They are represented in the Garden of Eden as the "Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil."
HIGHLY debatable.
The Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, the “Watchers” in Enoch) intermarrying with the daughters of men. This is clearly stated in the text. The Nephilim were the great men of old, men of renown. The Sons of God (fallen angels) ruled the earth in those days by proxy through their offspring, the Nephilim.
A literal tree, made of wood, roots, leaves, bark, etc. canNOT have "knowledge" of anything.
Therefore, it is NOT a literal tree.
It is representative of something else.
In the Bible, a "tree" is often used to describe a family tree, with branches to describe its people, etc.
John 15, Jesus said:
"I am the vine; you are the branches."
Clearly, this was an analogy, not a literal statement.
Same as the Garden of Eden.
In the Garden of Eden,
"... out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;"
AND ...
"the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
That is Genesis 2:9.
What does "in the midst mean?"
It means God did not create those. They were already there.
God created trees good for beauty and good for food.
But the Tree of Life (Jesus) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Satan) were NOT literal trees. They could not have been.
The original meanings written in Hebrew have been changed over the years, to the point that modern English (and other language) versions appear to say and mean something they never did.
The original meanings written in Hebrew have been changed over the years, to the point that modern English (and other language) versions appear to say and mean something they never did.
While it's essential to approach biblical translations with a critical mindset, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the meticulous work of scholars in ensuring accuracy. Modern translations undergo rigorous processes, and numerous ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, validate the reliability of the text. Hyper-skepticism can overlook the dedication to preserving the original meanings and dismiss the wealth of evidence supporting the integrity of biblical translations.
Your analysis of the two, named, trees in the Garden, while exotic, really doesn’t make sense in relation to all the other trees that God said he gave to Adam to “freely eat.”
You have a misunderstanding of a “literal interpretation” of scripture. Taking a literal approach doesn’t mean you take non literal language (symbolism, metaphor, etc…) literal.
The Literal Interpretation method is like looking at the Bible in the most direct way possible, trying to understand what the authors meant using the regular meaning of words. It considers the historical and cultural background to get what the writers were saying. And here's the cool part – it doesn't force us to interpret everything as if it's all literal. So, if the Bible uses symbols or metaphors, this method encourages us to get what those symbols mean in the bigger picture, not necessarily taking them word-for-word. It's a way to appreciate the different writing styles in the Bible while still aiming to understand what the authors were trying to tell us.
The Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, the “Watchers” in Enoch) ...
Angels ("messengers") can be of God (good) or of Satan (evil).
The Nephilim MUST have been either (a) Satan's fallen angels themselves, or (b) the descendents of Satan's fallen angels, whether hybrid or otherwise.
It was ONLY Satan's angels who were "fallen," NOT God's.
Again, Revelation 12:7-9:
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
"And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Do you just want to pretend that Revelation is not part of Christianity?
... intermarrying with the daughters of men. This is clearly stated in the text.
No, it is not clear in the text, because you are ONLY reading the English version of the text, which has come after 3,000 years of mistranslations.
The Nephilim were the great men of old, men of renown.
The Bible did not exactly say that, in the original Hebrew.
The Sons of God (fallen angels) ruled the earth in those days by proxy through their offspring, the Nephilim.
Revelation 12:7-9 tells us that Satan and his angels were the ones who fell from heaven. It is SATAN'S descedents who are the "fallen ones," and NOT God's angels.
If you continue to read to Genesis 6:5, you will see the RESULT of all this chaos in Genesis 1-4.
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Now, WHY would THAT be? Why would God's creation become wicked?
If you are correct, and (a) the Nephilm are the angels of God (good), and (b) these angels mixed with the sons of God (also good), then (c) how could the world be FULL OF WICKEDNESS (evil) by God's own creation?
It does not fit the story of ALL of God's creation being "good."
The ONLY way the story makes any sense is if there was a MIXING of good and evil, with the result being evil.
We do not learn the KEYS to the Old Testament until we get through the New Testament. We cannot understand the OT without also including the NT.
THIS is what the clergy of today do not understand, and therefore do not teach. They also don't bother to research the original Hebrew and Greek, much like today's doctors don't bother to research the actual science of health and nutrition.
In Genesis 6:1-5, you CANNOT have God's angels (good) mixing with God's sons (good) and arrive at wickedness (evil) that is so bad that God wants to wipe them out. He even wants to wipe out the animals, too, who have no soul and cannot be good or evil.
What gives?
A false understanding that has been perpetrated for many generations is what gives.
In the original Hebrew, there is more than one word for "man." In these passages, the English words "man" and "men" are used ... BUT ... these are TRANSLATIONS. The original Hebrew words were DIFFERENT in different passages ... and THAT changes the meaning entirely.
Also, we have to keep Revelation 12:7-9 in mind, as well.
There are TWO Hebrew words for "man" in the Bible (and some variations of those, as well), used in different places in the Bible.
Most of Genesis 6 uses the Hebrew word "adam" for "man."
However ... the phrase "men of renown" uses the word "enosh," not "adam."
This signifies TWO DIFFERENT types of man.
Yes, this OTHER type of man (enosh) was well-known ("of renown"), but that does not mean thought of in high esteem. The word enosh is a derogatory word, not one of respect.
Where "adam" is used, it is a man descended from God's creation of Adam.
But where "enosh" is used, it describes NON-ADAMAIC man -- NOT a creation of God.
NOT ALL humans are of Adam (i.e. not created by God).
SOME are something else, though genetically very similar -- which is where Satan's fallen angels enter the picture.
This is all assuming you want to believe that the Bible is true, which we are doing here.
If we believe it is true, then we should understand what it ACTUALLY SAID ORIGINALLY -- and not the bastardized version we have today.
The original Hebrew tells us that these two types of "man" are NOT the same.
THIS is why God saw all the wickedness that he hated.
His own creation was MIXING with His non-creation (Satan's seed of the fallen ones). Such people still exist today, as well -- and are the source of MUCH of the world's troubles.
You will also note that Noah was chosen to build the ark SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE he was "perfect in his generations," which means perfect in his ancestry, which means he did NOT mix with these hybrids of the fallen ones (satanic seed).
Noah was not randomly chosen, and his story was not detailed for no reason. There is a REASON he was chosen, and THIS is the reason.
God was angry at the mixing of His creation with the fallen ones, and wiped out the offspring of this mixing.
He chose Noah, because Noah did not do this.
So ...
Let's compare your interpretation of Genesis 6 with mine.
YOU: God's creation had sex with God's creation ... and the result was so evil that God wanted to wipe them out.
ME: God's creation had sex with Satan's seed ... and the result was so evil that God wanted to wipe out the descendents and start over.
Which interpretation makes more sense, objectively?
Forget what you THINK you know, or what you have been TAUGHT ... but which one makes more sense, objectively?
And before you answer, don't forget Revelation 12 or the original Hebrew text of Genesis 6.
But that is enough for me today. I have other things to do.
Bro, you wrote ALL that assuming I meant the “Sons of God” referred to “good” angels? You should ask some clarifying questions before you waste your time.
HIGHLY debatable.
The Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, the “Watchers” in Enoch) intermarrying with the daughters of men. This is clearly stated in the text. The Nephilim were the great men of old, men of renown. The Sons of God (fallen angels) ruled the earth in those days by proxy through their offspring, the Nephilim.
A literal tree, made of wood, roots, leaves, bark, etc. canNOT have "knowledge" of anything.
Therefore, it is NOT a literal tree.
It is representative of something else.
In the Bible, a "tree" is often used to describe a family tree, with branches to describe its people, etc.
John 15, Jesus said:
"I am the vine; you are the branches."
Clearly, this was an analogy, not a literal statement.
Same as the Garden of Eden.
In the Garden of Eden,
"... out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;"
AND ...
"the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
That is Genesis 2:9.
What does "in the midst mean?"
It means God did not create those. They were already there.
God created trees good for beauty and good for food.
But the Tree of Life (Jesus) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Satan) were NOT literal trees. They could not have been.
The original meanings written in Hebrew have been changed over the years, to the point that modern English (and other language) versions appear to say and mean something they never did.
While it's essential to approach biblical translations with a critical mindset, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the meticulous work of scholars in ensuring accuracy. Modern translations undergo rigorous processes, and numerous ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, validate the reliability of the text. Hyper-skepticism can overlook the dedication to preserving the original meanings and dismiss the wealth of evidence supporting the integrity of biblical translations.
Your analysis of the two, named, trees in the Garden, while exotic, really doesn’t make sense in relation to all the other trees that God said he gave to Adam to “freely eat.”
Clearly, the two TYPES of "trees" are discussed separately.
There are the trees good for beauty and for food.
It was good to eat of the trees for food (literal fruit).
And THEN ... there (in the midst) are the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
It is the "literal tree" doctrine that makes no sense at all.
Explain THAT, according to your literal doctrine. You can't.
You have a misunderstanding of a “literal interpretation” of scripture. Taking a literal approach doesn’t mean you take non literal language (symbolism, metaphor, etc…) literal.
The Literal Interpretation method is like looking at the Bible in the most direct way possible, trying to understand what the authors meant using the regular meaning of words. It considers the historical and cultural background to get what the writers were saying. And here's the cool part – it doesn't force us to interpret everything as if it's all literal. So, if the Bible uses symbols or metaphors, this method encourages us to get what those symbols mean in the bigger picture, not necessarily taking them word-for-word. It's a way to appreciate the different writing styles in the Bible while still aiming to understand what the authors were trying to tell us.
Angels ("messengers") can be of God (good) or of Satan (evil).
The Nephilim MUST have been either (a) Satan's fallen angels themselves, or (b) the descendents of Satan's fallen angels, whether hybrid or otherwise.
It was ONLY Satan's angels who were "fallen," NOT God's.
Again, Revelation 12:7-9:
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
"And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Do you just want to pretend that Revelation is not part of Christianity?
No, it is not clear in the text, because you are ONLY reading the English version of the text, which has come after 3,000 years of mistranslations.
The Bible did not exactly say that, in the original Hebrew.
Revelation 12:7-9 tells us that Satan and his angels were the ones who fell from heaven. It is SATAN'S descedents who are the "fallen ones," and NOT God's angels.
If you continue to read to Genesis 6:5, you will see the RESULT of all this chaos in Genesis 1-4.
Now, WHY would THAT be? Why would God's creation become wicked?
If you are correct, and (a) the Nephilm are the angels of God (good), and (b) these angels mixed with the sons of God (also good), then (c) how could the world be FULL OF WICKEDNESS (evil) by God's own creation?
It does not fit the story of ALL of God's creation being "good."
The ONLY way the story makes any sense is if there was a MIXING of good and evil, with the result being evil.
We do not learn the KEYS to the Old Testament until we get through the New Testament. We cannot understand the OT without also including the NT.
THIS is what the clergy of today do not understand, and therefore do not teach. They also don't bother to research the original Hebrew and Greek, much like today's doctors don't bother to research the actual science of health and nutrition.
In Genesis 6:1-5, you CANNOT have God's angels (good) mixing with God's sons (good) and arrive at wickedness (evil) that is so bad that God wants to wipe them out. He even wants to wipe out the animals, too, who have no soul and cannot be good or evil.
What gives?
A false understanding that has been perpetrated for many generations is what gives.
In the original Hebrew, there is more than one word for "man." In these passages, the English words "man" and "men" are used ... BUT ... these are TRANSLATIONS. The original Hebrew words were DIFFERENT in different passages ... and THAT changes the meaning entirely.
Also, we have to keep Revelation 12:7-9 in mind, as well.
There are TWO Hebrew words for "man" in the Bible (and some variations of those, as well), used in different places in the Bible.
Most of Genesis 6 uses the Hebrew word "adam" for "man."
However ... the phrase "men of renown" uses the word "enosh," not "adam."
This signifies TWO DIFFERENT types of man.
Yes, this OTHER type of man (enosh) was well-known ("of renown"), but that does not mean thought of in high esteem. The word enosh is a derogatory word, not one of respect.
Where "adam" is used, it is a man descended from God's creation of Adam.
But where "enosh" is used, it describes NON-ADAMAIC man -- NOT a creation of God.
NOT ALL humans are of Adam (i.e. not created by God).
SOME are something else, though genetically very similar -- which is where Satan's fallen angels enter the picture.
This is all assuming you want to believe that the Bible is true, which we are doing here.
If we believe it is true, then we should understand what it ACTUALLY SAID ORIGINALLY -- and not the bastardized version we have today.
The original Hebrew tells us that these two types of "man" are NOT the same.
THIS is why God saw all the wickedness that he hated.
His own creation was MIXING with His non-creation (Satan's seed of the fallen ones). Such people still exist today, as well -- and are the source of MUCH of the world's troubles.
You will also note that Noah was chosen to build the ark SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE he was "perfect in his generations," which means perfect in his ancestry, which means he did NOT mix with these hybrids of the fallen ones (satanic seed).
Noah was not randomly chosen, and his story was not detailed for no reason. There is a REASON he was chosen, and THIS is the reason.
God was angry at the mixing of His creation with the fallen ones, and wiped out the offspring of this mixing.
He chose Noah, because Noah did not do this.
So ...
Let's compare your interpretation of Genesis 6 with mine.
YOU: God's creation had sex with God's creation ... and the result was so evil that God wanted to wipe them out.
ME: God's creation had sex with Satan's seed ... and the result was so evil that God wanted to wipe out the descendents and start over.
Which interpretation makes more sense, objectively?
Forget what you THINK you know, or what you have been TAUGHT ... but which one makes more sense, objectively?
And before you answer, don't forget Revelation 12 or the original Hebrew text of Genesis 6.
But that is enough for me today. I have other things to do.
Have a good day.
Bro, you wrote ALL that assuming I meant the “Sons of God” referred to “good” angels? You should ask some clarifying questions before you waste your time.
“Sons of God” = fallen angels.