Setting the record straight: the true biblical account of "aliens"

[GSM]

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
ânâq (Strong's H6061)1.progenitor of a family, or tribe of the giant people in Canaan
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine.

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
nephîyl/nephil / (Strong's H5303)1.giants, the Nephilim
Part of Speech: noun masculine

Deuteronomy 9:2 (NASB95)
a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’

Genesis 6:4 (NASB95)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

[GSM]

Canaanites travel to Canada ?
Several places in US have Egyptian town names.
When the Smithsonian discovered an ancient Egyptian colony in the Grand Canyon

Elongated Skulls Shock American Physician... - YouTube
Egyptians in Australia Part 1 - Steven Strong - YouTube

[logos]

Dear Logos,

The only way I found the answers (like you I struggled) to these questions in the Word, was with Hebrew translations. From reading what most have said here it seems we all have been taught by a generation that had the same traditions and doctrines passed down to them.

The study of what the Bible was originally written in helps ALLOT.

I've planted churches in other countries, been ordained for many years, studied the Word in Japanese, english, greek, and hebrew. Hebrew words can be broken down into separate syllables and each one has a meaning.

I'm no scholar by no means. But after two visits to Israel my eyes were opened to our westernized way of ; the life of christian, the translation of Yahveys Word, and the only way is what the pullpit says. Sorry to most who may read this. I'm not bashing America or the teachers of the Bible. I try to add to others understanding- to Bless, not take away. By the way study what "Blessing" is in Hebrew.

And lastly my friend, it's not what you know, have built on this planet, religion, denomination, etc., it is your relationship with the Father, God, Yahveh and Yeshua(Jesus). If you look in the names of people in the hebrew of the Bible, Yeshua means salvation and is recorded 118 times in the Old Testiment.

Hope this blesses you, this is not an attempt to indoctrinate.
wantomake

sorry for such late responses to this thread,

i amnow reading the original septuagint ( i am greek) and it has done nothing but reenforce the third day/ sixth day creation.

[logos]

take ancient texts with a grain of salt...

has it occurred to anybody that thepeople who wrote the "ancient texts", i.e. sumerian, egyptian, etc, were lying?

napolean wrote that history is written by the winners.

i would assume that most people onthis site do not believe that lee harvey oswald killed kennedy, that MLK and bobby kennedy's murders were in fact conspiracies probably instigated by members of the government, that 9/11 was an inside job etc, etc, yet NONE of these will appear in any "sacred" books taught in schools, universities and such.

these books are written by the empirical leaders of today to forward their own agendas.

is it difficult to assumethat the sumerian texts for example were written for the same reasons? that they purposely altered history so as to deny truth and forward their agendas too?

this occurred to me recently, and if history is a cycle, manipuation of knowledge and truth is happening today and it probably happened thousands of years agoo too!

"the more things change, the more they stay the same" Yogi Berra!

[Bob Smith]

has it occurred to anybody that thepeople who wrote the "ancient texts", i.e. sumerian, egyptian, etc, were lying?

napolean wrote that history is written by the winners.

i would assume that most people onthis site do not believe that lee harvey oswald killed kennedy, that MLK and bobby kennedy's murders were in fact conspiracies probably instigated by members of the government, that 9/11 was an inside job etc, etc, yet NONE of these will appear in any "sacred" books taught in schools, universities and such.

these books are written by the empirical leaders of today to forward their own agendas.

is it difficult to assumethat the sumerian texts for example were written for the same reasons? that they purposely altered history so as to deny truth and forward their agendas too?

this occurred to me recently, and if history is a cycle, manipuation of knowledge and truth is happening today and it probably happened thousands of years agoo too!

"the more things change, the more they stay the same" Yogi Berra!

Logos,
Yes, this has been my thought for quite some time. I will explain myself from my own shared perspective as a Christian:
If one reads the early Church Fathers and the Nicene Creed, one sees a progression of understanding, guided by the Holy Spirit, which enables the believing community (all who are united to Christ in Baptism - the Body of Christ) to recognize Jesus as fully human and fully divine. As the Gospel of John notes, Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, who becomes flesh and "tents" (eskenosen) among us, reminiscent of the dwelling place of God among the Hebrews in the Ark of the Covenant within its tent during their sojourn of 40 years in the desert. It is clear for the Fathers and for John that Jesus is God come down from heaven in human flesh/form (Philippians 2).
I'm sure this is nothing new to you.

John's Prologue stands out as a corrective to the gnostic and mystery religions which could not accept Jesus as fully human and fully divine. These same gnostic and mystery religions - originating in the Sumerian/Babylonian ci vilizations - persist today. They preached a counterfeit notion of God, of wisdom, of Jesus. Out of these movements there arose movements to falsely acribe to their deities a divine status. As I see it, their histories propose myths which misled people with false ideas about the identities of the entities they worshipped. They were not divine, though they may have had some kind of spiritual nature and powers. I would say they were at best, fallen angels or demons, and this is why so many of them demanded human sacrifice, to bring homage to themselves, coerce by fear (versus love) and mock the God whose self-offering in Jesus as the only true and definitive sacrificial propitiation for sin and evil in the world. GTG - end of lunch break.

[logos]

after further study...

well, i will update now more on the timeline.

the anak/anakeim/anunaki, where in fact NOT present on earth before the flood according to biblical text. in many ancient texts it may be quoted that they were here before time and they herded the world's civilians as slaves to do their bidding,

but there is sound argument to suggest otherwise.

i have also been able to place a part of greek mythology in line with biblical context.

the "good" news is, (at least for some) that we WERE visited by another race pre flood, but i most certainly wouldnt call it good news. we refer to them as "the fallen angels" today.

i am writing by memory now as i am at work, so i will keep this pretty loose but to the point. if i fall out in my references please feel free to chime in sources are the books of enoch, jubilees, and jasher and the old testament.

-------

so, after the creation, the original patriarchs were as follows

1) adam
2) seth
3) enosh
4) cainan
5) mahalaleel
6) jared
7) enoch
8) methuselah
9) Lamech
10) noah

obviously this does not mean that they were the only sons, but probably the firstborn (excluding seth who was in fact the third)

according to the book of enoch, it was after the birth of jared that the "sons of god", i.e. the fallen angels or the watchers, met on mount hermon and the first oath was taken by them to rebel against god's plan. here is the visitation by celestial beings.

they then proceeded to teach mankind many different "crafts" including weapons of war, astrology, divination, and many other vile crafts. but their most horrendous crime was the manipulation of our own gene pool.

the first generation nephillim, were born to the woman they "mated" with (they could not physically reproduce). these are referenced in greek mythology as the titans, i.e. the children of their father ouranos/sky, and mother gaia/earth. see the resemblance?

afterwards, these titans had offspring as well, in greek mythology they were refferred to as the gods of olympus, zeus, posidon and so on. these children then rebelled and killed the titans and were placed in tartarus. tartarus is actually quoted in the scripture not just ancient mythology. it was from these second generation offspring that the children of poseidon, the atlanteans came from. it is also interesting to note that perhaps, even if the corrupted gene pool that were the offspring of the watchers, perhaps were not all "evil" per say and that some just wished to be left alone and private. i will however reserve judgement on this at this point. it is logical to assume that ALL rebelled against the creator

however, it was not just in the human gene pool that the watchers and their offspring meddeled in. probably more the offspring than the watchers, there is reference that "all flesh was corrupted" giving birth to the idea that in fact they bred their own version of animals too, perhaps animals liek the T-rex.

these modified genes probably made it into the boat via the daughters in law of noah. i assume they were dormant though, as scriptures show they wre reactivated later.

after the flood, during the repopulation of the earth we find one of the first discrepencies in scripture:

in the genealogies of the postflood world, the name of kainan, son of Arphaxad, is omitted from the OT scripture at some point. we find that in the NT in the book of luke ch 3, the son of Arphaxad was Kainan. According to the book of jubilees, it was Kainan that found the teachings of the watchers written in stone and he harnessed these teachings. however there is a big discrepency in OT scripture about this as in the KJV, Kainan does not appear in the genealogies. The KJV Old Testament is a translation that was based on the Hebrew Masoretic and the Latin Vulgate texts. but in the septuagint he DOES appear in the genealogies. score the first conspiracy for the catholic church? see gen. chapters 10-11 and i chron 1

``In the 29th jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof, Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasueja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his

name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the 30th jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year he begat a son, and called his name Shelah . . . .'' (jubilees)

(notice noah was still alive.)



through kainan, the lost teachings of the watchers were reintroduced which allowed for, among other things,genetic manipulation.

it is through these "hidden knowledges" that Nimrod and his consorts, some of who were the anak and so on, were able to subdue the known world, activating the dormant genes in their own DNA allowing them to become the post flood nephillim refferred to in exodus and thereafter.

ouff... too much info for now. i'd be happy to discuss anything with anybody. i'd also call people to look up a researcher called rob skiba on youtube, and also check out chuck missler's genesis 6 sermon. very informative. (sorry i cant post links. i'm at work and have no access to youtube.)

a couple of notes as well:

1) there is no evidence that the original Watchers were on earth after the flood.
2) i feel that the hypothesis presented in this thread, albeit perhaps not 100% accurate, is a great starting point for anyone that wants to investigate further. all the remenant of the bits of info we have discovered in the last 100 or so years fit very nicely into the theory.
3) none of the evidences presented in this thread is endorsed by mainstream religion that i know of.
4) there is enough evidence in scripture to suggest that we can expect some really crazy **** to happen soon. the american army invading iraq a few weeks after the announcement of finding nimrod's tomb, and the looting of the museum in baghdad suggest, to me at least, they were after the mutated/nephillim DNA of nimrod.

to be continued...

[Jeff Pearson]

Great thread....The only problem I have with the religion is the opium of the masses analogy is that opium actually has some redeeming medical qualities.

[logos]

Great thread....The only problem I have with the religion is the opium of the masses analogy is that opium actually has some redeeming medical qualities.

so does religion...

i personally dont think religion is a bad thing to a person. i''ve seen many people really turn their life around after finding it.

[Ruphus]

Glad to have found this thread

Logos its interesting that we are looking for similar teachings in the bible. I started looking last October.

some of my ideas

Read carefully Genesis, particularly what a sky is and where it is.

The Bible may be a physics book, but we are reading it too literally. Revelations tell that some are sent back to teach others about what God showed them. How would someone write about what they saw, when we still don't understand today even with the technologies and the understanding of how things work in the atomic level we have now?

Look forward to the discussion!

[SilverToGold]

logos,

The sons of God are not fallen angels. Luke 3:38 - "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was the son of God because it was God who made him directly.

Angels can NOT reproduce so fallen angels obviously can not reproduce, much less with men.

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

The sons of God are the descendants of Seth, the faithful line of Adam. The daughters of men are the descendants of Cain.

There are no aliens and they are no giants bastard sons of fallen angels wondering around. The antideluvians were already giants. Noah's grave was over 18 foot long. Pre-flood conditions and 1000 year life spans grew giants, and all the people on the earth were giants at that time.

Ron Wyatt discovered this thumb bone, which is compared with a normal human thumb bone. It is approximately twice the normal length, and therefore probably came from a 12 foot man who formerly lived in Eastern Turkey near Noah's Ark.



I prefer facts over over imaginative speculation. Why speculate when the Bible clearly tells us what has already happened and what will happen?

But yes, the Bible tells us Matthew 24 that the time is soon when Christ is to return and this world will come to an abrupt and sudden end for all who accept the mark of the beast.

If we believe in lies about nephillim, aliens, that the dead can talk to us or any other unBiblical ideas, we will be deceived!

[SilverToGold]

Ruphus, while I appreciate your efforts to get to the truth - you must consider that the mark of the beast is a form of worship to the beast so no one is going to be able to make someone get the mark of the beast against their will. So these ideas that some throw around about it being a microchip or such does NOT make any sense. If that were the case, someone could hold down a God loving Christian and put a chip in his head and he would be damned. That is not how it will work.

The first 4 Commandments of the 10 Commandments detail how we are to worship God. So the mark of the beast WILL be a forced governmental breaking of one of these 4 commandments. It WILL be the forth commandment of the 7th day Sabbath that will be the mark of the beast. Sunday law of rest and the preventing of rest on God's holy Sabbath day (ie Saturday).

All these theories are dangerous. I suggest getting back to basics and learning what the Bible tells us. Learning from the past truths will prepare is for the future.

Why not look into this video and tell me what you think? Is it not better to follow the hard evidence and see where God truly wants to lead us than love fantastic theories of our own devising?

REVEALING GOD'S TREASURE - RON WYATT - YouTube

Logos its interesting that we are looking for similar teachings in the bible. I started looking last October.

some of my ideas

Read carefully Genesis, particularly what a sky is and where it is.

The Bible may be a physics book, but we are reading it too literally. Revelations tell that some are sent back to teach others about what God showed them. How would someone write about what they saw, when we still don't understand today even with the technologies and the understanding of how things work in the atomic level we have now?

Look forward to the discussion!

[logos]

logos,

The sons of God are not fallen angels. Luke 3:38 - "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was the son of God because it was God who made him directly.

Angels can NOT reproduce so fallen angels obviously can not reproduce, much less with men.

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

The sons of God are the descendants of Seth, the faithful line of Adam. The daughters of men are the descendants of Cain.

There are no aliens and they are no giants bastard sons of fallen angels wondering around. The antideluvians were already giants. Noah's grave was over 18 foot long. Pre-flood conditions and 1000 year life spans grew giants, and all the people on the earth were giants at that time.

Ron Wyatt discovered this thumb bone, which is compared with a normal human thumb bone. It is approximately twice the normal length, and therefore probably came from a 12 foot man who formerly lived in Eastern Turkey near Noah's Ark.



I prefer facts over over imaginative speculation. Why speculate when the Bible clearly tells us what has already happened and what will happen?

But yes, the Bible tells us Matthew 24 that the time is soon when Christ is to return and this world will come to an abrupt and sudden end for all who accept the mark of the beast.

If we believe in lies about nephillim, aliens, that the dead can talk to us or any other unBiblical ideas, we will be deceived!

have you ever read the book of enoch?
the sons of god in genesis 6 are from the tanslated hebrew "ben elohim"

"Strong's defines "ben" as meaning:

afflicted, age, anointed one, appointed to, arrow

From banah; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., )

and "elohim" as:

angels, exceeding, God, very great, mighty

Plural of 'elowahh; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative -- angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty."
please read further if you like Babylon Rising - Blog

this is not nonsense. this is not stories or fairy tales made up. this is in fact taken straight from context. the bible is full of instances when angels walked the earth. they are not human, ergo, we were visited!


a thumb bone found in eastern turkey does NOT mean that that Noah was 18ft tall.

reading the story of Abraham in the book of jasher really painted a picture in my mind of a conan-like sized warrior.

and as for reproducing, i said they could not do it. this is why i stated that they were performing genetic experiments that produced offspring. hybrid-offspring.

[logos]

i love chuck missler!

Origin of the Sethite View

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5

The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12

The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

2. The Daughters of Cain

The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

(cont. in next post)

[logos]

3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16

The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17

If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

5. The Unnatural Offspring

The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18

Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19

6. New Testament Confirmations

"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.

Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.

The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.

7. Post-Flood Implications

The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.

8. Prophetic Implications

Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")

In Summary

If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.

It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.

For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)

Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites? - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House

[Ruphus]

What I've been working on is this

In the beginning:

Water=aether=energy (I think knowledge is energy as well)

Vault=the limits of the speed of light. c=0 and c=1
Day=low end of the c limit (also time as we know it is not God's time, 1 day may be millions of years)
night=high end of the c limit
"let there be light!" speaking vibrates the aether causing waves EM waves
Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7=a scalar for a fractal universe c=1 c=1*2 c=1*3 ect.
birds=photons? not sure here but can go through the vault, no limit
Adam=neutron (contains evil and the making of eve)
Eve=proton (see neutron decay)
snake=electron (only interacts with eve, also see the description of how Adam will forever interact with him, atomic spin)
Plants and trees basic building blocks such as quarks
Mankind=atoms



Sure it sounds crazy, I know.

So a flood could be a flood of energy. As far as aliens...well a ship or vessel could be a spaceship?

There is a lot of things in Revelations as well and a few others I've read so far.

If mankind is an atom, a particular man may be an element. Polonium 216 (6^3) may be the Beast (element) that changed our DNA. Its unique in structure to all elements and its in us and radioactive.


I promise I'm a sane individual.