Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: IllyrianOZ on March 04, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
-
"Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown". Genesis 6:4
Is there a DEFINITIVE Church Teaching on the Nephilim? It seems as though all ancient sources are more inclined towards the more sinister involvement of demons, whereas more modern theologians think it means Sethites. Here is a link of what the Early Church Fathers thought, as they were split on this topic; http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm
Here is another great article by Barbara Aho; http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html
Sons of God were either;
1) Sons of Seth, who intermarried with the Daughters of Cain (which somehow produced giants? And gave them almost supernatural abilities etc?) This is interpreted as to be a warning against mixed marriages... but then why would God ANNIHILATE the whole human race but 8 because of mixed marriages, something more sinister had to be happening.
2) Sons of God refers to angel who fell to Earth, and in doing so adopted physical bodies and fornicated with the women. "And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:6-7. The Book of Enoch, although not canonical, supports this, as does Flavius Josephus.
3) A mix of premises 1 and 2. Sons of Seth became involved in the Satanic rituals of the Cainites, and thereby became perfectly possessed by demons which somehow corrupted their seed in some supernatural way? This notion is supported by the works of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich
The Holy Bible says that "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven" Matt 22:30.
This only says that Angels IN HEAVEN do not marry. I also know that Thomistic Metaphysics dictates that angels cannot procreate. But this still leaves holes in the story.
Also, in Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites approached the land of Canaan "There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant kind: in comparison of whom, we seemed like locusts". Enac/Anak were a race of Nephilim. If the Deluge was GLOBAL (which I think it was), there were no descendants of Cain alive, so this cannot refer to mixed marriages theory again.
There are COUNTLESS verses and commentaries that prove/disprove either of the 3 theories. My question is this; I am inclined to believe either 2 or 3. Am I falling into some kind of heresy?
Ave Maria!
-
Heresy? I dunno. I buy the legend, at least. I have, ever since I was a kid. In my younger days, I was a Bible-thumping Protestant, and so of course, everything in the Bible was literal and true.
It still is.
My old ways of considering the Bible have not gone away. I still take Genesis quite literally, including Genesis 6:4.
Whatever the case, I'm sure I'll know what the truth is when I'm dead, anyway.
-
I think #2 makes the most sense on the face of it. I've also read an interpretation where the the "fornication" with the "daughters of men" is taken in a figurative sense to mean that immaterial beings took on corporeal form. In this case "fornication with the daughters of men" simply means that these superlative beings mixed with the four elements and acquired corporeal form.
-
These angels not only failed to keep their original dominion and authority, but they "left their own habitation." Habitation is a significant word: it means "dwelling place" or "heaven." And the addition of the Greek word "idion" ("their own") means that they left their own private, personal, unique possession. (4) Heaven was the private, personal residence of the angels. It was not made for man but for the angels. This is why the ultimate destination of the saints will not be Heaven but the new and perfect Earth which God will create (Revelation 21:1-3). Heaven is reserved for the angels, but as for the beings referred to in Jude 6-7, they abandoned it.
The above quote was taken from the link of the article in the OP here, it reminded me of something the nuns taught us, that the world will go on till all the places were filled from the fallen angels. In other words every angel that fell from heaven a human would take their place.
I wonder has anyone else ever heard this before.
-
I was under the impression these men were literally quite large in stature I.e. actual giants
They were also savage and lustful, just generally having greater degrees of humanness on every scale, physicality, size, emotion, but also ambition etc.
They could either do great good or great evil, more so than humans since then up to now.
-
The above quote was taken from the link of the article in the OP here, it reminded me of something the nuns taught us, that the world will go on till all the places were filled from the fallen angels. In other words every angel that fell from heaven a human would take their place.
I wonder has anyone else ever heard this before.
Yes, I believe Saint Augustine of Hippo proposes this theory, which has made its way 'un-officially' into Catholic Tradition.
e.g. 10 billion angels fell from Heaven, so when those 10 billion 'seats' are filled, the world will end.
My point is, if the Sethites had become 'corrupted' by way of sin, why did God ANNIHILATE the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE but 8 souls.. it seems a bit extreme.. but if there is a more sinister cause, then this makes perfect sense! And if it was just because of the apostacy etc, why hasn't God annihilated us (mankind) 1000 times over since then?
"And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. [...] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times. [...] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times" Genesis 6
They are obviously man. I've read I think in Origen, that he presumes that the demons, whence coming into our 'sphere', took on physical bodies. Whether that be possession of anothers, or the manifestation of their own is what is the dilemma..
Also, Genesis says that God looked with favour unto Noah because "He was perfect in his generations"... perfect from what? The Demoniac, is what I'm guessing..
My point is thus, if the Early Church Fathers / Jєωιѕн Scholars (etc) are 50/50 on this, and we are to make up our own minds because it is undefined, then I choose premise 2 because it makes most sense.. taking into account the passage of Jude, II Peter etc, and also referrences to the Book of Enoch in the Early Church Fathers / New Testament. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't a heretic for believin such theories..
Ave Maria
-
"Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown". Genesis 6:4
Is there a DEFINITIVE Church Teaching on the Nephilim? It seems as though all ancient sources are more inclined towards the more sinister involvement of demons, whereas more modern theologians think it means Sethites. Here is a link of what the Early Church Fathers thought, as they were split on this topic; http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm
Here is another great article by Barbara Aho; http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html
Sons of God were either;
1) Sons of Seth, who intermarried with the Daughters of Cain (which somehow produced giants? And gave them almost supernatural abilities etc?) This is interpreted as to be a warning against mixed marriages... but then why would God ANNIHILATE the whole human race but 8 because of mixed marriages, something more sinister had to be happening.
2) Sons of God refers to angel who fell to Earth, and in doing so adopted physical bodies and fornicated with the women. "And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:6-7. The Book of Enoch, although not canonical, supports this, as does Flavius Josephus.
3) A mix of premises 1 and 2. Sons of Seth became involved in the Satanic rituals of the Cainites, and thereby became perfectly possessed by demons which somehow corrupted their seed in some supernatural way? This notion is supported by the works of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich
The Holy Bible says that "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven" Matt 22:30.
This only says that Angels IN HEAVEN do not marry. I also know that Thomistic Metaphysics dictates that angels cannot procreate. But this still leaves holes in the story.
Also, in Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites approached the land of Canaan "There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant kind: in comparison of whom, we seemed like locusts". Enac/Anak were a race of Nephilim. If the Deluge was GLOBAL (which I think it was), there were no descendants of Cain alive, so this cannot refer to mixed marriages theory again.
There are COUNTLESS verses and commentaries that prove/disprove either of the 3 theories. My question is this; I am inclined to believe either 2 or 3. Am I falling into some kind of heresy?
Ave Maria!
Hi,
There is third possibility, and, I believe, a much simple one.
The sons of God were just men who simply cannot get married (because of a vow), so the sense would be "the world was so corrupted that even the sons of God were great sinners" and that is why you have the chastisement.
I believe St. Thomas is right when he teaches demons cannot procreate and option number 1 doesn´t explain the severity of the chastisement as you pointed out.
I read an article defending this theory in the Spanish review "estudios bíblicos" published in the forties.
-
There is really nothing mysterious about the "corruption of flesh". All men and women living at that time were wicked enough to merit the destruction of themselves and the world as it was at that time.
Anyone who reads that chapter and speculates that it was because of some genetic contamination (because the "sons of God", blah blah blah...) that required a mass culling of the human race is infected by Naturalism and Modernism.
Even if they materialize temporarily, angels do not have the ability to generate seed and reproduce, because the power of creation does not belong to them.
I don't think they'd even bleed if you had the opportunity to cut them open for that matter. Last I checked, nobody has a demon's corpse, and I don't expect one to turn up anytime soon.
There is nothing unnatural or demonic about men of gigantic stature. Our ancestors were giants, and it's a simple as that. There is genetic evidence for that anyway.
-
Heresy? I dunno. I buy the legend, at least. I have, ever since I was a kid. In my younger days, I was a Bible-thumping Protestant, and so of course, everything in the Bible was literal and true.
It still is.
My old ways of considering the Bible have not gone away. I still take Genesis quite literally, including Genesis 6:4.
I'll give you several verses in the same chapter proceeding that one that you can interpret just as literally and erroneously...
5.And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
6. It repented Him that He had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,
7. He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth Me that I have made them.
We know God can have no regret for anything He does, as if He were capable of making mistakes etc., but a person could easily come to believe that by interpreting these verses literally.
-
I am not sure it rises to the level of a controversy. Are lots of people actually concerned or arguing about it?
-
There is nothing unnatural or demonic about men of gigantic stature. Our ancestors were giants, and it's a simple as that. There is genetic evidence for that anyway.
I would be interested to learn of such evidence.
-
There is nothing unnatural or demonic about men of gigantic stature. Our ancestors were giants, and it's a simple as that. There is genetic evidence for that anyway.
I would be interested to learn of such evidence.
Here you go.
http://www.creationtoday.org/category/type/video/creation-seminars/
Sorry I'm making you dig for it, but I'm short of time to do it for you. It might be in the Garden of Eden vid, but I'm not sure.
-
Thank you. I only needed a pointer, not outright spoon-feeding.
-
This is all so confusing, because Philosophers/Theologians will dismiss the question saying "Angels are sexless, they cannot procreate etc etc", my point is, even St Thomas Aquinas was wrong sometimes, he didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception of The Blessed Virgin Mary.
I cant wait till the General Judgement, then we'll all see the real history of the world lol
-
There's even reference in Post Flood events in the Bible (e.g. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Kings) that the Giants were on the Earth then too.
I've read texts that say the fallen angels 're-corruped' (in whichever way that was) mankind (specifically the Canaanites), from where we have the Anakim, Rephaim etc (Numbers 13:33). That is why God apparently commanded that the Israelites exterminate the Canaanites and to a lesser extent the Philistines.
-
Heresy? I dunno. I buy the legend, at least. I have, ever since I was a kid. In my younger days, I was a Bible-thumping Protestant, and so of course, everything in the Bible was literal and true.
It still is.
My old ways of considering the Bible have not gone away. I still take Genesis quite literally, including Genesis 6:4.
I'll give you several verses in the same chapter proceeding that one that you can interpret just as literally and erroneously...
5.And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
6. It repented Him that He had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,
7. He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth Me that I have made them.
We know God can have no regret for anything He does, as if He were capable of making mistakes etc., but a person could easily come to believe that by interpreting these verses literally.
Perhaps this is the old sola scriptura in me, as I am having difficulty grasping something.
If what you are saying is true, that those verses do not mean what they say, then why are they there in the first place?
-
I cant wait till the General Judgement, then we'll all see the real history of the world lol
I hope I am not too busy with my own problems that day; I too want to know the definitive history of the world. I think there is a special round in hell for those who use "conspiracy theorist" as an epithet. :-)
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koleci said: I cant wait till the General Judgement, then we'll all see the real history of the world lol.
I am also.
Miles Dei
-
There's even reference in Post Flood events in the Bible (e.g. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Kings) that the Giants were on the Earth then too.
I've read texts that say the fallen angels 're-corruped' (in whichever way that was) mankind (specifically the Canaanites), from where we have the Anakim, Rephaim etc (Numbers 13:33). That is why God apparently commanded that the Israelites exterminate the Canaanites and to a lesser extent the Philistines.
This is preposterous! Angels cannot procreate with humans. That would require them to have bodies and sex organs and would mean that they would also be living on earth. It would also mean that the offspring would be half human and different then both angels and humans. The giants were just that - humans of larger than normal stature and strength, but only human.
-
Heresy? I dunno. I buy the legend, at least. I have, ever since I was a kid. In my younger days, I was a Bible-thumping Protestant, and so of course, everything in the Bible was literal and true.
It still is.
My old ways of considering the Bible have not gone away. I still take Genesis quite literally, including Genesis 6:4.
I'll give you several verses in the same chapter proceeding that one that you can interpret just as literally and erroneously...
5.And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
6. It repented Him that He had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,
7. He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth Me that I have made them.
We know God can have no regret for anything He does, as if He were capable of making mistakes etc., but a person could easily come to believe that by interpreting these verses literally.
Perhaps this is the old sola scriptura in me, as I am having difficulty grasping something.
If what you are saying is true, that those verses do not mean what they say, then why are they there in the first place?
They are there to be transmitted and interpreted by the Church, not the common man.
The common belief held is that the "sons of God" is an expression in reference to Adams children who remained faithful to the True God and lived apart from Cain's paganized tribe, the women of which are referred to as the "daughters of men".
One people are "of God" because they followed His precepts (at least to some extent), and the other are "of Men" because they indulged their fallen inclinations so far as to remove God from their thoughts and embrace paganism.
The "sons of God" took wives .... meaning THEY GOT MARRIED. It couldn't have been a demonic one night stand like some people are fantasizing.
What happened here is men born into the True Faith, at that time, let themselves be seduced by women who were devil worshipers (in addition to being hot), disregarded their parent's wisdom, and married them. Daddy's lax in his faith, mommy worships a serpent and has few or no morals... guess how their kids turned out?
How hard is it that natural interpretation to believe?
There is nothing at all written that suggests that the "sons of God" were fallen angels in human form (in the DR version anyway).
-
I've heard theories that the Nephtalim were the Neanderthals.
-
"Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown". Genesis 6:4
Is there a DEFINITIVE Church Teaching on the Nephilim? It seems as though all ancient sources are more inclined towards the more sinister involvement of demons, whereas more modern theologians think it means Sethites. Here is a link of what the Early Church Fathers thought, as they were split on this topic; http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm
Here is another great article by Barbara Aho; http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html
Sons of God were either;
1) Sons of Seth, who intermarried with the Daughters of Cain (which somehow produced giants? And gave them almost supernatural abilities etc?) This is interpreted as to be a warning against mixed marriages... but then why would God ANNIHILATE the whole human race but 8 because of mixed marriages, something more sinister had to be happening.
2) Sons of God refers to angel who fell to Earth, and in doing so adopted physical bodies and fornicated with the women. "And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:6-7. The Book of Enoch, although not canonical, supports this, as does Flavius Josephus.
3) A mix of premises 1 and 2. Sons of Seth became involved in the Satanic rituals of the Cainites, and thereby became perfectly possessed by demons which somehow corrupted their seed in some supernatural way? This notion is supported by the works of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich
The Holy Bible says that "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven" Matt 22:30.
This only says that Angels IN HEAVEN do not marry. I also know that Thomistic Metaphysics dictates that angels cannot procreate. But this still leaves holes in the story.
Also, in Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites approached the land of Canaan "There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant kind: in comparison of whom, we seemed like locusts". Enac/Anak were a race of Nephilim. If the Deluge was GLOBAL (which I think it was), there were no descendants of Cain alive, so this cannot refer to mixed marriages theory again.
There are COUNTLESS verses and commentaries that prove/disprove either of the 3 theories. My question is this; I am inclined to believe either 2 or 3. Am I falling into some kind of heresy?
Ave Maria!
Scripture is often written in a spiritual context and thus can hold several Deep meanings other than those we can comprehend - be multi layered - be multi generational - and apply to several time frames in addition to the one it took place in - it can cross over from the physical to the spirititual and return and it is written by the infinite omnipotent Almighty GOD who has the ultimate overview. Hense , one of the reasons Jesus spoke in parables for example. Therefore - are these Biblical accounts a matter of Faith or a stumbling block for belief? Are competing theological theories becoming a contradiction? I can tell you that Scripture is not intended to damage ones faith - therefore - rather than embark on this qwest for knowledge - perhaps the prudent course of action is to read the theologians various opinions - and simply dont form one of your own.
Pax
-
I find this topic very intriguing but can't find a good Catholic source that lends any clarification - particularly, who are "the Sons of God" vs. "the daughters of men." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Bp. Challoner was protected by infallibility. How is it that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 are different from the "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and , if so, then which "sons of God" are being referenced in John 1:12?
I've found some Protestant authors/talk show hosts who have some interesting theories on this. They theorize that there is a connection with the "seed" in Genesis 3:15 and that Satan is attempting to corrupt the divine bloodline through genetic manipulation - that is very much a thumbnail sketch. If you have the patience, watch this whole video series http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAjlgJkxk_A
Here are a couple of other interesting ones -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLBIXq292UM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wmT4bvGbk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AjQmIWLZCU&feature=related
Lastly, this video is a little off-topic. The subject matter is also intriguing to me though as it deals with the St. Malachy prophecy of the last pope. However, they begin discussing Malachi Martin and Windswept House around the 20min mark and make some very interesting allegations; not the least of which is that April 2012 will mark the end of BXVI and usher in "Petrus Romanus."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9vEJycKnXA&list=PLA0B30E76D22D873C&feature=plpp_play_all
:tinfoil:
-
Are these links suitable for children ? Thanks.
-
Are these links suitable for children ? Thanks.
I guess that really depends on their age as well as how well grounded they are in The Faith. As I mentioned, this is by Protestant theologians and, while they don't directly attack the Catholic Church, they mention their doubts about the Fatima apparitions or refer to the 66 books of the Bible.
There is definitely nothing graphical/visual to worry about in any of them; however, there is some brief discussion of sex in regards to genetic manipulation - nothing too racy - except the last video link. That last video is the one that mentions doubts about the Blessed Mother's appearance at Fatima (although they believe in the cover up of the third secret), but also briefly talks about Malachi Martin and the conjecture surrounding alleged ceremonies that took place in the Vatican to enthrone Satan, which involved human sacrifice and ceremonial sex. If you want to hear the worst of that one, listen to the 22-35 minute part and slightly beyond that they air their grievances about the appearances of Mary.
The third link I posted has some very interesting discussion of mathematics that mentions the Corpus Christi painting by Salvador Dali, which I thought was pretty incredible (you need to watch 22min forward to get the whole gist).
While it's on my mind, here are two great ones for kids to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0-NPPIeeRk
I hope that helps.
-
I've found some Protestant authors/talk show hosts who have some interesting theories on this. They theorize that there is a connection with the "seed" in Genesis 3:15 and that Satan is attempting to corrupt the divine bloodline through genetic manipulation - that is very much a thumbnail sketch. If you have the patience, watch this whole video series
That is either a heresy or has heretical implications. Angels cannot mate with women, as has been pointed out, there is a little problem in that they don't have bodies. Also there are consequences to the concept of free will in all of this; if we are genetically manipulated how can we choose good or evil? Some of us are more predisposed to evil than others because we have alien DNA?
All of this Nephilim stuff is from the devil along with the David Icke reptilian business. All evil comes from humans under the MENTAL influence of Satan. The demons are clever enough to fool us without messing up our DNA.
-
All evil comes from humans under the MENTAL influence of Satan. The demons are clever enough to fool us without messing up our DNA.
Exactly.
Haydock:"Ver. 4. Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature, in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of, are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust. (Challoner) --- Yet we need not imagine, that they were such as the poets describe, tearing up mountains, and hurling them against heaven. Being offspring of men, who had lived hitherto with great temperance, but now gave full scope to their passions, and the love of the fair daughters whom they chose, we need not wonder that they should be amazingly strong and violent. Nephilim, rushing on, as Ag.[Aquila?] translates. That there have been giants of an unusual size, all historians testify. Og, Goliah, &c. are mentioned in Scripture, and the sons of Enac are represented as much above the common size, as the Hebrews were greater than grasshoppers, Numbers xiii. 34. If we should suppose they were four or five times our size, would that be more wonderful than that they should live nine or ten times as long as we do? See St. Augustine, City of God xv. 9, 23; Calmet's Dissert. &c. Delrio affirms, that in 1572 he saw at Rouen, a native of Piedmont, above nine feet high. (Haydock) --- Of old. The corruption of morals had commenced many ages ago, and some of the sons of Seth had given way to their lusts; so that we are not to suppose, that these giants were all born within a hundred years of the flood, as some might suppose from their being mentioned here, after specifying the age of Noe, chap. v. 31. (Haydock)"
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id333.html
And, no, Haydock isn't protected by infallibility, but if you are at the point of questioning this sentence in the bible like that, I think you need to refocus your energy. There is no controversy, sorry. At least not amongst Catholic thought.
-
Maybe we should capture, bind, and examine Daegus and see if he has Nephalim blood. :wink:
-
Maybe we should capture, bind, and examine Daegus and see if he has Nephalim blood. :wink:
Or better yet, get him to start posting again. :laugh1:
Seriously, I miss his posts. Hopefully he will return one day.
-
That is either a heresy or has heretical implications.
Well, Captain Obvious, I did mention it was a Protestant theory. You might consider though that Catholics and Protestants have more in common than not.
Angels cannot mate with women, as has been pointed out, there is a little problem in that they don't have bodies. Also there are consequences to the concept of free will in all of this; if we are genetically manipulated how can we choose good or evil? Some of us are more predisposed to evil than others because we have alien DNA?
I'm not sure to what you are referring here, certainly not the post of mine you quoted. I'll have to go back and read the thread again.
All of this Nephilim stuff is from the devil along with the David Icke reptilian business.
Is it the term "nephilim" that bothers you? Would "giants" be better? Do you deny that portion of the scripture that refers to giants? Is it really a fair comparison to put that in the same category as "the David Icke reptilian business?" I would urge you to choose your words more carefully and to consider revising your comments.
All evil comes from humans under the MENTAL influence of Satan. The demons are clever enough to fool us without messing up our DNA.[emphasis mine]
So, true cases of demonic possession are just "MENTAL influences?" I would urge you to re-read your sig line and exercise a little humility. Tempering your comments with a bit of a more charitable tone wouldn't hurt either.
-
There haven't been archaeological discoveries of ancient giants?
-
There haven't been archaeological discoveries of ancient giants?
According to the information contained in the links I posted, there have been many.
-
There haven't been archaeological discoveries of ancient giants?
According to the information contained in the links I posted, there have been many.
No offense but I don't want to watch hours of video to find the answer. Google searches have found a bunch of hoaxes, like the one in Saudi Arabia.
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/annunaki_imag/news1_esqueletoanu.jpg)
-
No offense but I don't want to watch hours of video to find the answer. Google searches have found a bunch of hoaxes, like the one in Saudi Arabia.
No offense taken. Here are a few links to check out. The first acknowledges the hoax you refer to but adds other allegedly real photos.
Let me reiterate that, to my knowledge, these are all Protestant sources:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm
http://6000years.org/frame.php?page=giants
http://www.biblesearchers.com/prophecy/planetx/losttribes11.shtml#AnnunakiWatchers
I understand that is a lot of video to go through. Some of the links I posted aren't even "videos" in the sense that they are rebroadcasts of radio shows with a slideshow accompaniment. However, in them it is alleged that there have been discoveries of mass grave sites of giant skeletal remains (maybe even including body armor). I don't recall the details, but they said they have been discovered all over the world and I believe one of the mass graves was found in the US (I want to say New Mexico, but I'm not sure). They also allege that there are efforts to cover up these discoveries.
-
Here's the one I couldn't find that piqued my interest a while ago:
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html
-
Thanks I'll check them out!