Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Where did the Nephilim cone from?

Rose42

Not at all. You are trying to put a meaning into what he said that just isn’t there



So it boils down to you not trusting God’s word. It wasn’t written to ‘satisfy’ man.



Its not up to me. I see nothing but a wild imagination in Murray.

Besides, if Satan had been able to have sex with Eve then why didn’t he with other humans as well?

Rose42

I think Peewee has some info about them. I’ve not seen a definitive answer and I don’t know. Some believe fallen angels mated with women and the children were Nephilim.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

That is how I have always understood it...Not necessarily "fallen"..

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Exactly.
The purpose of great flood was to wipe them out.

waltmoreno

Whaddyatalkinabout? God flooded the earth in Noah's time in part to get rid of the nephilim.

As for Israelites being Americans and British, there's other organizations that heartily embrace that idea. Their name escapes me right now but I find their arguments convincing as well.
The argument is that Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manassa were the patriarchs of Britain and the US respectively. And they quote some pretty persuasive passages in support of that argument.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

I am not the naysayer here, and I believe you have stepped over your skis.

I am a Bible believing Christian whose God is the Triune God of Holy Scripture.

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees of His day, who boasted of being the sons of Abraham, believing this gave them special religious privilege in God's eyes.

Genesis:6:4
“There were giants on the earth in those days and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. They were the mighty men who were of old. Men of renown.”

Some Christian writers are pushing views about the Nephilim that go far beyond what the scriptures actually teach, or can reasonably support.

Those who interpret these as being fallen angels would go to Jude where it says “the angels that kept not their first estate."

So who are these sons of God? In Job it says the sons of God came together and Satan came with them, therefore, it does not call Satan one of the sons of God, so his underlings would also not be called sons of God.

Men are called sons of God. Adam is called a son of God, therefore, it appears to be saying that men took women as they pleased. Great men of renown were on the earth at that time,- and there were giants, it does not definitively equate the two; genetically this sort of thing could happen.

It is not saying that demonic beings or angelic fallen angels, who are spirit beings could procreate with human beings, for if they could then, why would they not be able to do so now?

This is not just some incubus, some incident, for it clearly says they became their husbands. "They took wives."

Jesus, in Mark:12:25, tells us "for when they rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." This indicates that — Angels are sexless. They do not have sex, - nor do they have human bodies.

Certainly, they don't marry, so this Scripture is not talking about fallen angels. Some people say it was the godly seed of Seth who were intermarrying with the descendants of Cain, those with whom they should not have been.

Some people try to equate it with Goliath. He had four brothers and they were giants and they say these giants were the Nephilim. ...but they were all destroyed in the flood, thousands of years earlier... and if they weren’t all destroyed in the flood, or if their spirits are still floating about out there, - and they can spiritually do this sort of thing, this would be a form of virgin birth, would it not?

Then, why aren’t we having instances of this down through history? ... but we aren't. It is not a case of spirit beings having sex with women, becoming their husbands, and living next door to you in the neighborhood.

There is speculation along this line, speculations built upon speculations, and then doctrines formed with no basis in fact whatsoever, and no evidence in history.

Genesis:6:4 is a difficult passage, but there is a genuine problem with developing doctrine on a supposed solution to a supposition that God has not provided.

There is a temptation to be the ones who know something that nobody else knows, and to have an esoteric interpretation, but be very careful not to try to build on someone's private interpretation, thereby claiming to know more than God has revealed.

It’s worth researching, but in the final analysis use extreme care not to build on a very shaky foundation.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Well reasoned...

I admit that I have always assumed that the Nephilim were a mix breed of fallen angel and mankind...

But reading the passage again and considering what you have posted here I can see how I was not giving the passage its due diligence before...

Thanks...

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Question: "Are the teachings of Arnold Murray and Shepherd’s Chapel biblical?"
Answer: Shepherd’s Chapel is a church/ministry in Gravette, Arkansas, USA, known mainly for its television broadcast featuring the Bible teaching of Arnold Murray. Sadly, the teachings of Arnold Murray and Shepherd’s Chapel are full of error.

Murray demonstrated the signs of a false prophet. He maintained attitudes that were disturbingly un-Christlike. Murray’s habit of branding everyone who disagrees with him as a tool of the devil was a telling sign of his theology. Rather than instruct or correct with love and compassion (Galatians 5:22–26), Murray responded with anger, aggressiveness, and secrecy, and he inspired the same contempt and anger in his many of his followers.

Murray’s teaching takes verses out of context, which makes it easy to twist their meaning. He talked about original Greek and Hebrew word meanings, but only when he could pick an alternate translation that seemed to support his opinion. When others questioned his conclusions, Murray attacked the questioner rather than defend his view. Murray came to the Bible with his own pre-conceived opinions and then twisted the Word of God to make it fit.

For example, Murray claimed that Cain was actually the son of Eve and Satan—the serpent seed doctrine. He ignored Genesis 4:1 which says, “Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ‘With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man’” (Genesis 4:1). Adam was Cain’s father, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Murray also connected the parable of the good and bad seed in Matthew 13 with God’s curse of the serpent in Genesis 3 despite nothing in the context to connect the two passages.

Murray taught that there will be no rapture, despite passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52. As is all-too-common with Arnold Murray, he claimed that 95 percent of churches who teach the rapture will accept the Antichrist as their savior (from a November 1985 newsletter). In this way, Murray effectively denied the salvation of anyone who believes in the rapture. It is unsettling to hear a Bible teacher making such claims about those he disagrees with concerning a non-essential point of eschatology.

Shepherd’s Chapel also teaches modalism, a heretical doctrine that denies the Trinity. Murray taught that “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” are different titles that God uses at different times. As God takes on different jobs, He uses various names for Himself. Modalism was condemned as a heresy in the first few centuries of the Christian church. It turns God into a deceiver, because in passages such as Matthew 3:16-17 definitely describe the Father, Son, and Spirit interrelating to each other. How can the Father speak in the presence of the Son and the Spirit descend on the Son without it making it appear that the three of them are separate persons?

Murray also subscribed to the Christian Identity Movement, which teaches the British are the real descendants of the ancient Israelites. This movement has been the foundation, fuel, and ammunition for a great deal of racial bigotry. Murray denounced interracial marriages, an unbiblical position that itself wavers on the edge of racism.

In addition to doctrinal errors, Arnold Murray also demonstrated violent personality traits incompatible with the position of church leader. His lack of compassion and condescending references to those who disagree with him were the most noticeable sign of his instability. Christians should be wary of anyone who acts as Arnold Murray did and should avoid any teacher who subscribes to the unbiblical views of Shepherd’s Chapel.

gotQuestions.org

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fascinating...

I recall the Christian Identity Movement... Some rather "interesting" science behind much of their reasoning..

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

It is because of Adam's sin, we are all born into sin, and unless we accept the sacrifice that Jesus paid, we are lost for eternity.

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

Part of the fallen angels when the were thrown out of heaven with Satan.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Ok... But why couldn't Adam eat from the tree? It was right there and God seemed concerned that Adam might still be hungry...

Rose42

Interesting. I always thought it was fallen angels mating with women but never gave it that much thought.

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

Have to agree with you on this. I have watched him before, and sorry, don't believe a lot of what he teaches as true. I do believe God's word. I believe God told them not to do something, and satan told Eve if she ate of the fruit, she would be like God, so she believed the lie, and ate, and gave to Adam to eat of it. Then their eyes were opened to the fact that they disobeyed God , and as a result, they were thrown out of the garden, and would have to work the soil, and would die, instead of having the glorious life God had for them, disobedience causes consequences!