Nephilim, Fallen Angels, and Genesis 6

Hello Bob,

Me again. Hope you had a blessed Easter. Two questions, quite unrelated to my studies. I was asked what happened to the demons that went into the swine (legion). If they have to occupy a corporeal body, when the pigs drowned did they escape and find another "host"? Secondly, Satan is surely NOT a real person (my study notes say he is)? He is an angelic creature with the same characteristics as angels, no? Thanks for always answering so succinctly, you are a wealth of information.

God bless your work.

Response #1:

Good to hear from you as always – hope you had a nice holiday too.

As to your questions, first, demons are fallen angels, and they are certainly not required by any necessity of their nature to possess material bodies such as those of human beings or animals. They delight to do this, however, and are also apparently mandated to influence the world in this way by their commander, the devil (albeit it seems to be the case that different fallen angels have different missions at different times – and that certainly makes sense given the conflict raging between the two sides; see the link: BB 2A: Angelology). It seems to me to be the second issue here that prompted their request to the Lord to be allowed to occupy the bodies of the swine. Clearly, their main concern was not to be imprisoned in the Abyss (Lk.8:31). We may conclude that these demons are most likely still currently at large (whether or not they are at this moment possessing some poor soul or another).

Second, that is correct: the devil is a fallen angel (the original cherub: Ezek.28:16), not a human being (although his son, antichrist is/will be "half and half" along the lines of the nephilim; see the link). As such, Satan has all the characteristics of the angelic nature, not of human nature. The key element that we (believers and unbelievers) and angels (elect and fallen) have in common is the image of God: the ability to choose our eternal future by responding to the Lord (or failing to do so). There is much more about this at the site; here are a few links to get you started:

The Nature of Angels

Satan's Character

Spiritual Warfare

And thank you for your encouragement and good words.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Something just caught my eye concerning the cohabitation with fallen angels in Genesis chapter six. Since the earth was flooded thereafter and not completely destroyed, is it still possible for that act with fallen angels to take place today? Curious-

God's Blessings on your day

Response #2:

Well, angels, including fallen angels, were not affected by any physical development including the great flood – they cannot be physically harmed since they have no physical bodies. What did happen to the offenders of Genesis six, however, was their imprisonment in the Abyss (1st Peter 3:19-20a; 2nd Peter 2:4-10a; Jude 1:5-7), and the example the Lord made of them by so imprisoning them apparently has brought this sort of conduct to an end (cf. Lk.8:31). Antichrist and the ten kings of Revelation are the only apparent exceptions.

For the details on all this, please see the following links:

Giants and Nephilim

The Paternal Origin of Antichrist (Satan's Seed)

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

The Nature of Angels

The Nephilim in Genesis 6

"The Nephilim" (in SR 5)

The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.

Antichrist and the Nephilim

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Eschatology Issues:  The Nephilim

Doubts about the Nephilim

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Greetings, Dr. Luginbill

Having read your on-line Satanic Rebellion publication, I have a few questions that I wonder if you would mind answering for me. The first one is in regard to your evaluation of Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit and Adam’s subsequent decision to do the same as recounted in Genesis 3:1. In this evaluation you conclude that:

"When Adam returned to the center of the garden (after an enjoyable day of observing and classifying Eden's flora and fauna, no doubt), his expectation of another blissful homecoming to the woman he so adored was quickly overturned." and that "The state she must have been in when Adam came home we can scarcely imagine." prior to the moment that Eve "gave [some of the fruit] also to her husband with her (italics added) and he ate".

Most explanations that I have heard regarding the passage of scripture in question conclude that Adam was at least nearby (if not standing right next to Eve) during the entire event as a plain reading of "to her husband with her" seems to suggest. May I ask how you came to the conclusion that Adam was not physically present with Eve when she had the conversation with the serpent and subsequently ate of the fruit?

My other question is with regard to your explanation of the Nephilim in Part 5 of your publication. Earlier (in Part One, I believe) you explained that the angels were purely spiritual beings who were/are fascinated with the prospect of possessing corporeal bodies. If this is the case, then may I ask how Satan's volunteers to attack the purity of the human line (and create the Nephilim) managed to introduce themselves to, mate with, and procreate by the "women of their choosing" since they lacked tangible/physical bodies with which they could accomplish these acts? My reading of scripture leads me to believe that only the Lord God can create ex nihilo; so it seems to me that these spiritual creations (demons) could not create life or the ingredients of fertility that they would need to implant within a woman in order to create the Nephilim. Likewise, if they took spiritual possession of men for the purpose of said procreation by women, would not the resultant offspring still be the "seed of man"?

I have not yet read all of your work; so please forgive me if I have missed the explanations to these questions that you may have provided elsewhere. Your time and consideration of my questions would be greatly appreciated.

Response #3:

Good to make your acquaintance. As to your questions, first, it seems to me that the most natural way of taking the situation described in Genesis chapter three is that Adam was not present. To assume that he sat idly and silently by while Eve had this extended and extensive conversation with the serpent strains all credulity. I think that this point of view stems entirely from a misunderstanding of what "to her husband with her" means and can mean in Hebrew (as well as to what it does not necessarily mean here, viz., that he had been there all along). Here is another link to a discussion about this issue and passage: "Genesis Questions III" (*see Q/A #8).

On the nephilim, this is a legitimate and often asked question. It is important to remember two things from the start: 1) these passages, Genesis chapter six and the New Testament passages which refer to this event (1Pet.2:4-10; 2Pet.3:19-20; Jude 1:5-7), state unequivocally that this is indeed what did happen (even if it offends the sensibilities of some moderns). We may add Genesis 3:15: the beast can only be Satan's "seed" through this very same procedure, whatever the specifics; 2) Angels can and do affect material phenomena all the time; there are many examples of this (demon possession and the destruction of Job's family and possessions, just to name a couple of irrefutable instances). Given that (fallen) angels can produce significant material effects in ways that mystify us, and given that the passages which comment on the nephilim very clearly make them offspring of angelic-human unions (absent questionable interpretive gymnastics, at any rate), we should believe the truth of scripture even though the hows and wherefores are left (necessarily) murky.

One further point I would like to make on this score, one I usually bring up in such discussions, is that although angels are "spiritual beings" or "spirits", that does not mean that they are insubstantial (see the link: "The Nature of Angels"). They are creatures. They have free will. They occupy one place at a time. They have to move physically from point A to point B to change location. They can occupy specific places (even people, in demon possession). They can be restrained and confined (as in the Abyss). They have shape and individuated shape at that, so as to be recognizable for who they are. Clearly, their "spirit" is more akin to the human spirit we each possess than to the "spirit" which God "is". Whatever the nature or essence of the "immaterial" part of our being and their (entire) being, it is not without substance, even if it lacks corporeality.

Thus, the traditional duality in which secular philosophy views this issue is fundamentally flawed, and we must not allow such a flawed view to dictate terms about what scripture actually says apart from such non-biblical theories. Finally, producing biological entities is not on the same plain with creation ex nihilo. The true miracle of life is God's creation of a spirit for all spiritual creatures at their birth. That is the miracle which no one but God can perform. What the case was with the nephilim in this regard, we cannot say. God could have allowed them to come out stillborn. But then, He certainly could do the same with antichrist – He will not. Many things have and will happen in human history which we may not understand and of which, in our ignorance of the details of the plan of God, we would not approve. But we know that our God is working all things out together for good for those who love Him. And that has to be good enough for us to accept in faith all He has said in His Word and all He does in the world.

"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
Matthew 26:53-54 NIV

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: "Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me."
Job 38:1-3 NKJV

The more we do learn about the details He does give us in scripture, moreover, the more all these things come to make perfect sense, all things (biblically and spiritually) considered. There is much more about the Plan of God in respect of free will at the following link: in BB 4B: "God's Plan to Save You."

Do feel free to write me back about any of the above.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #4:

Good day Dr Luginbill

I have a few questions today about the end times. Jesus our Lord said "As in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the last days"

1. Genesis 6 talks about sons of God who looked down from heaven (2nd heaven I suppose) and saw daughters of men and took some of them as wives, so am I correct in saying these were physical beings (of extraterrestrial origin) that is why they were able to have intercourse with human women ? Or were they pure spirit beings and if they were how were they able to have intercourse with human women?

2. The nephilim /giants born out of that unholy union, were they all destroyed in the flood which soon followed? If so how come we see Goliath later on in scripture? Also the anakims the sons of anak said to be giants appear in various scripture like Numbers 13:33, Duet 1:28 etc

3. Are the sons of God coming back again in these last days to create the nephilim as they did before, as Jesus said it will be same as in Noah’s days?

4. Are demons fallen angels or are demons the departed spirits of the nephilim?

I would love to know your take on this matter as it is somewhat confusing for me

Kind regards

Response #4:

Good to hear from you again.

As to your questions, I have written about this in pretty good detail at a variety of places at Ichthys, and will give you the links below. That said, as to your questions:

1) The "sons of God" are angels, fallen angels in this context to be precise. Exactly how they did what they did scripture does not tell us, but we do know that angels, especially fallen angels who are violating God's laws and natural order, are capable of many things that are, to the human way of looking at things, "supernatural" (for example, the bands of demons who destroyed Job's flocks and family with wind, fire, and the motivation of hostile human beings). We don't know "how" but we do know "that" (as is clear from NT commentaries on this passage: 1st Peter 3:19-20a; 2nd Peter 2:4-10a; Jude 1:5-7).

2) Yes. The nephilim were all destroyed in the flood and there have apparently been none since – with the exception of antichrist and probably also his "ten kings" (see the link). The report of the spies in the book of Numbers comes from cowardly non-believers whose discouraging words were instrumental in getting the people to rebel against Moses and the Lord and which resulted in another 40 years of desert wandering with that generation being wiped out and not being allowed to enter the land – so we need to consider the source of the comment. These cowards wanted to make the "worst case" for the people so as to dissuade them. The Anakim were human beings, albeit very large ones, as was Goliath. In this country we have a good number of NBA players who are seven feet tall – whereas the average height of the Exodus generation was probably somewhat more than two feet less (judging from what we know from ancient history and the archaeology of the Greek and Roman world). So these individuals were not really "giants"; they were exceptionally large human beings.

3) Apparently so in the case of antichrist (and possibly some of his main confederates ruling the seven/ten kingdoms). Our Lord's analogy in Matthew 24:37 applies to the swiftness of the destruction of the wicked; that is the point of comparison. Nothing else from Noah's day applies.

4) The terms "demons" and "fallen angels" are synonyms (the former is a biblical term; the later is never used in scripture: demons are called "angels" but not "fallen angels"; that is a term of convenience we use to make the distinction between the two sides clear).

I hope you find the above helpful! You can find much more at the following links:

Giants and Nephilim

The Nephilim in Genesis 6

"The Nephilim" (in SR 5)

The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.

Antichrist and the Nephilim

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Eschatology Issues:  The Nephilim

Doubts about the Nephilim

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #5:

Hello!

Does the Bible say or comment about the existence of monsters? Things like the manticore or the cockatrice? I thought that maybe the angelic rebellion during the flood might have had something to do with it, since I did read about angels mixing with animals as well. Is this where these legends come from? Could fallen angels have made these monsters to terrorize people?

Response #5:

Good to make your acquaintance. While I don't know of any Bible version that ever used the word "manticore", it is true that the KJV uses the word "cockatrice" several times (Is.11:8; 14:29; 59:5), but in all these instances the Hebrew has various words for snakes. KJV was peculiar in this respect. It also uses "unicorn" where "wild ox" is meant in Hebrew (see the link), as well as "giants" (for the nephilim; see the link), and "dragons" (for great sea creatures; see the link).

You probably have a point about the evil one and his minions being involved in distributing this sort of information. Anything that conflicts with the truth is ultimately helpful to the devil's cause – for he is the father of all lies (Jn.8:44). This sort of misinformation is often to be found where anything smacking of the supernatural or other-worldly is concerned. As to any actual such creatures, I have opined in the past that the dinosaurs quite possible are the result of satanic experimentation in the period after Satan's rebellion and before God's resulting judgment on the universe (see the link). Dinosaur fossils were the subject of much speculation even in antiquity, and it is not uncommon for human beings to take a smidgen of truth and weave it into a tapestry of mythological fancy (see the links: "Paganism, Idolatry, Mythology and the Occult" and "Are there biblical origins to mythology?").

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #6:

Hi Bob. Coincidentally I had been discussing Genesis 6 with a friend, and it was in the next days chapter in Watchman Nees 'Ye Search The Scriptures'. Very interesting interpretation concerning the appearance of the Nephilim. Are there references of a feminine nature, to angelic beings crossing the line into earthly creation? Or is it because of Wisdom:-) It appears to be a pretty masculine disobedience with 'sons of G-D ', Eve aside.

Response #6:

There do seem to be female angels. See the links:

Are there female angels?

More on Female Angels

Angelic Issues III: Demons, Satan, Elders, Female Angels and Guardians.

The Nature of Angels: Are there Female Angels?

Problems with Female Angels?

However, their role in the conflict in the midst of which human history is playing out is obscure. They do not seem to have played any part whatsoever in the events of Genesis six (none biblically revealed, at any rate). Here are some links on the Nephilim as well:

Fallen Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and the Devil's Methodology.

Giants and Nephilim

The Paternal Origin of Antichrist (Satan's Seed)

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

The Nature of Angels

The Nephilim in Genesis 6

"The Nephilim" (in SR 5)

The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.

Antichrist and the Nephilim

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Eschatology Issues:  The Nephilim

Doubts about the Nephilim

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #7:

Hello Bob,

My skeptical spouse wants to know how the fallen angels managed to procreate with the "daughters of men" given that angels are sexless?

Can you help?

Kind regards,

Response #7:

Angels to do not produce other angels (and there is nothing in scripture to suggest that they ever have: Matt.20:30; Mk.12:35), but the record of what happened in Genesis six is very clear (I think you have those links but I'm happy to resend them).

However, angels are not "sexless". Michael is a male as is Gabriel (hence the male names), and angels are described as "he" when gender is called for in the Hebrew or Greek grammar.

And there do seem to be female angels as well. Please see the links:

Are there Female Angels?

About Female Angels

Zechariah 5:9

Feel free to write me back about this!

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #8:

How did angels who are not material impregnate human woman?

Response #8:

Good to make your acquaintance.

The Bible doesn't say anything about the "how"; it only affirms that this is precisely what happened:

Now it came to pass that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (i.e., the fallen angels) noticed the daughters of men, that they were beautiful. So they took wives for themselves from all whom they selected.
Genesis 6:1-2

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and afterwards as well. For when the sons of God (i.e., the fallen angels) went in to the daughters of men, they bore to them those "mighty-ones" (i.e., the Nephilim) whose names are famous from ancient times.
Genesis 6:4

It was also by means of the Spirit that [Christ] visited the [angelic] spirits in prison (i.e., in the Abyss), and proclaimed [His victory]. [These are the angels who] were disobedient in the days of Noah at the time when God patiently waited (i.e., delayed judgment) while the ark was being built.
1st Peter 3:19-20a

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but plunged them into Tartarus with its gloomy pits (i.e., the Abyss), preserving them for the [day of] judgment, and did not spare the antediluvian world, but kept safe Noah and the seven with him when He brought the flood upon the ungodly inhabitants of the world, and condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes and making them an example to those bent on similar ungodly behavior, and rescued righteous Lot who was tormented by the depraved lifestyle of those lawless men – for through the things he saw and heard just by dwelling among them this righteous man was damaging his righteous way of life day by day on account of their lawless deeds. For the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment – especially those who in their lust pursue the polluting of the flesh and so despise [God's] divine authority.
2nd Peter 2:4-10a

Although you know all these things, I want to remind you that though the Lord saved [all] His people from the land of Egypt at the first, in the end He destroyed those who proved unfaithful, and the angels who did not keep to their own realm but deserted their proper habitation He has imprisoned with everlasting chains in the gloom below (i.e., in the Abyss) in anticipation of the judgment of that great day, just as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring cities, for they all prostituted themselves in the same manner as these [angels] did, having pursued sexual relations (lit. "flesh") that were inappropriate for them (i.e., outside of the natural order). [And so it is that] they have been appointed an example, and incurred the penalty of eternal fire.
Jude 1:5-7

This is all written up, explaining everything that the scriptures do say and answering to the degree possible all of these sorts of questions at the following links:

Tell me more about how the Nephilim came into being

How can the "sons of God" have relations with human women?

Satan's antediluvian attack on the purity of the human line (the Nephilim)

Fallen Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and the Devil's Methodology.

Giants and Nephilim

The Paternal Origin of Antichrist (Satan's Seed)

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

The Nature of Angels

The Nephilim in Genesis 6

The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.

Antichrist and the Nephilim

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Eschatology Issues:  The Nephilim

Doubts about the Nephilim

The Rephayim

Do feel free to write back if you have any further questions about the material in these links.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #9:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for making things understandable for me and clearing up some confusion from past teachings. But, in plain English (lol) - Genesis 6

1) How did the sons of God mate with earthly women, even if the women, chose freely to give themselves to them?

a. Those angels who ‘left their habitation’, how did they manifest to the inhabitants of earth?

b. If so, what ‘form’ did angels take to procreate with earthly women? i.e. - in a dream state or presented like better looking earthly men

I have been reading from your website, but I cannot find or understand the actual ‘path the angels took’ to change from ‘spirit to matter’ to procreate?

Considering Jesus, after His resurrection, said for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me having. Even if we are to be like the angels in heaven, not given to marriage, does that imply, the spirit being kind (flesh) could mate with human kind (flesh) but that was prohibited, but possible? Shape-shifters? Does that make sense, considering Satan promising angels a fleshly body for their spirit to dwell?

Response #9:

Fallen Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and the Devil's Methodology.

Giants and Nephilim

The Paternal Origin of Antichrist (Satan's Seed)

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

The Nature of Angels

The Nephilim in Genesis 6

"The Nephilim" (in SR 5)

The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.

Antichrist and the Nephilim

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Eschatology Issues:  The Nephilim

Doubts about the Nephilim

Question #11:

Thank you so much for your quick and thorough response. I have been a life long Christian and have struggled in walk all my life. At my deepest core I believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for all sin, and was resurrected. The bible is the only existing masterpiece that is a perfect map for life. I love God. I do not love me. I am anything but a good Christian. My flaws pain me to no end and I struggle everyday.

[details omitted]

The collective grey is a man made name for demons. You know, the ones that are depicted on tv as grey aliens with the big black eyes. I have assumed they are the demons that were cast down from heaven. The nephilim destroyed by the flood. Their skeletons are on the web. They were massive. Why isn't this in the news? Why is evolution lying so openly about carbon dating? Millions of years? Are they kidding? Carbon is good for ten thousand years at best. I believe we are so close to the end. I just know I haven't done enough of what God wanted me to do. I have felt that way most of my life.

Response #11:

Thanks for sharing your story. You have certainly had a challenging life. I do want you to know and remember that the Lord Jesus loves you, and that His love is better and more important than the love of the entire world.

As I often remind readers, as believers in Jesus Christ, we don't have to worry about tomorrow – that is the day when He will return and all of our troubles will melt way in glory; we don't have to worry about today – no matter how high the waves or how deep the boat is riding in the water, He is with us here in the boat and will not let us sink; and we must not worry about yesterday – He has forgiven us all of our sins and continues to do so whenever we confess them to Him in prayer. If Jesus has left us here in the world, it is for a reason, and that reason involves today, not yesterday or tomorrow. Today is a day to serve Him.

Of course we all take stock. Of course we all plan. But we really do need to master the essential technique of the Christian walk of taking it one day at a time. Whatever our past failures or disappointments, the only way they can effect the equation is if we focus on them today instead of doing what we can and what we ought to do today. And whatever our past successes, if we focus on them instead of what we ought to be doing today we are only going to compromise them by proving deficient in the fight at hand.

I see you as a prize of the grace of God. Paul persecuted the Church in all sorts of terrible ways so that if any Christian ever had a reason to feel guilty about the past and let that compromise his focus on the present it was the greatest apostle. But what does he say?

Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.
Philippians 3:13-15 NIV

Peter denied Christ – three times – after pledging he would never do so. This is far worse than whatever guilt about the past most of us can dredge up. John had his moments too (e.g., Matt.20:20-24; Lk.9:54-55). But these three greatest of the apostles did not let their past failures dominate their thinking. Instead, they fought the fight day by day and left us a perfect example of how to proceed: keep moving forward spiritually every day by learning and believing the truth of the Word of God; to the glory of our Savior keep walking with Jesus day by day in applying the truth learned to the testing, trials and troubles every day brings; keep helping others do likewise through the service Christ assigns that matches the gifts we have been given. In so doing we will earn rewards that glorify our Master forever and delight us for all eternity (see the link).

(35) So do not throw away this conviction of yours – it leads to a great reward. (36) You need to keep persevering so that you may carry off in victory what has been promised – after you have accomplished God's will. (37) For yet a little while, how short, how [short the wait], and He who is coming shall come, nor will He delay. (38) "Then shall my righteous one live by his faith, but if he shrinks back, My heart takes no pleasure in him (Hab.2:3-4)." (39) Now we are not possessed of cowardly apostasy which leads to destruction, but we have faith which leads to [eternal] life.
Hebrews 10:35-39

In confident hope of your perseverance, production and reward on that great day of days. Here is a link which you may find helpful (and which will lead to other related links): In Need of Guidance and Encouragement.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #12:

Dr.

Thank you for responding to all my emails and your quick response is very helpful in my walk with Christ. I have a question in reference to Nephilim and Anak. This question came up during my study of CT Anti-Christ and paternal origins.

I thought all Nephilim were destroyed during the flood Gen 6:4 but in Numbers 13:33 when the Israelite scouts came back with their report on the land of Canaan, they mentioned giants in the line of Nephilim. Can you explain how that can occur? I know it can because the bible says so but in terms of how can giants repopulate the earth after the flood when Noah and his family were not giants.

Thank you for your assistance.

Response #12:

You are most welcome. It's a pleasure to be of help to my brothers and sisters in Christ. As to your question here, the answer is found in your own correct assessment of the situation: "when the Israelite scouts came back with their report on the land of Canaan, they mentioned giants".

Who were these scouts? They were the ten who did not trust God and who gave a "bad report" that resulted in the people rebelling against Moses and against the Lord, then refusing to enter the land (which resulted in 40 years of wandering in the desert). So should we take what terrible sinners say as "the truth"? The Bible records what these individuals really did say, but did they speak the truth? It is clear that they were trying to dissuade the people from doing God's will and entering the land. What better way than to characterize the inhabitants of the land as "nephilim" – or (as they did) actually say that they were "nephilim"? They were not. The ten scouts lied. Neither Joshua nor Caleb, who were also on the expedition, call these people "nephilim", and they are confident that the land could indeed be successfully conquered. That is significant. For if these inhabitants really were "super-men", then of course it would be impossible for the Israelites to fight with them, being mere humans. They were not, however, "nephilim" (even if some of them were tall of stature – that is not the same as being half-angelic in one's genes). For more on this, please see the link: "nephilim and repha'iym".

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #13:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

It is amazing to me how much of your time you give to respond in such length and depth to emails, including my own. I have never encountered anything like it. You respond with equal effort to both well-written emails about complex biblical topics and poorly written emails with bad grammar which deal with seemingly melodramatic personal issues. It is wonderful, but I can't imagine how anyone such as yourself with a fully developed life and career finds time to do what you do. Your vast grasp of biblical knowledge obviously makes your counseling a sought-after commodity, which must be overwhelming. I thank you for your response to my previous emails.

In your response to my last email, you mentioned a possibility of other websites like your own (bold purple below in attached email). I am not looking for others, as I have not yet absorbed even half of what your website has to offer, but I am curious as to whether you have any actual knowledge of any site with even a remote similarity to your own. I searched for such a source for over two years before finding Ichthys, and have never run into anything even slightly comparable. I have seen your biographical section mentioning some of your primary earlier influences; but other than those, is there anyone you are aware of that has both similar views and a similar level of knowledge to yourself?

Now, here is a question I have for you regarding what you write in the section of Ichthys, "The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six". You write:

As to the "bigfoot" issue, unless they could tread water for six months (and only aquatic creatures can do that), anything of animal life to survive the flood had to have been in the ark. All these creatures "came to Noah" (Gen.7:15), so that the selection of individuals and of species was entirely God-made. Therefore the chance of any taint of this angelic seed still existing on earth is impossible - that was the whole reason for the universal flood, i.e., not only to irreversibly and entirely eradicate this monstrous group, but also to make clear to posterity that they had been dramatically and unquestionably destroyed by God Himself.

Did the Nephilim reappear after the flood?

I know you are well aware of the following verses. I just quoted them for reference:

In Gen 6:4, it says this: "There were giants (nephiyl) 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." "Also after that" could mean anything, I suppose, but the most plain and logical meaning to me seems to indicate after the flood.

And in Num 13:33: "And 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." Giants - same word as in Gen 6:4 (Strong's H5303 - nephiyl). To me at least, this clearly indicates the presence of the same creatures, i.e. "Nephilim", after the flood. I don't see any other way to interpret this verse without disbelieving the bible, but maybe I'm missing a translational issue?

It also seems to me that a lot of the battles that Moses and Joshua were engaged in had to do with clearing the land of giants. True, all were called "rapha" rather than "nephiyl" other than in Num 13:33. However, according to Deut 2:11, the Anakim were Raphaim. If the Anakim were Nephilim (Num 13:33) and the Anakim were also Raphaim (Deut 2:11) then at least some, if not all, Nephilim were also Raphaim. Possibly, Raphaim was another name for Nephilim. The bible does directly say there were other names for the "giants" (Raphaim); Emim (Deut 2:11), Zamzummin (Deut 2:20),etc; so it would fit that pattern. At the least the Nephilim and the Raphaim were related groups.

I am not one of those who has an inordinate fascination with the "dark side" - in fact, it frightens me to delve too deeply into that direction. And I also have a healthy fear of vain speculation not based on scripture. But I have had a thought which seems not to contradict scripture and I wonder if in your opinion it is scripturally possible. I am not the scholar that you are, so please don't judge too harshly any glaring weaknesses in my train of thought.

Here is the first theory:

We know that Noah was perfect in his generations, because the bible says so, but I have not seen where it says that his wife or sons or sons' wives were equally pure. Could his wife (and therefore possibly one or some of his sons) have had impure genetics? You say all creatures "came to Noah", and the bible does say that of the animals, but where does it say the the wife "came to Noah"? Could not Noah have "gone to" (chosen) her? Gen 6:9 says that Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. It does not say the same of his wife. Must he have chosen an equally "perfect" woman? Could not God have chosen to save mankind by saving Noah's entire family, including a wife with impure genes - if genetic interplay between Noah and his wife had created at least one or more sons with "perfect generations"?

In Gen 9:21, Noah was "uncovered". In Gen 9:22, Ham "sees" his father's "nakedness". From what I can understand of Lev 18:8 and Lev 20:11, a man's "nakedness" is his wife. Moreover, "uncovering" a man's "nakedness" equals having sex with the man's wife. Is it possible that, while Noah was passed out drunk, Ham slept with or raped his own mother, Noah's wife? Could that be the underlying meaning of these strange verses? Gesenius' Lexicon connotations for Strong's H1540 (Gen 9:21 "uncovered" - galah) combined with Strong's H6172 (Gen 9:22 "nakedness" - ervah) seem to lend credence to this idea, but does your knowledge of Hebrew support that? While my research led me to this conclusion independently, I did find a couple references online to others who have similar ideas, but this theory seems to be not widely known.

The following second theory is pure speculation, all my own, and based entirely upon the veracity of the preceding theory (above).

If perhaps Noah's wife had a recessive "giant" (or Nephiyl) gene, and her son Ham also had a recessive "giant" (or Nephiyl) gene, could the resulting offspring of this union (if any; possibly Canaan) be Nephiyl? Could that account for the reason that Noah cursed Canaan instead of the actual perpetrator, Ham? Two possibilities present themselves if the first theory is true: 1) Noah cursed Canaan because Canaan was the offspring was the product of an improper sexual episode between Ham and Noah's wife, and/or 2) the offspring of this union (Canaan) was discernibly different (wrong) in appearance because he was Nephiyl.

Num 13:17 says that the Anakim (Nephilim that they were) were dwelling in the land of (and [verse seems to indicate?] descendants of) Canaan. According to Gen 14 and 15, Raphaim were also descendants of Canaan, additionally described as such in Gesenius' Lexicon. Moreover, going back to the reappearance of "giants" after the flood, all mentions of Nephilim or Raphaim in the bible which allude to their respective origins (other than in Genesis) point to Canaan.

Some of the battles fought by the Israelites under the divine guidance of God against different groups of people came with specific directions to completely wipe out all men, women, children, even animals. To me this fits perfectly with an extermination campaign of genetically contaminated creatures.

Before ever seeing your website I had come to exactly the same conclusion as you regarding the likely means and timing of the origin of dinosaurs. That was one of the reasons I first became interested in reading more. As I read on, I found (and still find) only more points of agreement every day. It is a real validation to find my partially-birthed thoughts already fully incubated by such an educated man of God as yourself and handed to me neatly packaged (not to mention such a huge wealth of biblical information in countless other areas - I have jumped light years ahead in knowledge and understanding with your website!). Therefore it was somewhat surprising to find that your opinion on this topic differed substantially from mine (not to imply in any way mine is the correct one). I know my last theory is pure conjecture, and as such not more than a possibility, if that. But for Num 13:33 to be true there must have been a means of re-entry of the Nephiyl gene, and this was one explanation I felt was at least plausible. As you said, any surviving animal life (and therefore any remnant of angelic seed) had to have been on the ark.

I am curious to know what you think, if anything, of these theories. But please know that I understand time is precious (especially living in L.A., capital of "running to and fro"), so I certainly would never expect a reply to a non-essential matter such as this. While your responses are highly valued, I just wanted to throw this out there in case you found anything of interest in this alternative view.

Thanks so much once again for sharing your gift with believers.

Response #13:

Very good to hear from you again, and thanks so much as always for your kind and encouraging words. As to your first set of observations, I assure you I am not perfect on this score, but it is a biblical mandate, especially for pastors, to accept all of our brothers and sisters in Christ, not just the sheep who have marking we like and bleat the way we like, etc. (e.g., Rom.12:16; Jas.2:1-13). Our Lord died for all, and wants all to be saved, and wants all who are saved to be fed so as to be able to grow up spiritually in every respect (Jn.21:15-17).

As to similar websites, to be honest I can't give you much additional guidance on that. I do have a few other things listed on the Bible links pages, but these are of widely divergent quality and perspective, even within this sphere of doing some positive things (so while I list them for convenience, it's not by way of unconditional endorsement). I certainly hope there are other sites out there of spiritual quality, and we do also have to make allowance for different tastes (e.g., it is conceivable that some sites might be "good" but not one's particular "cup of tea"), but we are living in the era of Laodicea so that lukewarmness in both teaching and interest in teaching the Word of God is the rule rather than the exception. One thing I can heartily recommend without reservation is pastor teacher Curtis Omo's Bible Academy channel on YouTube (it is really first rate, and is growing rapidly day by day; see the link).

As to your next set of questions:

1) "after that". It's an interesting idea. While I can't rule it out, I think the fact that this comment is situated smack in the middle of the discussion of the pre-flood situation moors it securely to that time period. In my view, this bit is added after the "120 years" comment to make clear that this was not a one time thing but a situation that endured throughout the century plus preceding the flood. That is to say, "[both at this specific time and] after that [through the entire period before the flood]" is what I take the phrase to mean: i.e., just because God pronounced His displeasure and an impending judgment in the future did not stop humans and fallen angels from continuing this behavior. Also from the other side of the issue, if this were speaking about the time after the flood, more specificity would be needed here as well (i.e., I think that would need to be spelled out more clearly by the Hebrew in order to mean this).

2) On Numbers 13:33, it is true what you say, however, Numbers is, in this section, a historical book, and it is accurately recording what was said. Who makes this comment? It is none other than the ten cowardly spies who are responsible with their bad report for convincing the people to rebel and refuse to enter the land (resulting in the 40 years of wandering). These individuals had certainly heard from Moses about the Nephilim (the book of Genesis had been written by Moses around this time). What better way to dissuade their fellows from doing something they felt too dangerous for God to handle than by calling the people of the land (some of whom were apparently of impressive stature) "nephilim"? The fact that people who opposed God's will and who were wrong about everything else call these individuals "nephilim", does not, therefore, make them "nephilim". This is a biblical version of the "historical fallacy" (we see this sort of thing also with the book of Acts in particular). I.e., just because biblical characters did or said something does not necessarily mean that God is approving of what they did or affirming the truth of what they said; it only means that through scripture we can say that they actually did do and say as it is recorded. Please see the link: "nephilim and repha'iym".

3) On the "gene" theory, if we did need to explain the above point in an alternative way, this is certainly an inventive approach to doing so. One complication, however, is the problem of the virgin birth – actually, of the virgin conception. Besides the sign that it provided, it was necessary for our Lord Jesus to be born of woman only and not of man because of the need to avoid having the sin nature, which is passed down by the male, in His earthly body. Adam's sin of cognizance versus Eve's sin of ignorance earned him that dubious privilege. However, if only Noah had been perfect in his generations, it is hard to see how the entire human race would not have been corrupted through cross-fertilization over thousands of years with these partially non-human genes (assuming that this is how it worked – what I don't know about these biological processes is a lot, and, frankly, no one knows precisely how the fallen angels accomplished siring the nephilim). For even if such genes were recessive, there would still be a contamination – which ought to mean that by now none of us could be completely human (and that is a problem for the Messiah). Besides, God went to a great deal of trouble to wipe out the entire pre-flood population. It is hard to see how that was necessary if we were all going to be corrupted in our humanity in any case. The whole situation of Genesis chapter six seems to me to point to the flood as the "cure" for what had been happening on earth – but it's only a cure if the disease is completely eradicated. After all, the fallen angels involved were enchained in the Abyss as punishment – no doubt not only to prevent such behavior on their part in the future, but also to head off any other fallen angels from even thinking about following suit – and it is also hard to see how that was necessary if we were already corrupted stock anyway (there will be / is in process of being an exception: antichrist, and possibly also his ten king coterie; see the link).

After such a nice "build up" by you, I fear that the above is more concise than you might have expected. Please do feel free to write me back about any of this.

And thanks so much for catching that typo! I'm always appreciative when readers find these for me.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #14:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I hope all is well with you and that your ministry is continuing to thrive.

I wanted to ask you about the condemnation of the off the offspring of the fallen angels and humans mentioned in Genesis 6. Jesus said that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. Is there another place for the Nephilim? I believe it's 2 Peter where it mentions that the angels that sinned are chained in a special place (Tartarus?). Is there also a special place for the Nephilim? Are they (Nephilim) all just now disembodied spirits roaming this earth causing trouble or are some of them in torment in a special place? Thanks!

God Bless,

Response #14:

It's a very good question. First, it is safe to say that the Nephilim are not disembodied spirits. In God's economy, there is never any such thing. If they are still in existence at all (as I suspect they are), then they are in hell (Torments). For since they are hybrids, and more human than angel in that they have human bodies which angels do not have, hell/torments is the logical place for them rather than the Abyss. "Death and Hades" give up the dead within them before the last judgment, and that would include the Nephilim in my best judgment. Scripture does not say, specifically, so we shall have to wait on events for the particulars, but it is the case that antichrist is cast into the lake of fire at the second advent, and he is most certainly a Nephilim, the (literal) son of the devil. If that is the case for him, it is most likely the case for the other Nephilim as well. The theological problem I would want to know more about is with the issue of the human spirit. I understand (in theory) how fallen angels might manipulate human DNA and produce offspring (the Genesis gap fauna seems to have been subject to their "experiments"), but the implanting of the spirit at birth is something about which I would like more information. Only God can provide a spirit, and that is true for animals as well as people, and He does so at birth. I think we have to conclude, in the absence of any specific scriptural information, that the dinosaurs (assuming as I do that they likely were the result of angelic manipulation) and also the Nephilim were given spirits as part of God's plan. Otherwise, they would have been still-born even if biologically viable (the best analogy I have here is His granting of life to those He knows will reject Him, including all unbelievers and fallen angels). Having a spirit as a human being – even if only half human – renders the "person" liable to judgment for failure to seek God's mercy in Jesus Christ, with the result that they are all in hell now, awaiting final condemnation. For, being half angelic (and of fallen angelic parentage at that), the Nephilim were never going to submit to God. That should not be particularly surprising when one considers that the vast majority of the human race has taken the same exact course – and without the influence of any such intervention by fallen angels. The lies of the devil are every bit as toxic as his direct influence when they fall on selfish and hardened hearts.

In Jesus our dear Lord who became human to save us from our sins,

Bob L.

Question #15:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

Thanks for the response. I mentioned the Nephilim as disembodied spirits because I read somewhere that they had bodies and were destroyed in the flood. So their bodies were destroyed leaving them as spirits without bodies. I read in several commentaries that Satan tried to pollute the bloodline by crossing fallen angelic beings with humans, which is why the bible says that Noah was "perfect" in his generations, and one of the reasons why he and his family wasn't destroyed in the flood. One commentary stated that the final empire that will devour the world will be a hybrid empire. The commentary even went so far as to state that they will claim to be from other planets and our creators. This is supposedly part of the strong delusion in the last days and will cause a great falling away. The problem I had with the commentary was that if the final kingdom is fallen angelic, why do so many bible scholars say that the final empire is the revived Roman empire?

God Bless,

Response #15:

I have written on the last part of this extensively (i.e., the nine part Coming Tribulation series, some thousand pages of single spaced text), so for the details have a look at the link, but I will attempt to give you the gist of it here.

I have never yet come across any commentary or teaching ministry that has all of it correct. One of the main problems with most systems of trying to understand the end times and the book of Revelation is the failure to distinguish Babylon (the home country of the beast) from Revived Rome (the power-base of his empire in addition to Babylon). These are both real, geographic entities (North America and Europe respectively), and they are led by human beings – at least partially so (antichrist is a nephilim as most likely the ten kings of Revived Rome and the South, conquered in the first half of the Tribulation, are as well). For why the European empire is Revived Rome, please see the links: "The Seizure of Revived Rome" and "Babylon as distinct from Revived Rome".

Anytime anyone starts talking about "outer space", it's a very good idea to sneak out the back door just as quickly as possible – because you have most certainly wandered into the wrong place. I know of no Christian or Christian group that would make such a claim. JW's might. Scientologists might. Mormons might. Genuine Christians . . . never (I would hope).

As to Noah, yes, it is very true that he was "perfect in his generations" meaning he was fully human along with the rest of his family, and that statement indicates that the rest of the antediluvian civilization had become genetically corrupt. However, when any unbeliever dies, they are taken to Torments and, as with every believer, receive an interim body. This is analogous to the resurrection where believers receive a permanent and eternal body designed for blessing. Unbelievers (including the corrupt generation of Noah's day) are also resurrected at the end of history, but to "a resurrection of judgment" (Jn.5:29). Human beings, once given life by God, are never disembodied again. For most it is a sequence of physical body (whether human or Nephilim), interim body after death (whether in heaven or Torments), resurrection (whether for eternal life or damnation). Disembodiment is the stuff of mythology, not the Bible.

Always good to hear from you, my friend! Hope all is going well.

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.　

Question #16:

Shalom Bob,

HOPE all is well!!!

As I have been pouring over your thesis on the Nephilim and a suggested cohabitation between angles and mortal women before the Noah’s flood – and respective of Gen. 6:1-2 (cited below) alleged angelic cohabitation account, I humbly ask you to kindly answer for me my following questions at your convenience.

Now it came to pass that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (i.e., the fallen angels) noticed the daughters of men, that they were beautiful. So they took wives for themselves from all whom they selected.
Genesis 6:1-2

First and foremost, why would rebellious fallen angels agree to "marry" mortal women in compliance with the righteous moral requirements of God’s Law - seeing that marriage itself is a designed institution of God?

Mark 10:6-8 (KJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Meanwhile, "marriage" in and of itself implies an ongoing and progressive relationship. Thus, marriage by its very design is/was not intended to simply be a brief one and done event. Hence, an ongoing relationship over a period of time. To this end, "Can you then PLEASE cite for me ANY "UNSPECULATIVE" evidential Scripture(s) whatsoever from the entire Bible itself where a FALLEN angel(s) has ever made a visible physical bodily intrusion into the mortal human realm – remaining for an extended period of time, in that said visible physical bodily form, that will unequivocally validate your above suggested hypothesis and theological claim that angels have indeed married mortal women and had martial relationships?" Going forwards, you cite Jude 1:5-7 as further NT proof of angel/human cohabitation. However, the CONTEXT of Jude 1:4-8 simply list four separate but distinct "warning examples" for disobedience to God and cites as examples former rebellious individuals who will ultimately suffer the coming judgment and wrath of God for their sinful behaviors. I cannot see any DIRECT COMPARISON respective of the "causal" reasoning for each sin in the stated examples - other than each one committed types of abominable provocations against God, and likewise each will equally suffer God’s coming retribution.

1. "...how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."

2. "...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."

3. "...Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.

4. "...these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities...the Lord will come and destroy..."

To suggest that the warning example causal fornication sins of Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 1:7 are directly comparable to the warning example sins of the fallen angels of Jude 1:6 – and each are causal and directly related to "fornication and going after strange flesh" is reading into the actual CONTEXT of these two suggested passages a preconceived biased theoretical opinion that may not actually be true. To this end, Jude 1:7 simply states respective of the phrase "cities about them in like manner" is grammatically referring to the immediate sentence antecedent cities of "Sodom and Gomorrha. Thus, it was the surrounding cites who also in LIKE MANNER as Sodom and Gomorrah - equally gave themselves over to fornication and the going after of strange flesh. (see cited below)

Jude 1:7 (KJV)
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.

Thus, one can easily stand the argument that the "CAUSAL" sins of each of the four Jude 1:5-8 events have no correlations whatsoever – other than to provoke the coming vengeance and judgment of God for their individual sins. Thus, the above cited two warning examples of Jude 1:6-7 are no more DIRECTLY COMPARABLE in context than the two following simple examples: the grammatical logic and sentence structure goes like this.

Johnny threw the ball and knocked out the window. -------------------------- Angels left first estate/habitation and will suffer God’s coming wrath/judgment

Tommy and Bill, and their friends in like manner, shot the air-rifle and knocked out the window ------------ Sodom/Gomorrah and cities around them in like manner, committed fornication/strange flesh and will suffer God’s coming wrath/judgment

As you can easily see the only commonality between the two statements that is directly comparable is that in each of the two noted events – both succeeded to KNOCK OUT THE WINDOW. Hence, such is the case with Jude 1:6-7 the only direct comparable commonality between the two warning events is that in each – they both have succeeded in provoking a coming judgment and wrath of Yahweh God upon themselves – ALL other "causal" content and context is a comparable "apple vs. orange" and therefore each are otherwise completely unequal.

Your kind response will be most appreciated.

Response #16:

The Hebrew of Genesis 6:1-2 merely says that the (fallen) angels "took women for themselves of all they chose". It doesn't actually say they "married" them. That is how a number of the versions render the passage because this is the phraseology that is often used of human marriage. However, the words themselves, Hebrew idiom taken into account, does not necessitate any sort of formal marriage ceremony, and that certainly isn't the meaning here in any case. Using the words "marriage" or "married" is an interpretation. If the translators of the versions in question understood what was going on here, they would never have used these words. Here is Young's "Literal Translation" of the passage:

and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen.
Genesis 6:2 YLT

The Septuagint, likewise, merely re-states in Greek what the Hebrew says, "took women for themselves" (rather than using the Greek verb for "marry"). Even if we did imagine some sort of a bizarre "marriage ceremony", it wouldn't change the meaning or the effect of what is going on here (after all, even today people engage in "marriages" which are not what God has in mind at all), This is also clearly represented in the New Testament passages which deal with this issue (1st Peter 3:19-20a; 2nd Peter 2:4-10a; Jude 1:5-7). What we have in Genesis six is (fallen) angelic cohabitation with human women. The race thus produced (the nephilim) necessitated the flood to preserve the human race from extinction (or from complete corruption which, given the need for a Messiah whose lineage was 100% human on His mother's side), would have amounted to even worse. What people who wish to quibble with scripture on this point often miss is that, namely, the great flood. Why was the flood necessary if there was nothing unusual going on? After all, there has been evil on earth, and evil people too, since Cain killed Abel, and will be until the end of the seven thousands years of human history (the last active of which will be the Gog-Magog rebellion against the perfect reign of the Messiah).

As to Jude (I notice you omit 1st Peter 3:19-20a and 2nd Peter 2:4-10a from consideration – but these passages are a critical part of the evidence), the Greek will not allow what you are suggesting here: the particle hos which cues the comparison at the beginning of verse seven is part of the same sentence of verse six, so that the comparison is direct: in the Greek, fallen angels violating their natural order are being directly compared with the inhabitants of Sodom violating their natural order: sexual in both instances.

You can find out more at the following links:

Fallen Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and the Devil's Methodology.

Giants and Nephilim

The Paternal Origin of Antichrist (Satan's Seed)

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

The Nature of Angels

The Nephilim in Genesis 6

"The Nephilim" (in SR 5)

The Origin and Fate of the "Giants" of Genesis Chapter Six.

Antichrist and the Nephilim

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, Noah, et al.

Eschatology Issues:  The Nephilim

Doubts about the Nephilim

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #17:

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for correcting me on Gen. 6:1-2 WOMEN rather than WIVES – I had never thought to question the translation and the actual meaning of the Hebrew "ishshah". THANK YOU!!!

Meanwhile, could you please be so kind as to cite for me any one, or more, specific Scriptures in the Bible that "directly" and "unambiguously" call ANGELS the Sons of God? PLEASE do not cite Gen. 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6; Job 2:1 and Job 38:7 because each of these noted Passages does not specifically declare ANGELS as SONS of GOD (that is inferred) – the individuals revealed in these Passages are merely called Sons of God. Once again, each of these above referenced Passages has no "direct" or "unambiguous" correlation to ANGELS of GOD specifically described as the SONS of GOD. Thus, I am looking for a "DIRECT" citation that clearly, without IMO or circumstantial implications, that clearly Scripturally states and defines an ANGEL(s) as the SONS of GOD.

Your kind response will be most appreciated.

Response #17:

You are very welcome. As to your question, consider the following verse:

"But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
Luke 20:35-36

In this verse, being "equal to the angels" means being one of the "sons of God" . . . just like the angels are.

I must say, however, that your supposition about the following verses which you asked me not to cite (Gen. 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6; Job 2:1 and Job 38:7), to wit, "because each of these noted Passages does not specifically declare ANGELS as SONS of GOD", that therefore we can't get a solid answer from them on this point is incorrect. Consider:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 1:6 NKJV

Since this verse mentions "the sons of God" as assembled before the Lord contemporaneously with the life of Job (i.e., during human history), obviously enough these have to be angels, not human beings who, at present, cannot travel to the third heaven in our physical bodies to appear before Him (nor were any human beings in His presence, even in interim state, before the resurrection and ascension of Christ; see the link). Furthermore, Satan is an angel, so that this is clearly an angelic convocation with which we have to do. Consider also:

"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Job 38:7 NKJV

In this verse also the time of the event necessitates "the sons of God" being angels, not human beings: human beings were not created until the sixth day of re-creation (when only two were created), whereas these "sons of God" rejoice at the sea being placed back under restraint, e.g. (v.38), and this happened on the third day of re-construction. Further, they are called "morning stars" as an alternative title (grammatical apposition), and angels are frequently referred to in this way, that is, as stars (e.g., Job 25:3; Ps.103:20-21; Is.40:26 w. Lk.2:13).

I would argue that the same sort of thing applies to your other "forbidden" passages as well. That is because the phrase "the sons of God" has to mean something, and it is the job of any biblical exegete considering any phrase in a particular passage to discover what that "something" is. Given the unique circumstances of all the passages in the Old Testament where this phrasing occurs, it would be inappropriate to assume even as a default that "the sons of God" are human beings unless proved otherwise. Indeed, I would say that prima facie the shoe would be on the other foot because of the supernatural circumstances in which these "sons of God" always appear. As it is, therefore, the short analysis given above is enough to demonstrate to anyone who has not already staked out a partisan position on the issue that the truth is as described: the sons of God in Genesis chapter six are (fallen) angels, as the New Testament passages in question make abundantly clear as well.

It was also by means of the Spirit that [Christ] visited the [angelic] spirits in prison . . .
1st Peter 3:19

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but plunged them into Tartarus with its gloomy pits . . .
2nd Peter 2:4

. . . and the angels who did not keep to their own realm but deserted their proper habitation He has imprisoned . . .
Jude 1:6 NKJV

The above is a brief rendition of the issues. Here are a couple of links where more details are available if desired:

Who are the "sons of God"?

The Beney ha-Elohiym in Genesis chapter six (in BB 2A)

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #18:

Hi Bob,

Suppose that I am a vain person, and I have wavy hair, and I want my hair to be perfectly straight. Now suppose that I am a geneticist and I can make my hair permanently straight by means of gene therapy, but this involves permanently altering my genes. Because I am slightly mad, I decide to do this in my own personal laboratory.

Am I now a nephilim, or some creature functionally equivalent to a nephilim?

Sincerely,

Response #18:

First, I'm very happy to know that you are neither vain, nor mad, nor a scientist (? not sure about this last one ?).

But, no; I don't think so. Whatever the demons do/did to create these freaks of nature is undoubtedly beyond anything human beings have the capability of doing, even with modern genetics. Minor tinkering is certainly not capable, for example, of producing offspring completely independent of human seed.

Yours in the dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #19:

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I'm still wrestling with the nexus of the fall and DNA and I've reached a point where I need a sanity check. If Satan were put in charge of Earth, would he not have intimate knowledge of genetics? If so, is it reasonable that it was he who put the tree in the center of Eden as his primary means of destroying mankind? (As in Job, he couldn't destroy us directly - but he was allowed to create the temptation.) Could he not have designed that tree's DNA specifically for that purpose and, when God told Adam, in effect, "eating that fruit will kill you," knowing full well what would happen, that he intended the eventual outcome to be the example of His justice and mercy? Would that not also have been the mechanism by which he reduced our life span to 120 years?

Carrying that a step further, would not that genetic modification also be the primary mechanism of creating nephillim? Even if there are male and female angels, I see no indication they could procreate with humans unless they subjected themselves to the same genetic modifications caused by the forbidden fruit. Could that be what is meant by "leaving their first estate?" For that matter, could this be the mechanism by which Nimrod "became" a mighty man?

Finally, the hook in Satan's first lies was, "you will be like gods." Is that not exactly what "genetic scientists" are attempting in creating what are, in effect, poisonous plants and animals contrary to God's design? In fact, could it not be that all this genetic modification of God's design is Satanically inspired and directed? Particularly if my first assumption is true?

Would it then be unreasonable to understand that, with this onslaught and it's nexus with the merchants of the earth who support it so completely, this is actually the lead up to the Donnybrook of Tribulation? I know that you calculated the Tribulation as coming in 2026 (if I remember correctly) and even allowed for the time cut short - but I know of nowhere in the Bible that specifies how much time will be shortened. (That would be contrary to the requirement of faith.) I also know there are things left to happen. I hope your date is accurate - I'll most likely be gone by then.

Would it also be unreasonable then, given the above, to understand current genetic tinkering to be the mechanism by which the nephillim return to fulfill the warning, "as in the days of Noe?"

As a corollary question: If God is light (1 John 1:5) would we, as well as His angels, not be composed primarily of light, being created in His image? If genetic damage caused a dimming of our light, could that not also have happened to the angels and that being the estate they left? Is that the darkness to which the fallen ones are condemned? If we are glorified as was Jesus, would that light be restored? (This raises a whole new line of questions based on hiding your light under a basket that I'll save for a time when I've thought it through enough to ask a modestly reasoned question.)

Thanks again for your patience.

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Response #19:

Here is how I translate Genesis 2:9:

Now the Lord God caused to spring up from the ground every sort of tree which was pleasant to behold and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:9

I am aware that there are some versions (like the NIV) which, in their efforts to be literary, make it sound as if these two special trees were just "there", but the verse above is very clear in the Hebrew: the Lord is the One who caused them to be there in the center of the garden.

The reduction of human life-spans is prophesied in Genesis 6:3 (the prophecy also relates to the date of the commencement of the flood by deliberate double meaning); before the flood, the generation of the righteous lived nigh on a thousand years, and the oldest recorded living person was Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, not by any means one of the first to be born after the fall but part of the generations just preceding the flood (this argues for no discernible reduction in life-span before the flood which changed the geology of earth considerably and led, among other things, to the reduction in human life times; see the link).

The biblical evidence for the cohabitation of fallen angels with pre-flood human women as the origin of the nephilim is overwhelming, in my view. Besides Genesis chapter six, which is very straightforward in any fair reading of the Hebrew text, several other passages teach this directly:

It was also by means of the Spirit that [Christ] visited the [angelic] spirits in prison (i.e., in the Abyss), and proclaimed [His victory]. [These are the angels who] were disobedient in the days of Noah at the time when God patiently waited (i.e., delayed judgment) while the ark was being built.
1st Peter 3:19-20a

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but plunged them into Tartarus with its gloomy pits (i.e., the Abyss), preserving them for the [day of] judgment, and did not spare the antediluvian world, but kept safe Noah as a proclaimer of righteousness and the seven with him when He brought the flood upon the ungodly inhabitants of the world, and condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes and making them an example to those bent on similar ungodly behavior, and rescued righteous Lot who was tormented by the depraved lifestyle of those lawless men – for through the things he saw and heard just by dwelling among them this righteous man was damaging his righteous way of life day by day on account of their lawless deeds. For the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment – especially those who in their lust pursue the polluting of the flesh and so despise [God's] divine authority.
2nd Peter 2:4-10a

Although you know all these things, I want to remind you that though the Lord saved [all] His people from the land of Egypt at the first, in the end He destroyed those who proved unfaithful, and the angels who did not keep to their own realm but deserted their proper habitation He has imprisoned with everlasting chains in the gloom below (i.e., in the Abyss) in anticipation of the judgment of that great day, just as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring cities, for they all prostituted themselves in the same manner as these [angels] did, having pursued sexual relations (lit. "flesh") that were inappropriate for them (i.e., outside of the natural order). [And so it is that] they have been appointed an example, and incurred the penalty of eternal fire.
Jude 1:5-7

There is much more on this issue available at the site. The following link will lead you to many others: "Fallen Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and the Devil's Methodology".

I certainly share your concern (and disdain) for human efforts at genetic manipulation, as well as your appraisal of the motives behind this and many other aspects of human science and technology. Ever since the tower of Babel, unsaved human beings have been all too eager to "storm heaven" in response to the devil's prodding. Were humanity allowed to continue another few hundred years under the current satanic regime, it is frightening to consider what wholesale evil would result (assuming anyone survived). Blessedly, we are very close to the end, so that all of the more prominent and more disturbing efforts in these fields are unlikely to come to fruition before the end arrives.

On the resurrection, scripture is also quite clear that it will be a bodily one. However, the resurrection body will be quite different from our present one – not less in any way, but more in every way. Jesus made a point of demonstrating the physicality of His new body to the disciples after the resurrection, and we are told that our bodies will be like His (see the links: "The Resurrection" and "The Resurrection of the Lamb's Bride").

For our [true] citizenship has a heavenly existence, and it is from there that we expectantly await our Savior, Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform this humble body of ours into one that matches His glorious body through His powerful ability to subordinate everything to Himself.
Philippians 3:20-21

Beloved, we are already the children of God, but what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We know that when He is revealed [in glory], we will be like Him, that we shall see Him exactly like He is.
1st John 3:2

God is light, but Jesus Christ is both God and man (since the incarnation). Angels too while they are creatures of light do have a particular and restricted form which, for want of a better name, might be called a "body" – except for that the fact that this would confuse the discussion. As I often remark, traditional thinking about spirits, human and angelic, usually misses the point that God's spirituality is of a different order entirely than our creature spirituality which is restricted to recognizable form and a particular time and place. Here are some links on this topic:

The Nature of Angels

Angelic Issues

We will indeed be glorified in resurrection, but whatever that glorification entails, the common resplendence we shall all enjoy and the particular glorification of eternal rewards which will be different in every case, it will be an addition and not a subtraction. We will still be "us" and will still be able to eat and drink and speak and touch and enjoy in every righteous way the "things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (1Cor.2:9).

Finally, the image of God is the ability to choose in moral matters between right and wrong – and, most significantly for all human beings, whom we shall serve, the Lord, the devil or ourselves (and where we shall reside for all eternity as a result; see the link).

I hope this answers most of your questions, and please do feel free to write back about any of the above.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #20:

Dr. Dr. Luginbill,

I have to say that now, I feel like a fool. Had I bothered to check before I jumped to a bad conclusion, I would have remembered Genesis 2:9.

I have no doubt that the fallen angels dallied with human women and produced nephillim. Genesis 6:2 makes that perfectly clear. I don't understand how it could be considered anything different. Logically though, that liaison had to create genetic changes in the offspring which was passed down to subsequent generations. What is unanswered, as far as I can tell, is whether angels were able to assume a completely human form, suggested by the women's acceptance (which would imply but not confirm a great deal of control over genetics) or whether we are the same genus as angels, which makes me wonder why the prohibition if it's not denied us. I'm not sure I've thought this one through enough to frame an intelligent question.

On another issue, I have always associated the term "mighty men" with nephillim. When I read that Nimrod became a mighty man, it seems reasonable to understand that he became genetically changed into a nephila (is that the correct term?) even though his parentage was completely human and no nephillim genes were involved. (I don't know if the Hebrew is different and I'm just looking at a translation issue.) I have read the links you suggested but I'm still having trouble accepting the "and also after that" is referring to the 120 years. Perhaps it's more clear in the Hebrew. There's also the question of how the bunch of grapes in Numbers 13:23 came to be. It suggests something more than an unusually large bunch of grapes. As I read it, it was part of the actual spoils they brought back from Canaan - not a part of the bad report. This also suggest to me that there has been Satanic tinkering going on since long ago and after the flood.

As for the nature of angels and man's ultimate form, I have much, much more reading and understanding to do. Thanks for the links.

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Response #20:

No worries on this end.

In my view it is impossible to determine the precise way in which the fallen angels of Genesis six "did what they did" (any more than we can tell precisely how they manipulated the pre-Genesis gap fauna of the original earth). Even if we had an absolutely perfect understanding of human genetics (which is certainly far from the case, even for the best trained scientists), it would still be true that we are unable from our earthly vantage point to do much more than speculate about the angelic capabilities (beyond the information contained in scripture, that is, and this is [deliberately] not comprehensive).

On "mighty man", this word, gibbor, is a somewhat generic term for an exceptional individual. The nature of the exceptionalism has to be determined from the context. At 2nd Samuel 17:10 David is called a gibbor – and he was certainly a pure human being (in the line of our Lord). Nimrod's exceptionalism has to do with his extraordinary political skills that enabled him to enlist the entire world of that time in a unique project, the tower of Babel – not with him being of exceptional parentage (see the link). The latter is what it means when it comes to the Nephilim, that and the exceptional abilities they had as a result of their half angelic ancestry.

I think the point behind the exceptionally large grapes in the land is that it demonstrated how wonderfully this area had been blessed by God as the best land on earth. That is why He chose it for His special people.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.