Question about Nephilim

[Athanasius]

I do not agree that dismissing the scouts' claim that they saw Nephilim as cowardly hyperbole is an honest interpretation of the text. (The narrative goes on to prove their concerns correct.) The narrator of the book inserts a parenthetical note that says the Anakites in Canaan are descended from the Nephilim.

It's late here so just noting that I'll follow up tomorrow.

[Taylor]

My main thought on your points about angels is... it's not based in Biblical teaching.   It goes directly against what it says in the Old Testament.   So, if one were to 'throw our' part of the Old Testament (the part that one doesn't agree with).... which parts would one choose to refute?   It's a slippery slope ....cherry-picking certain parts of the Bible to ignore, wouldn't you agree?

Okay but, do you have any specific disagreements with my questions like agnostic does? He didn't interact with them and instead favoured a textual/historical argument (in an attempt to demonstrate my questions don't matter because this is apparently the original authors, audience, etc. believed).

Would you do the same, and if so, would you have anything to add? At the moment you are ignoring the points, but only through bare assertion and then this mention of ignoring parts of the OT and slippery slopes, and gas lighting -- oh, gas lighting.

And please don't give me that "interpretation" excuse.   It's clear as day what the Bible says about sons of god (angels) going into sons of man (human women).  No interpretation needed (for me, at least).

That's good for you, then. The view in question isn't universal or uncontentious.

I have no idea what your question is getting at.  We're having a discussion.   There are questions I have had that I wanted answers and feedback on.   I never said that I would agree with all of that feedback, however.

I'm asking what your thoughts are on that feedback. Clearly, you disagree with the idea that you could commit evil, but you were asking where those evil acts were coming from. Now that you know, what do you think?

The points:

Point 1:
- Angels are an entirely different species than humans

My question:
How do you know, what species, exactly, and can you prove that?

Point 2:
- There's no reason to think that angels find human beings sexually attractive

My answer:
There is reason if one is to believe in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament.  It says so quite clearly.

Point 3:
- There's no reason to think that angels are sexual beings at all

My answer:
No reason other than that they desired and achieved sexual relations with humans.   

Point 4:
- There's no reason to think that even if angels are sexual, that they are genetically compatible with humans (being a different species and all)

My response:
Again, going back to what it says in the OT.   Why do you refute it... and on what basis do you refute it?

Point 5:
- There's no reason to think that angels can transmogrify themselves into human males

My question:
Where did you get the idea that there needed to be any "transmogrification"?   What proof do you have re: that?  And again, you're refuting Genesis 6:1-5. 

Point 6:
- There's no reason to think that these fallen angels are master geneticists that could produce supercharged sperm resulting in giant offspring

My response:
Lol...now that's just silly.   Gen:1-5 refutes your refutation.

Point 7:
- There's every reason to question how the idea of transgender angels impacts on the notion of humans as being made in the image of God.

My response:
There it is again.   You keep mentioning transgender.   You're the only one mentioning ""transgender angels"" here.  (wth?)

Your comment:
And on, and on, and on. The spies of Numbers 13 were plain old cowards looking for excuses.

My response:
They have have been cowardly, but Joshua and Caleb backed up their assertions re: the giants.   And God did judge and punish them for not trusting in Him, as Joshua and Caleb did.

Your stance seems to be that there was no interbreeding between angels and humans back then.   But riddle me this.   WHY did God command whole cities to be destroyed by the Israelites, including men, women, children and even the pets and livestock... ie every living creature in certain cities?   I know the answer, but I'm betting you don't.

[Athanasius]

I do not agree that dismissing the scouts' claim that they saw Nephilim as cowardly hyperbole is an honest interpretation of the text. (The narrative goes on to prove their concerns correct.) The narrator of the book inserts a parenthetical note that says the Anakites in Canaan are descended from the Nephilim.

Do you mean, as only cowardly hyperbole?

Numbers 13:31-33:

31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are."
32  And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.
33  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

These men who were sent to explore Canaan (1) objected to Caleb's suggestion in v30 that Moses should lead the Israelites into Canaan to "take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it" by claiming that the people of Canaan were stronger than the Israelites; (2) they are recorded as spreading a bad report among the Israelites about Canaan; (3) they further claim that "the land we explored devours those living in it", and (4) finally, that there were Nephilim in it. It seems Caleb didn't share in the reservations of these other rmen.

This of course demoralised the Israelites as we go on to read in Numbers 14.

However, I don't think it's unwarranted to view the spies' report with suspicion in light of the report given their clear fear and motivation to dissuade the Israelites from entering Canaan. If those men viewed 'Nephilim' as equivalent to 'giants' then that's fair enough, but given that they weren't around for the flood, it's impossible to know what they were describing.

I would take the note in v33 ("the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim") to be conjecture on the part of the editor, and possibly also part of the spies' fearful report. Or, per the suggestion above, this refers to 'giants' generally, and not the Nephilim of Genesis 6, since no one alive at the time of writing was alive at the time of Noah.

Your objections are anachronistic. The ancient world did not share your criticisms.

My objections would be anachronistic if I were suggesting that the author or original audience understood the text according to the objections I raised earlier. I am not suggesting this, however, and am instead offering reasons why we, today, should view with caution the suggestion that Genesis 6 absolutely refers to angels, fallen angels, divine beings, etc., even if that was the majority antiquity view -- and from what we know it was.

"The sons of God" (sons of elohim) elsewhere in the Old Testament always refers to angels.

The few times it does in the OT, yes.

It's not a coincidence the earliest interpretations of Genesis 6 all agreed the "sons of God" were angels who had sex with humans and fathered giants. 1 Enoch (fourth century BCE through first century BCE), the Septuagint (third century BCE), Jubilees (third century BCE), the Dead Sea Scrolls (third century BCE through first century CE), Philo (first century CE), Josephus (first century CE), Jude (first century CE). Christian acceptance of this interpretation continued for a few centuries before waning.

I'm not disputing that this is was, and still is, a popular view of the text. Although, isn't it 1 Enoch that posits the height of these giant offspring at 4,500 feet tall? Details, I suppose.

The epistle of Jude is the earliest Christian text to weigh in on the issue. Its author regarded 1 Enoch as scripture equal to the traditional Old Testament. The author borrows a lot of his wording and metaphors from 1 Enoch, and quotes a Greek translation of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 1:14-15. Then we have

Jude 1:6-7 And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

It makes you wonder: if God bound in chains those angels that fell, how is it that Nephilim survived the divinely ordained flood that was meant to destroy them, only to show up again in Numbers 13? It seems odd to me that God would just allow a new group of angels to succumb to the wiles of human women, having gone to such lengths previously to stop and then eliminate any trace of the results of those unions. And we know that Israel did not fully destroy the Canaanites when tasked, so why would God destroy the Nephilim in one instance, but then presumably allow them to continue to propagate in another?

Were the Nephilim in Numbers 13 4,500 feet tall?

Jude first mentions angels that sinned, then he mentions how Sodom "indulged in sexual immorality". He is presenting two stories from Genesis in sequence. The second is obviously from Genesis 19, where the men of Sodom attempt to have sex with angels. He also says that Sodom engaged in sexual sin "likewise" and "in the same manner as they," the antecedent angels who "left their proper dwelling." Which story in Genesis 1-18 could be read as angels "indulged in sexual immorality?" Clearly, the same story every reader of Genesis agreed up until Jude's time was a story about angels committing a sexual sin and producing the Nephilim.

We know that the 'men' of Genesis 19 are angels because the text tells us. The men of Sodom, however, only thought they were chasing after men, not angels (angels who clearly were not interested in anything other than the destruction of the cities):

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

It seems to me that homosexual behaviour is the target of v7. If you'd like to keep the connection to v6 that's for you to do, but I don't find it compelling.

It's not a coincidence the earliest interpretations of Genesis 6 all agreed the "sons of God" were angels who had sex with humans and fathered giants....

My own view, of course, is that the 'sons of God' language in Genesis 6 is possible irony, i.e., look at those 'sons of God', those holy Sethites. This of course isn't an unusual alternative reading, but I find it a more compelling connection to Genesis 4 and 5 and a better thematic fit overall from Genesis 1 - 6 in terms of outlining the desperate decline of humanity since being exiled from the Garden. It also avoids the implication from the fallen angel view that places some of the blame for the flood on angelic behaviour rather than humanity's thorough sinfulness (save Noah and his family).

But yes, the objections I raised earlier do inform how I interact with the text as we do indeed know more about biology and genetics than our ancient audience. Knowing what we know now, should we approach the text in the same way? There's clearly room for compelling alternatives to the fallen angel view, so I don't think a reconsidered approach is one that necessarily throws away the text.

[Athanasius]

Point 1:
- Angels are an entirely different species than humans

My question:
How do you know, what species, exactly, and can you prove that?

It's in the name.

Point 2:
- There's no reason to think that angels find human beings sexually attractive

My answer:
There is reason if one is to believe in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament.  It says so quite clearly.

And that one reason is Genesis 6 (and possibly also Jude who might allude to Genesis 6)? I note my preferred view in my reply to agnostic above. I'll note here that ch6v5 isn't strictly connected to the preceding 4 verses, so it could be that the LORD seeing the wickedness of man is disconnected from the mention of Nephilim in verse 4.

Point 3:
- There's no reason to think that angels are sexual beings at all

My answer:
No reason other than that they desired and achieved sexual relations with humans.

Angels aren't described anywhere else in canon as sexual beings, and in addition, we have Jesus noting that angels don't marry (Matthew 22). Genesis 6 is literally the only (proof) text for the view, unless we look at non-canonical sources, and then you'd need to be prepared for such things as 4,500 foot tall giants.

Point 4:
- There's no reason to think that even if angels are sexual, that they are genetically compatible with humans (being a different species and all)

My response:
Again, going back to what it says in the OT.   Why do you refute it... and on what basis do you refute it?

I refute it on the basis that it's not the best interpretation of the text. Outside of one verse in Genesis 6, do you have any support of your view?

Point 5:
- There's no reason to think that angels can transmogrify themselves into human males

My question:
Where did you get the idea that there needed to be any "transmogrification"?   What proof do you have re: that?  And again, you're refuting Genesis 6:1-5.

Usually, people will point to Genesis 19 to demonstrate that angels can become human (ahem, or appear human). And since we know that it takes a human to procreate with a human, any supposed fallen angelic activity in Genesis 6 would have to take on human form. Maybe you think those angels possessed human men?

Point 6:
- There's no reason to think that these fallen angels are master geneticists that could produce supercharged sperm resulting in giant offspring

My response:
Lol...now that's just silly.   Gen:1-5 refutes your refutation.

It does not. The appeal to genetics to a serious objection to the fallen angel view, so how do you account for it? You could say that it doesn't matter, Genesis 6 says what Genesis 6 says! But then you aren't answering for anything, you're just pounding your first on a table.

Point 7:
- There's every reason to question how the idea of transgender angels impacts on the notion of humans as being made in the image of God.

My response:
There it is again.   You keep mentioning transgender.   You're the only one mentioning ""transgender angels"" here.  (wth?)

Because they would have to be transgender? And, transspecies. Well, transsexual definitely. It's a dig at Christians who affirm this view of Genesis 6 but then raise an outcry over transgender people because "a man can't become a woman" or vice-versa. Apparently, it's super easy for angels, though.

And you've glossed over the question: we're created in the imago dei, so if some other creature can simply become human, are they also taking on that imago dei? Does Adam become their federal head, too? Like, are angels ever described as themselves having the ability to become something other than what they are, and if they become human, don't they stop being angelic?

Or you could stick to the notion that they stayed angels while copulating with human women, and I would simply point to biology at that point and leave you to this view of Genesis 6 that has no defence other than to point out that it's Genesis 6. And that's fair enough, you're free to that view.

Your comment:
And on, and on, and on. The spies of Numbers 13 were plain old cowards looking for excuses.

My response:
They have have been cowardly, but Joshua and Caleb backed up their assertions re: the giants.   And God did judge and punish them for not trusting in Him, as Joshua and Caleb did.

I wrote about this further in my reply above to agnostic.

Your stance seems to be that there was no interbreeding between angels and humans back then.   But riddle me this.   WHY did God command whole cities to be destroyed by the Israelites, including men, women, children and even the pets and livestock... ie every living creature in certain cities?   I know the answer, but I'm betting you don't.

Oh no, were the angels tempted by dogs and cows too, not just women?

And the answer is judgment for their sin. Not the sin you evidently think, though.

[agnostic]

I would take the note in v33 ("the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim") to be conjecture on the part of the editor, and possibly also part of the spies' fearful report.

The narrator is a third person omniscient writing sometime in the eighth century BCE or later. The entire book is "conjecture," centuries worth of Israelite traditions of varying historical authenticity being distilled through a single narrator. The parenthetical can't be singled out in that regard. His identifying them as "the descendants of Anak" is on the same plane as his identifying them as "from the Nephilim."

Or, per the suggestion above, this refers to 'giants' generally, and not the Nephilim of Genesis 6, since no one alive at the time of writing was alive at the time of Noah.

I think a more plausible theory is the contradiction is a contradiction, and doesn't need to be harmonized.

My objections would be anachronistic if I were suggesting that the author or original audience understood the text according to the objections I raised earlier. I am not suggesting this, however, and am instead offering reasons why we, today

Fair enough.

The few times it does in the OT, yes.

The phrasing here strikes me as unclear, so just to reiterate: every use of the phrase "sons of God" in the OT refers to angels/divine beings. Genesis 6 is not an exception.

Although, isn't it 1 Enoch that posits the height of these giant offspring at 4,500 feet tall? Details, I suppose.

Some manuscript copies include the statement that the offspring of the angels were 300 cubits tall. Most early English translations were based on these copies, which are the ones casual readers can find online. Not every manuscript has this detail, so critical reconstructions relying on all the manuscript evidence reject it as an interpolation.

I think it would be irrelevant if it was part of the original book, though, since ancient readers weren't bothered by such implausibilities (such as Gilgamesh being one-third human, a nonsense genealogical division, or Jesus' head reaching into heaven when he emerged from the tomb in the gospel of Peter).

It makes you wonder: if God bound in chains those angels that fell, how is it that Nephilim survived the divinely ordained flood that was meant to destroy them, only to show up again in Numbers 13?

The flood story in Genesis 6-9 (rife with textual inconsistencies, since it's really two versions puzzle-pieced together) were integrated into Genesis at a time after the Torah was already nearing completion. Before the flood's addition, Genesis had Noah being born to Lamech, the angels producing the Nephilim from human women, then Noah planting his vineyard. Some critical readers think there are textual cues that the flood story replaced a shorter narration of a drought or famine (the condition of Adam and Cain's difficult relationship to the ground being worsened over time), which was remedied with Noah, "a man of the ground."

The Nephilim was an etiology used to explain the gigantic residents of Canaan that Israel faced after the exodus (including Og of Bashan and, anachronistically, the Philistine giants like Goliath or the six-fingered man). The flood's insertion into the Genesis narrative resulted in a contradiction.

This of course isn't an unusual alternative reading

The Sethite view isn't unusual, no. But we have no evidence of this reading until Christians needed to invent a new interpretation because they were uncomfortable with the one that had been around the previous five centuries or so. When an interpretation is being invented that long after a text has been written, specifically for the purpose of theological harmonization, I am immediately skeptical of it being a plausible interpretation.

There's clearly room for compelling alternatives to the fallen angel view

If the religiously devout think there is a theological necessity for different readings, they will find them. But I don't agree there is any room for these alternative readings in the text as it stands, the text as it is critically analyzed, or the historical context the text was written in.

[Athanasius]

The narrator is a third person omniscient writing sometime in the eighth century BCE or later. The entire book is "conjecture," centuries worth of Israelite traditions of varying historical authenticity being distilled through a single narrator. The parenthetical can't be singled out in that regard. His identifying them as "the descendants of Anak" is on the same plane as his identifying them as "from the Nephilim."

Ah, there we are. If we're doing a text-critical approach then no, asserting 'conjecture' won't do. But I'm not sure what will, given our different approaches. Hmm.

[Fenris]

Have you read any books like 'Ordinary Men' (Browning)? The point isn't that they're like you, it's that you're just as capable of the evil around you as anyone else is. So it's no big mystery who the evil people are. Beyond all the hardened criminals and serial killers and whatever else, it's normal, everyday people.

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”

― Primo Levi

[Fenris]

  And no, I am not capable of the evil around me.   

Everyone is capable of evil. Especially people who believe they're incorruptible.

[RandyPNW]

It's not a coincidence the earliest interpretations of Genesis 6 all agreed the "sons of God" were angels who had sex with humans and fathered giants. 1 Enoch (fourth century BCE through first century BCE), the Septuagint (third century BCE), Jubilees (third century BCE), the Dead Sea Scrolls (third century BCE through first century CE), Philo (first century CE), Josephus (first century CE), Jude (first century CE). Christian acceptance of this interpretation continued for a few centuries before waning.

The epistle of Jude is the earliest Christian text to weigh in on the issue. Its author regarded 1 Enoch as scripture equal to the traditional Old Testament. The author borrows a lot of his wording and metaphors from 1 Enoch, and quotes a Greek translation of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 1:14-15. Then we have

Jude 1:6-7 And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Jude first mentions angels that sinned, then he mentions how Sodom "indulged in sexual immorality". He is presenting two stories from Genesis in sequence. The second is obviously from Genesis 19, where the men of Sodom attempt to have sex with angels. He also says that Sodom engaged in sexual sin "likewise" and "in the same manner as they," the antecedent angels who "left their proper dwelling." Which story in Genesis 1-18 could be read as angels "indulged in sexual immorality?" Clearly, the same story every reader of Genesis agreed up until Jude's time was a story about angels committing a sexual sin and producing the Nephilim.

You are just demonstrating a possible reason many may have got this wrong. You are reading into the texts conclusions that aren't necessary. Seeing a juxtaposition of the Sodom and Gomorrah story with angels kept in dungeons does not mean that angels indulged in sexual immorality. Indeed, in the S & G story, it was the wicked people of Sodom who pursued sex with what they thought were men, rather than angels pursuing sex with humans.

Furthermore, Jude's quoting of Enoch's prophecy is a validation of Enoch's prophecy, but not necessarily a validation of 1 Enoch. We have no validation of angelic sin with angel-human sexual intercourse at all. We only have a comparison of angelic rebellion against God with human deviancy. And on the other hand, we have Christ claiming that Christians will one day be like angels, who have no gender, except when they assume a temporary appearance as such.

I suppose it's possible that if angels can assume a human form, then angels and humans could have sexual intercourse. But apart from this ancient account we see nothing remotely resembling this elsewhere. And so, it doesn't seem related to anything that should concern us, and is likely a fabled interpretation.

[Athanasius]

We have no validation of angelic sin with angel-human sexual intercourse at all.

Yeah, but agnostic is arguing on the basis of a text-critical approach alongside the questions: what did the original editor(s) think he/they were writing, and how would the original audience have understood the text? There doesn't need to be validation because it's argued that this is what the text of Genesis 6 says regardless of whether angelic-human sexual relations are possible.

So, we either argue for an alternative view, e.g. the Sethite view, rulers/dynasty view, UFOs... Or we consider the account mythological or as intending to convey something other than what's literally described (e.g. Genesis 6 and the possible rise of idolatry). The push, of course, would come with taking my earlier objections, arguing for the divine beings view and then saying, "well take it or leave it -- language over experience or experience over language, and if you go with the latter you're rejecting the text." (While I certainly don't find the majority view compelling, personally, if I absolutely had to accept the divine being view, then I would, but not consider the text literal history, i.e., trend towards the mythology view.)

We could up pushing back, rejecting the text, or arguing that just because the original editor and audience understood the text one way, doesn't mean we ought to continue in that understanding knowing what we now know. That's not an easy argument though if it's framed as interpretation something that's not what the author intended. This would be popular among more fundamentalist inerrantists who would want to maintain a non-divine-being view while also not wanting to undermine the text critically. Although, as we know, serpent seed 'doctrine' isn't exactly unpopular.

[agnostic]

You are reading into the texts conclusions that aren't necessary.

I'm not reading anything "into" the text. I am reiterating what the text plainly says, and providing the contextual backdrop for it.

Indeed, in the S & G story, it was the wicked people of Sodom who pursued sex with what they thought were men, rather than angels pursuing sex with humans.

This detail is irrelevant to Jude. The author had the entire OT to work from, but he singled out these two specific stories because of their common feature: they both "likewise", "in the same manner" featured humans and angels having "unnatural" sex (or at least attempting to, in the latter's case).

Furthermore, Jude's quoting of Enoch's prophecy is a validation of Enoch's prophecy, but not necessarily a validation of 1 Enoch.

This is a meaningless -- and I think disingenuous -- distinction. Jude's quotation is verbatim from a Greek translation of 1 Enoch, which means the author used a copy of the book. Enoch's prophecy came into existence by the author of that book, whether you identify that as Enoch or some pseudonymous person. The prophecy does not exist independently of 1 Enoch, so Jude validating the prophecy is Jude validating the book.

We only have a comparison of angelic rebellion against God with human deviancy.

The second story (of Sodom and the cities) is specifically stated to be "likewise" "in the same manner" as the "unnatural" sexual sin as the first story (the angels). The two stories were picked for this shared theme.

And on the other hand, we have Christ claiming that Christians will one day be like angels, who have no gender, except when they assume a temporary appearance as such.

Here is an example of someone "reading into the texts". Jesus said the resurrected would be like "the angels in heaven". (Possibly in contrast to angels not "in heaven", such as Jude specifying the angels who sinned left heaven.) But Jesus did not say angels are genderless. No such claim is made anywhere in the Bible. Angels are consistently gendered male in the Bible.

[RandyPNW]

Indeed, in the S & G story, it was the wicked people of Sodom who pursued sex with what they thought were men, rather than angels pursuing sex with humans.

This detail is irrelevant to Jude. The author had the entire OT to work from, but he singled out these two specific stories because of their common feature: they both "likewise", "in the same manner" featured humans and angels having "unnatural" sex (or at least attempting to, in the latter's case).

The operant words are "attempting to." There was no sex between men and angels, and Jude never indicated such.

Furthermore, Jude's quoting of Enoch's prophecy is a validation of Enoch's prophecy, but not necessarily a validation of 1 Enoch.

This is a meaningless -- and I think disingenuous -- distinction. Jude's quotation is verbatim from a Greek translation of 1 Enoch, which means the author used a copy of the book. Enoch's prophecy came into existence by the author of that book, whether you identify that as Enoch or some pseudonymous person. The prophecy does not exist independently of 1 Enoch, so Jude validating the prophecy is Jude validating the book.

A number of points here. 1st, we don't know that there weren't other copies of Enoch's prophecy in Jude's day. We don't have evidence, perhaps, that there was, but 1 Enoch got it from somewhere, right?

2nd, Jude was quoting the part of 1 Enoch in which Enoch's prophecy was written. In other words, Jude was only validating *Enoch's prophecy,* and not everything 1 Enoch said apart from this.

So no, Jude is *not* validating the entire book. He is validating only the parts that he cites. You are reading a full validation of 1 Enoch into Jude's letter.

We only have a comparison of angelic rebellion against God with human deviancy.

The second story (of Sodom and the cities) is specifically stated to be "likewise" "in the same manner" as the "unnatural" sexual sin as the first story (the angels). The two stories were picked for this shared theme.

Again, you are *reading into* the comparison more than what is said. It is not specifically stated that angels and people had sex--only that Sodom's men *attempted to* have sex with men they didn't know were angels. The comparison isn't between angelic sex and human sex, but rather, between angelic rebellion and human rebellion. This isn't an identification of the giants with angels, but rather, an account of rebellion against divine authority, comparing Israel's rebellion in the wilderness with angelic rebellion against God.

 

And on the other hand, we have Christ claiming that Christians will one day be like angels, who have no gender, except when they assume a temporary appearance as such.

Here is an example of someone "reading into the texts". Jesus said the resurrected would be like "the angels in heaven". (Possibly in contrast to angels not "in heaven", such as Jude specifying the angels who sinned left heaven.) But Jesus did not say angels are genderless. No such claim is made anywhere in the Bible. Angels are consistently gendered male in the Bible.

Jesus indicated that in contrast to humans reproducing, angels don't. That means angels are genderless, even though they appeared to be males.

Matt 22.30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

[agnostic]

The operant words are "attempting to." There was no sex between men and angels, and Jude never indicated such.

No sex of any kind actually took place in Genesis 19, so again, this is a meaningless distinction.

1st, we don't know that there weren't other copies of Enoch's prophecy in Jude's day.

This is an argument from silence. Which is not an argument, it's just making things up without evidence.

It also contradicts the plain evidence in front of us. 1 Enoch was written in Aramaic, not Greek. But it was translated into Greek. And Jude quotes the Greek version word for word. He used 1 Enoch, not some conveniently missing "other copy" you conjured from thin air just for the sake of the argument.

We don't have evidence, perhaps, that there was, but 1 Enoch got it from somewhere, right?

1 Enoch has a complex origin. It is actually several different books attributed to Enoch, written by multiple authors between 350 and 50 BCE, and each of those books has its own compositional history. The opening chapters (1-5), where the quoted prophecy comes from, was written specifically to be an introduction to the original book (chapters 6-36). Those opening chapters (1-5) were written as an apocalyptic reflection on the book of Deuteronomy, and the part which is quoted by Jude was based on Deuteronomy 33:2.

2nd, Jude was quoting the part of 1 Enoch in which Enoch's prophecy was written. In other words, Jude was only validating *Enoch's prophecy,* and not everything 1 Enoch said apart from this.

Jude doesn't only quote 1 Enoch 1:9. Jude uses wording and metaphors from throughout 1 Enoch. Jude used the whole book. The only reason to make up excuses why this couldn't be the case is the anachronistic complaint that Jude wouldn't have used the whole book because Christians stopped using it centuries later.

He is validating only the parts that he cites.

By this logic, Jude did not validate the entirety of the Old Testament, since he never quotes any of it. Unless you meant we should use a double standard: Jude validated only scriptures you count as valid despite quoting none of them, but Jude didn't validate the scripture you don't count as valid despite using it extensively.

Oh, wait a minute. I thought Jude was using some other, never-mentioned copy of Enoch's prophecy, not 1 Enoch. Now you're acknowledging he used 1 Enoch, but you insist he did not "validate" it. Do you really think you're being intellectually honest here? You're making up whatever excuses you can think of in hopes that something will stick.

Again, you are *reading into* the comparison more than what is said. It is not specifically stated that angels and people had sex

Genesis 6 specifically states that angels ("sons of God") had sex with humans ("daughters of men/humans"). There's nothing to "read into" it. This is the plain text, and how it was understood by essentially all readers of Genesis from the fourth century BCE until the early second century CE.

The comparison isn't between angelic sex and human sex

Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust

Again, this is the plain text. Sodom and the rest "likewise," "in the same manner as they" (the antecedent angels) "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust."

This isn't an identification of the giants with angels

You are mistaking what I have been saying. I didn't say anything about identifying the giants/Nephilim with angels. I said that from the fourth century BCE until the early second century CE, all known interpretations of Genesis 6 (including the one found in Jude, since he quotes 1 Enoch) agreed that it tells a story of angels having sex with humans, whose offspring were the giants/Nephilim.

Jesus indicated that in contrast to humans reproducing, angels don't.

Here is another example of "reading into the text." Jesus only said "the angels in heaven" "neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Jesus never said/implied the angels were genderless, and he never said/implied they can't/don't reproduce, and he never said he was referring to all angels.

[RabbiKnife]

OK, let's back up a bit.

ASSSUMING that the Nephelim were a hybrid fallen angelic/human offspring.

So what?

How does that affect your relationship with Jesus today, or change the task of the Great Commission?

Is your suggestion that after the Nephelim were destroyed in the flood (or that they survived the flood) there were "new" Nephelim created after the flood aka the sons of Anka/Goliath, etc?

[agnostic]

So what?

I had a discussion with a pastor about eternal torment, annihilation, and universalism once. He (being a common pastor) took eternal torment as a fact, but he wanted to know why I thought the Bible isn't consistent on the topic. So we talked it through, and when he found he didn't have any reasonable objections to what I was saying, he fell back on "So what? It doesn't affect how we should live." Not in a direct sense, it doesn't. It's still a valid discussion to have, and it reflects on the theological and ethical constraints the religion places on its members (in this case, if the Bible isn't consistent on eternal torment, Christians aren't justified in requiring belief in it to be "orthodox", which was the purpose of our discussion).

How does that affect your relationship with Jesus today, or change the task of the Great Commission?

See username.

My interest is in what the Bible says. Not how people can force it to fit their theology by misreading it (see the threads over in Bible Talk > Eschatology of this in action).

Part and parcel of the understanding that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and humans was that they were condemned by God by default. This was explored in 1 Enoch and followed by Jews for the next several centuries. It raises a valid question of whether the condemnation of an entire category of creatures simply for existing is ethical.

Is your suggestion that after the Nephelim were destroyed in the flood (or that they survived the flood) there were "new" Nephelim created after the flood aka the sons of Anka/Goliath, etc?

Here was my response to a similar question earlier in the thread

The flood story in Genesis 6-9 (rife with textual inconsistencies, since it's really two versions puzzle-pieced together) were integrated into Genesis at a time after the Torah was already nearing completion. Before the flood's addition, Genesis had Noah being born to Lamech, the angels producing the Nephilim from human women, then Noah planting his vineyard. Some critical readers think there are textual cues that the flood story replaced a shorter narration of a drought or famine (the condition of Adam and Cain's difficult relationship to the ground being worsened over time), which was remedied with Noah, "a man of the ground."

The Nephilim was an etiology used to explain the gigantic residents of Canaan that Israel faced after the exodus (including Og of Bashan and, anachronistically, the Philistine giants like Goliath or the six-fingered man). The flood's insertion into the Genesis narrative resulted in a contradiction.