Talk:Nephilim
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 Post comment,or browse for more talk. |
Recent Changes (May 27, 2007)
Grifken 21:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This page could be much improved, and as such I have started working re-writing a lot of it, whilst presenting both of the main positions on the subject. I am not trying to delete "opposing" viewpoints. The statement that "angels are not biological beings" may reflect a widely held Platonic belief that angelic beings have no material component, but runs headlong into Genesis 18:6-8 which states that the angels ate the food Sarah prepared for them, and Psalm 78:25 which says the manna in the wilderness was the "bread of angels". Its position in the article was rather strongly POV, and I thought it did not belong there.
I propose to re-write this page to outline the two historical schools of thought in the church: the angel-human hybrid and the Line of Seth interbreeding with line of Cain. We can have a section under each school for their primary arguments, where the "angels are not biological beings" would be appropriate.
Grifken 21:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- Interesting point - I would suggest adding some of this argument for a "material component" of angels to the angel page.
- I replaced the paragraph regarding other created men, which was deleted a second time. Reversing admin edits is forbidden. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
A lot more can be done to improve this article. I suggest that the long section of quotes from Enoch and Jubilees should be removed and replaced with summaries or short quotes in the section on extra-Biblical literature.
Grifken 00:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Sons of God
Grifken 01:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT) It seems poor style to put the counter-argument for each of the three positions on the the Sons of God in this paragraph. It would make more sense to develop counter-arguments in the Controversy section. But whatever the boss wants goes, I guess...
Am I the only one who uses the comment section to discuss changes before making them? Grifken 01:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- Mostly. Major changes are discussed, though. PrometheusX303 22:24, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Other created men?
Another logical interpretation for the Sons of God is they were other created men. It is largely assumed that Adam and Eve were the only humans created in the beginning, but the Bible does not describe every person on earth, nor even everyone that was important to God. Only key individuals or situations are included within the text, and we can not say with certainty that God only created one pair of humans.
This is quite wrong.
- When Adam was first created, "no suitable helper was found for him".
- Eve is described as the "mother of all living".
- The New Testament says "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."
If Adam were not the only progenitor of our race, these statements could not be true. --Oelphick 18:05, 27 November 2006 (EST)
I agree with you, Oel. I am of the opinion that it is either a social label (that may describe mighty men, or kings), or it may refer to some genetic variation of humans; i.e. Neanderthals (but then there is the question of how they survived the flood). --Soga 11:29, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Grifken 14:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
By suggesting that God created other humans besides Adam and Eve, the original author of this article steps out of the fold of orthodoxy, as the Scriptures clearly teach that all men die because of Adam's sin, because all men are sons of Adam.
Therefore, I will alter this paragraph to reflect Biblical orthodoxy. If the author can reference a published source that attributes Nephilim to other created lines, then we might add a reference to unorthodox opinions on the subject.
Grifken 14:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
