Better Biblical Questions with MARTY SOLOMON 

So cool! You’ll have to let me know what you think✌️

Praise Be to God!

We are glad to have you!✌️

I enjoyed this conversation and I’m glad you did too! Praise be to God

You are most welcome ✌️

Here is a link facebook.com/share/AXBaio4JrkrSaXpe/?mibextid=K35XfP Or Search “Tim Mackie discussion Group”

Thank you for the link! I’m in the group now. 🙏🏽

Listen, I’m not the #1 Nephilim defender but I will poke some holes in your arguments. Firstly, whether you accept it or not, this was the dominate view during the second temple period. There is plenty of literature describing the giants whether it’s the book of Enoch or the book of Giants found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even after the destruction of the temple the early church fathers write on angels cohabitating with humans (for example, Tertullian talks about it). It’s not until you get to Augustine that this view changes. And even then Augustine says that it’s possible Angels could assume a human body and have union with human females. Augustine states that even if that did happen he’s not convinced that’s what Genesis 6 is talking about. As for the whole Angel testicle thing, I don’t really think that’s a problem. Angels do not have bodies, they are spirits. Angels assume bodies when they appear on earth. When they assume bodies they seem to look identical to human bodies and they can be touched, and eat and drink (story of Abraham and the angels and Lot and the angels). If Angels can assume a human body when on earth that can eat, drink and be touched then it’s also possible they could have sexual unions. The whole thing with God permitting it and being liable doesn’t really deter the problem either. Humans do terrible things. Humans rape, murder, steal, blaspheme. God creates humans and humans do these sins therefore God is liable. That’s where you logic follows and I emphatically disagree. You see, angels have free will just as we do which is why God is not liable. If angels didn’t have free will than 1. They wouldn’t be above humans and 2. They wouldn’t have been able to rebel and we wouldn’t have Satan or demons. To address the problem with the soul I would say that you have a rather platonic and non-biblical view of the soul. The soul in Hebrew Scriptures represents your whole being and it is organic. When God created the living creatures in Genesis 1 the word is nephesh (soul). It literally can mean throat or neck in Hebrew. It’s not some invisible essence that precedes your existence, that idea is from Plato. Tim Mackie has a great podcast series on what the soul in the Bible means. Anyway, like I said, I’m not some big Nephilim defender. I’m undecided on what view I hold. However, the common objections that you gave aren’t really great reasons not to believe it.

@@Tyler-xf4kf In short - - Show me in scripture where an Angel, not sent by God, can ex-nihilo a human body that is sexually functional? Thank you for responding. It’s hard to get anyone to grasp this topic, let alone defend it. If I sound harsh it’s not at you at all, but against the arguments claims of angel sex with humans for procreation. I wish you could find a hole in my arguments. I really mean that. All I ask is for Biblical, logical and biological consistency. Arguments that are non-correlates will not work when an extreme claim is made. I have read them all. Not that that means anything. LOL. Marduk, Watchers, Book of Giants, Book of Enoch, Epic of Gilgamesh. Etymology of words associated with their stories does not establish the same truths when used, especially by scripture, to convey a different kind of truth, or a corrective truth. Words had many strange understandings in their etymology. Moses’ use of a word does not carry all etymological meanings, including words used for creatures (I believe a miss step by my favorite guy T Mackie). I don’t think Moses, or other authors, made up words, but I think they used words that had all kinds of etymological origins, but it doesn’t follow that all words mean what their root word is. It’s called the “Root Word Fallacy”. On top of this, you are referring to text’s way after the fact, that are only 700-500BC, way past the context of Moses and their oral tradition. Again, etymology of words is the worst argument one can make under these circumstances. We have to stick to the scripture. The older Babylonian/Mesopotamia texts, that does date back to pre Moses, only established words of their time, and Angel sex with humans is not the only understanding of the words Moses chose. This should be the last option and not the first in my opinion. Dr. Sandra Richter says it well, we do not need to refer to texts that espouse extreme cultural mythologies to derive a Biblical understanding.

@@dgjesdal I'm replying to this from memory because your replies are a bit too long to copy and paste back into my reply. I think I could summarize your points as follows 1. Root word/correlation fallacy between ANE texts and Genesis 6 2. You don't think the early church witness (of the fathers) of this interpretation matter 3. The biological problem of a reproductive system 4. The problem of assuming/manifesting (whatever language you want to use) a body 5. Why didn't Satan have sex with Eve (I know you said this somewhat jokingly) 6. Angels can't have sex with each other therefore it's unreasonable to believe they can have sex with people. 1. This isn't just a root-word fallacy. It's not simply that the biblical authors use similar or the same words. The problem is that the narratives are extremely similar to other ancient Mesopotamian stories. This is not disputed, even by conservative evangelical scholars. Whether it's the Enuma Elish, the Eridu Genesis, the Tale of Adapa, the Sumerian King List, Atrahasis, the Epic of Gilgamesh or Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, the Genesis narrative from chapters 1-11 is clearly influenced by them (I'd say polemically). Many of these texts pre-date the Old Testament. Also, the vast majority of scholars (both secular/liberal and conservative evangelical) see the Torah being edited into its final form during the exile. This is not a contentious point amongst scholars. What's further proof is that the Second Temple Jews hold these same ideas. In fact, the only view, as I said previously, before the late fourth century CE is the supernatural view. Think about that. A supernatural view was the only existing view until the late 300's. That means that Jesus and his Apostles all would have had supernatural views of these events. This is evidenced by the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Jude explicitly makes several allusions to 1 Enoch, quoting (almost exactly) from 1 Enoch, using other second temple non-canonical literature such as the Testament of Moses, etc... Am I saying that 1 Enoch and the Testament of Moses are canonical? No. What I am saying is that these various books are informing the author and their worldview. I could go on to how Jude and Peter actually speak of these events in their epistles but I think this has been enough for this reply. 2. I'm sorry but you dismissing the church father's interpretation simply because you don't care is not valid. This is early church witness to what people thought on the matter. Are there various views of the church fathers that are weird? Absolutely. Should we take the words of the fathers as infallible? Certainly not. But what the words of the church fathers do tell us is how the church for the first 3 centuries thought. The irrefutable facts are that the church until the late 4th century saw Genesis 6 as supernatural, period, end of story. 3-4. Again, you've continued to bring up the problem of reproductive organs. Firstly, like I said I'm not married to any position when it comes to the Nephilim. From the Text, internal scriptural consistency, historical witness, ANE context, etc... I hold that Genesis 6 is definitely supernatural. Now, the two principle views are 1. the Sons of God took on human bodies or 2. they possessed evil men who procreated. I lean more towards option 2. If I were to defend any position it would be that. However, for the sake of argument I will continue defending 1. I've already shown that Angels can and do appear in physical human form. For example, eating with Abraham, rescuing Lot (the Angels were grabbed), the Angel of the Lord wrestling with Jacob, Peter being smacked by an Angel in Acts, etc... If these Angels can take on human bodies, eat and drink human food, be touched and touch human people, why wouldn't they have a reproductive system? If these Angels can take on human bodies what is the simpler assumption 1. they take on normal human bodies or 2. they craft human bodies that look human, talk human, have a digestive tract, can touch and fight, etc... but don't have reproductive organs. With the principle of Ockham's razor, the simplest answer is they manifest normal human bodies. I can already anticipate you saying, "But even if they had normal human bodies why would God allow them to take on those bodies knowing they would have sex with humans?" The answer is Angels have free will like humans. Demons manifest on this earth. Is that because is saying "Yeah go ahead I'm giving you a big thumbs up!" or is it because demons are exercising their free will? But I digress, this isn't even my view anyway. As I said I lean much more towards the possession argument. 5. The simple answer is that I don't believe in some pre-cosmic rebellion. I think Satan's act of rebellion was in tempting Adam and Eve. This isn't some new view, this is the Jewish and also scholarly view. Also, suppose Satan was already a fallen angel, why would God allow Satan to manifest as a snake to deceive Eve? Would God really let Satan become a snake and allow him to deceive Eve to bring destruction to humankind? You keep saying "Would God really allow angels to assume human form knowing they would enter into destructive behaviour with humans?" Your same argument can be turned on its head. "Would God really allow Satan to assume snake (instead of human this time) form knowing he would this would lead to destructive behaviour for humankind?" There are no easy answers for either side. 6. Angels can't have sex with each other because in Heaven (their proper dwelling place) there is no need for it. Heavenly beings are eternal and therefore do not need to reproduce. This is why Jesus says when we get to heaven (or have eternal life) we will not need to reproduce. The same Jewish traditions that believe angels don't have sex also believe they don't eat, drink or die, although we see angels eating and drinking with Abraham. Just in case you decide to say something about my view of possession such as "possessed people still have sex today" I will urge you to listen to Father Stephen De Young on the issue. I don't think anyone who has sex while demonically possessed bears a nephilim child. I believe it's demonic sexual rituals that do so. You can listen to Fr. De Young's episode on Genesis 6 on his podcast "The Whole Counsel of God" or read his articles or his books.

@@Tyler-xf4kf Tyler - good to interact. You are a good sport and always stay on topic 👍 Yes, that’s the point. With a different point and narrative. Because other people groups used these words with *ways and means* does not mean it is the way God wants them understood. Genesis would be a “corrective narrative” - with a new canvas telling a better story. It is as if the artist has in hand a canvas completed (messed up conception of gods and creation), and the Artist, God, lifting their understanding *off the canvas* until there is nothing left - starting with “in the beginning” painting new strokes using their language, changing it from evil and darkness to light. Even the darkness God says, “it is good”. You do know that Sons of God from those writing also include governing leaders… sons of Elohim, right? Nepal, or Nepilim, means “ones who have fallen”, Dr Sandy Richter. She also shows that this work means “wreaking havoc”. Sandra in her book, “Epic of Eden”, briefly covers this. You citing scholarship, you can’t get much better than Sandra when this is her field. I’m not with Sandra on all of it. She offers the Sons of God and daughter of men as positive, or just descriptive, and should be tied to chapter 5. Then at verse 5 is a new direction - the evil begins. The extra Biblical sources do not define the text. The teachers of the Law at the time of Christ are documented to have all kinds of weird understanding of the Torah. Jesus spent most of his time blasting them. I have been to the Qumran, the place most likely John the Baptist and Jesus came from, but they held all kinds of weird ideas. We can’t canonize what we want from them. They were extremists. If anything, those docs ought to show us what *not to think*. I have read them. Simply put, they got it wrong. Why should I repeat it? Now you are claiming this view was held by Jesus? That is another fantastic claim. Seriously, this is like Dispensationalism with a host of grab bag disputable proof texts. It’s question begging, and hand waving. There are zero Biblical texts showing Angels having sex with humans and procreating. It’s an extreme interpretation with zero definitive Biblical references, other than more disputed difficult texts. Early church Father’s… Give me citations… and I will deal with each. >> You are using deductive reasoning making two errors. 1. God makes angels able for sexual reproduction (No biblical text) 2. That fallen Angels, on their own, can appear as identical biological humans. (angels can’t create) Show this biblically and we can high 5 each other and go have a coke 😊 >> It may not be a new view, but it’s not a Biblical view. It’s just fancy. Once one makes a huge leap into *their view*, what follows will only be based on that view, and it doesn’t entitle one to compound their mistake by another, then impose it into the text. One can just say, “We don’t know”. > Yes and no. Again, consistency! The Garden, and your argument, is a category error. I can be Biblical and answer this. “Snake” is a descriptive metaphor, also seen in the etymology of the word. Moses uses this language. Jesus identifies Satan as the Angel of light. In Genesis the Serpent means the “shining one”. Notice in the desert, the people were “snake bitten”. When you have a million people getting sick all is needed is to “look and live”. The snake (was not Jesus - but did became the serpent crusher) is shown as a bronze, flickering light in the desert, a defeated impaled enemy; crushed. The use of a snake is mytho-history, using language of myth portraying a real story. Satan, a fallen angel, a real character (may have been in a natural angelic form), who is a deceiver, NOT a good character. God allowing temptation is consistent to his nature, for temptation is not outside the bounds of free will. In fact, this is a fair contest. Does Satan violate Adam & Eve’s free will? Nope. Yet, the angels in your interpretation *“take”*, like Eve took from the tree, the daughters of men, against their will. Again, you have a problem with logical consistency and God’s nature. Sin is sin, not just because God decrees it, but sin is the misuse of what God’s creative purpose is for (degradation of good). You must “make up” a narrative to begin with to even get to your interpretation, I do not. Why does God give angelic beings (The text doesn’t say, you do) testicles and penises with a *sexual drive* with ZERO purpose? Next, you are going to have to come up with female and male angels?… it only gets worse. Next. Are you saying that the angels where not fallen, but that God basically gave angels, that had not rebelled, human bodies capable of reproduction with humans? Do you see how fantastic this narrative is? Occam’s razor??? The text doesn’t say this. You are adding layers of complications, then trying to justify it. I don’t have to do any of this. Angels and Humans are Sons of God. Both these creatures willfully have fallen. Humans within this economy still had free will and compounded their evil, and God was hurt by it. It’s not an accident that humans *recreation* abled by the Son of God, fully human, are the “sons of God”. Matth 5:9. You have to admit that Jesus saw humans as sons of God, right? Your view of demon possession is not different from reality today, but you have to show a creative power to changes testicles. Why? They have testicles. Demons can’t create, but can degredate, this would cause miscarriages, deformation and so on. Genesis 6:5-8 5 The Lord saw how great *man's wickedness* on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of *his* heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord was grieved that he had made *man* on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the Lord said, "I will wipe *mankind*, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - *men* and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But *Noah* found favor in the eyes of the Lord. The silence here a very loud.

​@@dgjesdal Part 1: Oh my, it deleted my reply while I was writing it. Oh well I guess it's time to restart. You admit that the ANE motifs are clearly shown in Genesis 1-11 and that the author replies to these stories in a polemical manner however you conveniently throw the whole story out when it disagrees with your interpretive paradigm. Scholars have noted there are parallels between Genesis 6:4 and the Appkallu story and it seems this is what the author is attacking. The author is saying "Hey guys, it was never good when the gods (angels) procreated with humans. I know you like your semi-divine figures (like Gilgamesh) but this is part of the reason we were flooded)." Now if you're to take that polemic and say that the author is critiquing the theology but not affirming the historical veracity then fair enough but you have to be consistent. If the author is doing polemics and not to affirm history then we need to be consistent and admit that all of Genesis 1-11 is theological with no historical veracity. We can't have our cake and eat it too. In terms of Sons of God historically meaning angels to both ancient Jews and Christians, here are some sources. "The “angel” view of this classic Genesis text is well documented in both ancient Jewish rabbinical literature and Early Church writings. In addition to the Septuagint translation, the venerated (although non-canonical) Book of Enoch, the Syriac Version of the Old Testament, as well as the Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs and the Little Genesis, confirm the lexicological usage and the extant beliefs of ancient Jewish scholars. Clearly, the learned Philo Judaeus understood the passage as relating to angels. Josephus Flavius also represents this view: “They made God their enemy; for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength, for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.” In accordance with the ancient interpretation, the Early Church fathers understood the expression “sons of God” as designating angels. These included Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Pseudo-Clementine, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Commodianus, and Lactantius, to list a few." A few quotes from these fathers... “God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law - for these things also He evidently made for man - committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women.” - Justin Martyr, Second Apology; Chapter V. “And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants.” - Iraenus, A discourse in the Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching “The giants (Nephilim) were on the Earth in those days.” The author of the divine Scripture does not mean that those giants must be considered, according to the tradition of poets, as sons of the earth but asserts that those whom he defines with such a name because of the extraordinary size of their body were generated by angels and women.” - St. Ambrose, on Noah, 4.8. Genesis 1-11, Volume 1edited by Andrew Louth, Thomas C. Oden, Marco Conti “But when, having assumed these forms, they convicted as covetous those who stole them, and changed themselves into the nature of men, in order that, living holily, and showing the possibility of so living, they might subject the ungrateful to punishment, yet having become in all respects men, they also partook of human lust, and being brought under its subjection they fell into cohabitation with women; and being involved with them, and sunk into defilement and altogether emptied of their power, were unable to turn back to the first purity of their proper nature, their members turned away from their fiery substance: for the fire itself, being exhausted by the weight of lust, and changed into flesh, they trode the impious path downward. For they themselves, being fettered with bonds of flesh, were constrained and strongly bound; wherefore they have no more been able to ascend into the heavens.” - Clementine Homilies, Homily VIII, Chapter XIII. And then of course you have our very own, Peter and Jude “And the angels which kept their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement 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 1:6-7 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them and example unto those that should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked…” - 2 Peter 2:4-7