I have no idea how you’re interpreting the passage with Nephulim now, but before you comment, if you not have read the thread, read it and understand my interpretation. Basically I’m saying this passage was hard to understand because we didn’t regain an idea of how genetics worked until recently in history.
I’m interpreting it according to the idea that the sons of God refers to angels, and in genesis 6 they are specifically fallen angels. That’s why it’s out of context to talk about Jesus’ statement about the ‘angels in heaven’. These angels were clearly not in heaven, nor were they acting in accordance with God’s will.
I think that’s a distinction without a difference because the question posed to Jesus was about heaven. Did you read through the thread?
Fallen angels versus angels in heaven is a “distinction without a difference”? Surely you don’t really believe that. Yes, I’ve followed the thread, and your suggestion that the Gigantopithecus could be nephilim doesn’t seem to make any sense from anybody’s point of view. And you’re arguing (presumably) for the Sethite view, which in turn makes even less sense of your suggestion.
Ok. Let me see if I can make it clearer. Here is the idea of the interpretation in story form: The Sethite line and other sons of God, co-rulers with God, decided to take wives that they knew carried tall genes or genes for Nephilim because they were at a disadvantage for war - there was violence everywhere on the earth. This grieved God because the purpose of it was evil, it was polygamy and showed they didn’t trust Him.
The text says the the sons of God after the flood (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) also married women that carried these genetics. It’s trying to say that these genetics were not from the sons but from the women. So after the flood various people groups showed up with these traits. The Bible mentions various of them. Perhaps these peoples culturally also purposely tried to create a tall society.
Does that explanation make more sense?
I still can’t figure it out. Are you saying that somehow human women were carrying the genes to make non-human offspring, after mating with other humans?
I don’t think she is saying the offspring are non-human. This is a well known disagreement within the YEC camp, right?
1 Like
No, and that’s definitely not what I meant. I meant that I don’t think saying Jesus referring to obedient angels when he says “angels in heaven” makes sense. Instead I think he’s making the point that we will also be like angels in that we don’t marry once we are in heaven.
We know that obedient angels also appear on earth. And also that Satan was able to enter heaven and was to appear before God, at least before Christ’s resurrection.
Then she’s saying gigantopithecus is human?
1 Like
Human women were carrying “giant” genes and had giant children after marrying “sons of God” - both the godly rulers of the pre-flood world and then the descendents of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
YES!!! 
That speculation is not consistent with what she was saying. I doubt anyone thinks G. Blackii are nephilim, and that she was just playing with an idea that she does not think is likely.
Edit: I stand corrected. She apparently wonders if it is human too…I don’t think that’s defensible.
1 Like
Jesus’ words were ‘angels in heaven’. You cannot ignore that. Don’t take his words out of context. This was not a statement in any way referencing fallen angels who disobey.
Yes, I agree with you! Lol.
I don’t think you’ll find any scientist, YEC or otherwise, who would be willing to say that gigantopithecus was human. If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to look at a source.
Then that means this verse has nothing to do with whether the sons of God in Gen 6 were angels. I believe the more consistent interpretation is that they were angels. The text doesn’t support the idea that there was a ‘godly line’ or an ‘ungodly line’, or that such a description would be used of them. Even godly men are still men. Contrasting them with ‘daughters of men’ implies they were not sons of men (but rather, as the text says, sons of God).
1 Like
Did you watch the YouTube video I linked? It explains the evidence whether the mandibles show they were bipedal or not. Scientists did think they could be hominins decades ago. So I’ll see if I can find anything from that era.
But God says we will be co-rulers with Him. We will rule angels. There’s lots of evidence throughout the Bible of God having a special relationship with rulers. We receive his inheritance. We are sons.
I’m suggesting the contrast is just to show that Nephilim came from the women - how would you explain genetics practically without modern knowledge? You’d probably emphasize a hybrid. The point in my thread was that everyone thinks this text is talking about a hybrid. So why not think of it in genetic terms and how the text describes violence in the earth and polygamy as being gross sins?
@PDPrice oh and notice that the native American stories that I linked believe the giants were from the line of Cain! i.e. not Seth.
The key phrase there is ‘will be’. I take that literally, and I am definitely not ruling the world right now. But that gets into an eschatology debate.
I just don’t see anything in the text that matches up with this interpretation, and I think it’s basically way beyond the scope of possibility to suggest the gigant. was human.
I very much agree with @PDPrice here.