of the Reformation fathers. Trust me, there is nothing "new age" about their beliefs, especially Sir Isaac Newton. I am a firm believer in the British Israel theology as well. And trust me, there is nothing "new age" about that either. I don't understand why you challenge me when I'm on your side.God Bless you for reading this,Kim
    Kim I'm sorry if my post came across as accusing I was merly cautioning you because there is a very fine line here something about the way your post was worded sent off a red flag. And us not knowing each other well yet justfelt led to caution you. I did not mean it as accusation.I find your posts interesting and agree we are on the same side for the most part.
     
  15. kkboldt

    kkboldt New Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problem, Kriss.Kim : )
     
  16. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    250
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    KrissThese definitions come froms Strongs for Nephilim and sons of God. I dont see the angels in the definition. Sons of God dont seem to be angels either. say what you?Crooner
    There's a couple of places this phrase, sons of God, is used in the Bible that is undoubtedly speaking about angels. Keep in mind that there is nothing necessarily special about the Hebrew word ben, but it can mean a son in numerous ways. In the case of my newer Strong's I have on hand, I'm showing this as (10) under H1121. It's also on this website, which I have found to be a solid one:http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon...121&Version=kjvJob 1:6
    Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
    Some people want to quibble with the above and say it could be talking about man, but that presents a real problem for understanding the chapter in context. This is obviously an assemblage of the heavenly court in this case.Job 38:7
    When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
    Morning star is a specific reference here. It's talking about the foundation.As for nephilim, go to the root word. It specifically means fallen. The nephilim were a very specific race of giants, fallen giants from the fallen angels.
     
  17. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    Archaeological digs proof of giants ?http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htmhttp://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0a.htmhttp://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2003/Summer/Giants/SIX DIGITS: Another attribute that is unique to the giants is the existence of an extra finger on each hand, and an extra toe on each foot, for a total of 6 digits per hand and foot, 24 in total. This has been seen not only in some American giant skeletons, but was also one of the traits some of the giants described in the Bible displayed. According to the Second Book of Samuel, an unnamed giant, a Rephaim, was described as having six fingers and six toes: "In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot-twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha." ( 2 Sam. 21:20) Interestingly, even today some children are born with an extra finger or toe, a condition known as hexadactyly, lit., "six fingers".
     
  18. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES President Bush Robert Shrewsbury The White House P.O. Box 70 Washington, D.C. Spring City, Utah 84662 23 October 2004 In Perspective The United States Role Regarding: Ancient Civilizations and how groups as Sciences, Politics, Religions & Vested Interests deal with them. Giants: After nearly a life time of private research and investigation and trying (with opposition) several times to bring out solid facts, with ancient articles in hand accompanied with forensic documentation, I now believe that there are those that are afraid of the truth, and those that believe that they would in some way lose or otherwise be damaged or threatened by the truth the past has to reveal. I am well acquainted with Russell Burrows, formerly of Illinois and Mr. Earl John Brewer Sr. of Moroni, Utah who each have extensive authentic archeological finds now documented. These two men, Earl John Brewer and Russell Burrows, both found ancient literary writings and artifacts in caves here in North America. In both cases, in regards to their finds, Russell Burrows and Earl John Brewer were subsequently accused of fraudulent fabrication and deceit by people with authority, academic degrees and position. Never to my knowledge at any time did these accusers come forth with conclusive scientific evidence that Brewer or Burrows did in fact perpetrate a fraud. As I recall, the newspapers believed the authorities and were merciless in their unkind implications and accusations of Brewer and Burrows. As a matter of record, Russell Burrows retaliated by having Forensic tests done on a number of his articles/artifacts. I myself and others have now had our own Forensic tests done on some of the Brewer plates and some of my own findings in Utah and of course they have all checked out with authenticity. I am talking about clear literary works found here in Utah that go back to BC! It is now evident that people of the private sector are taking more personal responsibility and acting upon it by bypassing the general authorities and Universities and getting their own tests done at their own expense so as to acquire the long awaited truth. I am in hopes that more interested people will add to this pool of helpers until we reach mass collective strength. It could perhaps go further to put together some good substantial funding for the purposes of getting the truth to the people and some good museums where the public can view some of the findings that are not talked about except in private circles. Remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? After their discovery, a small group of scholars held on to them, untranslated, for some 40 years. Finally, when the translation was complete it was kept esoteric. Only by chance did it finally come out for the public to consider. I am not talking about sensational tabloid mentality, but real honest scientific works and documentation. When sound data comes out, then people can and will write their many books and there will be a lot of conjecture, opinions, fiction and Sci Fi that will emanate from it, but the foundation needs to be based in science. I am well aware of many of the books written on the subject matter of Archeology, Anthropology, and ancient civilizations of Giants, the Nethilim, Grigori, and the Anunnaki and such places as Atlantis, Lemuria (Mu). Further, many of these books are certainly not accepted by the academic authorities of our present world. They discuss the remains of high technological civilizations, and the Dark Age periods after their falls. Research in the United States indicates there were extensive sites, many (sometimes mysteriously) horribly ruined in the early years of European settlers. The subject of Giants in America (in ancient times) at large is a subject matter of great controversy, politics, fear, competition and mystery. I admit that I myself do wonder at times, if some of the so-called Sci Fi pseudo-scientists and mystery ghouls & writers (thriving on the sales of their books) are guilty of not wanting real scientific evidence (proof) to surface because this may cause a decline in their long-lived economic resource situation. I have not “Looked in the eyes of Agamemnon” or discovered the City of Troy, but I have seen some of the Giant human remains and some of their artifacts, records and writings left behind for us to learn from. If and when we as a civilized (courageous, veracious) people are truly ready for it, I am personally willing to help facilitate the acquisition of some of these ancient sites. I have traveled to several countries in my research/investigation and firmly believe now (by 40 years of educated experience) that the majority of artifacts and records of ancient civilizations and some of the greatest Archeological finds in history have been, are being and will soon be looted. In reality the results are that much of these antiquities are being placed in private collections to be undisclosed for open scientific knowledge, research and study. Also, many irreplaceable libraries and scientific tools (artifacts) made of precious noble metals are melted down and sold on the black market by the greedy wealthy for profit. While the desperately poor do their dirty work for a mere hand-to-mouth survival. Some countries have really good laws that are fair, just and safe for the finders of ancient antiquities and finders are rewarded and taken care of in a good way. I believe these protections to the finders save and protect most of the antiquities from being looted and allow museums, universities and viable tourisms to work. In Utah, I have also heard many complaints and rumors from the private sector that some very unusual (gold) artifacts of ancient origin have been excavated here by some of our Universities only to be covered up, or in some cases sold or traded outside of our country, for funding (donations) for the University. It was said that, payment was accepted as a “tax exempt donation” and nothing was ever mentioned of the rendering of artifacts… If these allegations are only half true, then who are the looters? “I have seen the enemy and they are us”. Perhaps the very people that we look up to and trust to be our protectors, helpers and keepers are the one’s that receive our reports and are first to these ancient sites to loot, pilfer and plunder? Is all of this “protecting the burial sites” of our ancient and natural history a drama of Red Herring, so we can be easier plundered by 1) private people working incognito at the Universities or 2) perhaps people working through the Universities for private interests? 3) Or is it the Universities themselves? As just one source of plundering, maybe all three are possible. I hope that we can get good sound fair laws in our country as well as in more countries of the world because this will save (I believe) over 80 percent of the knowledge of our ancient past from being stolen or destroyed. Though I would hope that there would be a massive public outcry to our elected officials in our respective State and States as well as Washington, District of Columbia concerning the illegality of some scientific research in areas of great importance to mankind, but the outcry has not happened yet because I think that the public at large is not aware of the full extent of the situation. I believe that the public and the teachers of our public have been misinformed on some areas of history and it isn’t very likely they could/would stand up to complain to the very institutions that feed them their livelihoods, prestige and power. I can respect the Native American feelings towards not desecrating burial sites and I am part Native American myself. However the Giant people here in America and particularly Utah are usually red haired and fair skinned and I do not think that they are Native American. DNA tests are actually important towards verifying that there were peoples of different civilizations and genetic lines on this world prior to our present official knowledge of history. As civilizations grow and progress, in the evolutionary refinement and development of mankind they learn greater medicine, a better spiritual, social conscience and progressive education-ional improvements. I can think of untold millions of people that are alive, well and living longer today because of scientific inventions, research and development. What can we learn from earlier civilizations, so far largely undervalued and mostly ignored? What if it remains suppressed? We have Galileo’s historical case of politics & religion obstructing science and human progress. John Dee corrected the Gregorian calendar about a hundred years before Scholars of those times would/could accept it because of jealousy. Thinking in retrospect on some of our greater scientists of the past, fear, jealousy and economic interests has often retarded or blocked the expeditious use of beneficial discoveries. I have an open request to Science, Scientists, Archeologists, and Anthropologists and our respective branches of State & Federal Governments alike to put their authoritative textbooks in an “open” mode, for further additions of revelations and knowledge, for just a little moment in time. Let’s do a scientific study of some of these still existing Giant human remains. I know where several Giant burials are, but due to the many legal ramifications and legal fortifications, I am unable to go any further or deeper on my own investigation/research without severe penalties. Good, knowledgeable and unbiased investigative teams are important but hard to come by. In short, when Science, Politics, Religions & Vested interests come to honest terms with Giants and other advanced (civilized) ancient civilizations in Americas past, then we can all receive the knowledge and benefits to our betterment, even though some will not see it this way. My historical research has indicated we cannot ignore the existence of the Giants. In our past, ancient writings and legends indicate they already altered our current lives. To study their existence to see what more effects may still be set in motion, (time released) plus what was left for us to study and learn, may be of great importance that should not be overlooked or underestimated. It may very well be that responsibility and accountability from our elected and appointed leaders, on this subject matter, will be lacking, non-existent or insufficient to be of any good consequence, saving quality or quantity or timely enough, but nonetheless the penalties will effect us and our future outcome for generations to come and our children and grandchildren may suffer from it for time immemorial. Sincerely, Robert Shrewsbury M.A.A., B.A.[url="http://www.manataka.org/page600.html]http://www.manataka.org/page600.html[/url][email protected]
     
  19. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    It is my opinion that there is a cover up of all this giant evidence it has been around for hundreds of years but it would expose all Darwin and Evolution theorists as fakes and frauds why is this a surprise to any Christian if this proved true that makes the Bible right Is it a surprise to anyone that science, governments, and the powers that be would have to admit the Holy Bible as fact that creationism is fact and Evolution false?Now you can believe what you like but I stand by the Word of God over men I would lay you odds there is a least some proof of giants in over 50% of the museums in the World laying on a shelf in the basement somewhere that nobody wants to talk about. "Skeletons measuring eight and one-half feet and 10-feet in height and wrapped in a "gum-covered fabric" were uncovered in the Humboldt lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada, in 1931, according to the Review-Miner, a local newspaper published on June 19, 1931." Then Goliath, a Philistine champion from Gath, came out of the Philistine ranks to face the forces of Israel. He was a giant of a man, measuring over nine feet tall!He wore a bronze helmet and a coat of mail that weighed 125 pounds. He also wore bronze leggings, and he slung a bronze javelin over his back.The shaft of his spear was as heavy and thick as a weaver's beam, tipped with an iron spearhead that weighed fifteen pounds...... As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground….. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard.After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.If this is in the Holy Word of God you have two choices either God allowed lies and exagerations into his Word and if so how do we know whats true and whats not. Or you believe the Word is the whole and true word of the Lord who sent his son to die for your sins.And if you believe there were gtiants then you can not discount the rest of the story that they were the off spring of Fallen Angels just as the Lord tells us. 2 Samuel 21 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot--twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother, killed him. Numbers 13:33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Deuteronomy 2:11Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims. Deuteronomy 2:20(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; Deuteronomy 3:11For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. Deuteronomy 3:13And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants[url="http://www.s8int.com/giants1.html]http://www.s8int.com/giants1.html[/url]
     
  20. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    James Smithson, the man behind the institution. Image from The Smithsonian. The Smithsonian was founded in 1836 by the bequest of one James Smithson, a wealthy English scientist who left a princely sum of $500,000 "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men."3 Though the institution initially fulfilled Smithson's mandate, after a few decades of growth and sound management, creeping bureaucracy set in, and the museum's lofty goals began to outstrip its ability to properly manage its assets. Furthermore, the decision of one man, Smithsonian executive John Wesley Powell, set in motion a series of events that led to a historical and archaeological disaster of a magnitude so great that it is difficult to fully comprehend. Powell had lived among the Native Americans, and had become sensitive to their plight. As a result, when the time came for the museum to organize its strategy for systematically analyzing and cataloging all of the information that was to be found in the New World, the decision was made to take an isolationist approach, rather than a cultural diffusionist approach. The isolationist approach posited that the ethnically Asiatic Native Americans that met Columbus and the Pilgrims were the same peoples who had populated the continent since the beginning of human history, and that there had been no other contact between them and any other non-Asiatic peoples whatsoever, period. However, though it appears that the Asiatics had indeed dominated the Americas for thousands of years, new evidence, previously suppressed, appears to show that there was indeed interaction with other cultures that had immigrated to the New World in prehistoric times. This approach, the "cultural diffusionist" approach, is the new paradigm in ancient historical studies, and helps explains the existence of giant, blond and red-headed skeletons throughout the Americas. As a result of Powell's decision to reject any and all evidence that might contradict his prefabricated theory that early America had not been visited by any European, African, Middle-Eastern, or any other non-Asiatic, non-Native peoples, voluminous amounts of irreplaceable historical data were lost, miscategorized, or "misplaced". As Hamilton explains, "Armed with a self-created doctrine powered by ample funding, and with a little help later from the one-way door to the Smithsonian's inaccessible catacombs, the years that followed saw Powell and his underling nearly succeed in the obliteration of the last notions of the legendary, mysterious, and antique class of mound building people, and for that matter, any people that didn't fit into the mold of his theory. Did Powell intentionally overlook some of the archaeology so as to focus on his own special agenda?"4 This poor decision then led to a wholesale plunder of mounds, caves, and anything else Powell and his cronies could get their hands on. And in the process, anything that fit into their narrow paradigm of American history was kept, while everything that did not, met an ignominious end. So much devastation was wrought by this man's poor decision and concomitant mismanagement, overloading Smithsonian storage with an impossibly large amount of miscategorized artifacts, that even today the Smithsonian has not fully cataloged everything. Worse, as a result of this decision, our understanding of America's ancient history in general has been woefully inadequate at best, and at worst, just plain wrong. Powell and Co. likely did not purposely destroy data, though some of the precious evidence of America's gigantic past may have been lost or destroyed in transit. The real problem lay in the fact that these countless crates of precious truth are lost in the massive, almost legendary "Smithsonian Warehouse", guarded by both security guards and security by obscurity. And as the multiplicity of filing systems in use in the Smithsonian can best be described as byzantine, it is likely that they will stay there for some time. As Cooke explains, Rumored to be beneath the Vatican lie many levels of secret, impregnable vaults that make up the legendary Vatican Archives. Supposedly containing the plunder of millennia and the secrets of the ages, their contents have filled the imaginations of countless generations. Perhaps not equal in quality, but certainly rivaling in quantity, are the archives of the Smithsonian Institution. And in those archives, open only to government officials, lie the bones of many thousands of corpses dug up, described and stored without study, many for over a century and a half. Scores, if not hundreds, of these skeletons are considered giants and yet, they lie deteriorating, not finding the slightest interest from anthropologists. Wanting no part in rocking the neatly defined, religiously correct American prehistory model, the researchers ignore them now and there is no sign this will ever change. Hidden in dark, inaccessible storage is a sad example of scientific domination over social understanding and cultural history. Not to be found in the history books, the science references or the classroom is undeniable evidence that a race of giants had a prominent presence on the North American continent. Also hidden from public understanding is the fact that giants were among the native people who fell before the colonial The fabled "Smithsonian Warehouse", depicted at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark wherein the Ark of the Covenant was stored until "top men" could analyze it. Though the actual location of the Lost Ark is most likely in Axum, Ethiopia, rumor has it that the warehouse does contain numerous giant skeletons and artifacts from countless plundered mounds and burial caves from all over the United States. Image from IndyFan.com. eradication crusade. Only the fortunate cultural conscience of amateur historians, writing about the prominent events of their individual communities, preserved easily accessible evidence of giants in our North American past. Though there is much evidence in the written record of the Smithsonian it is an overwhelming and disorganized system typical of a rapid and misguided mass internment project.... All evidence, showing anything not fitting a Stone Age culture better eliminated than trifled with or indicating anything that might warrant serious study, was quietly filed away and warehoused in obscurity.5 Though most of the ancient tombs of the giants have been plundered and effectively lost, much historical data still exists regarding the existence of giants, due to the numerous written accounts left behind by our pioneer ancestors. These stories paint a picture of ancient America that is very different than that told in the standard history books. First, however, let us go over in detail the specific characteristics of the giants as evidenced by the North American finds, combine them with parallel references to giants of the ancient Near East and related regions, and then attempt to formulate a theory as to how they came to the Americas. http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2003/Summer/Giants/
     
Loading...