S
Soul
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
The bible doesn't mention the nephilim were apemen.Why not? "Ape men" is only the appearance. Did anyone find inhuman DNA?
Why do you think a race (or multiple races) of giants could not exist, apart from angel DNA?
I know a lady who looks like 'Lucy'. Her kids do too.
I didn't say they were. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say the nephilim were a result of the mating of the sons of God and the daughters of men. I was just making a comment on the direction the thread was going with some of the discussion. The point bringing apemen into the argument is moot.The bible doesn't mention the nephilim were apemen.
The daughters gave birth to the dinosaurs.I didn't say they were. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say the nephilim were a result of the mating of the sons of God and the daughters of men. I was just making a comment on the direction the thread was going with some of the discussion. The point bringing apemen into the argument is moot.
OK, then who/what are the apemen you mentioned?I didn't say they were.
Yeah, it pretty much does say that.In fact, the Bible doesn't even say the nephilim were a result of the mating of the sons of God and the daughters of men.
I was just making a comment on the direction the thread was going with some of the discussion. The point bringing apemen into the argument is moot.
The bible doesn't mention the nephilim were apemen.
Somebody else's word. All I'm saying is that it is irrelevant whether there were apemen, giants, nephilim, etc, as to proof that they resulted from the mating of angels/demons with human women.OK, then who/what are the apemen you mentioned?
Actually, no. It doesn't. It only shows concurrence.Yeah, it pretty much does say that.
No, it says the offspring were Nephilim.Somebody else's word. All I'm saying is that it is irrelevant whether there were apemen, giants, nephilim, etc, as to proof that they resulted from the mating of angels/demons with human women.
Actually, no. It doesn't. It only shows concurrence.
You may as well say that human choice is the cause of salvation, since the sequence of terminology shown in Scripture is in that order in places.
Are you starting over now?No, it says the offspring were Nephilim.
Even Enoch agrees. Read Enoch 6.
Nope, presenting the obvious.Are you starting over now?
No, it does not say it. Quote to me where it says it.No, it says the offspring were Nephilim.
Even Enoch agrees. Read Enoch 6.
The account begins in Enoch 6....I should have been more clear. When you keep reading it is revealed.No, it does not say it. Quote to me where it says it.
Enoch is not plenary verbal inspiration. Sorry. It's just not.The account begins in Enoch 6....I should have been more clear. When you keep reading it is revealed.
Chapter 9:9. And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness.
First...does that mean it isn't true? Can't be true?Enoch is not plenary verbal inspiration. Sorry. It's just not.
First...does that mean it isn't true? Can't be true?
Secondly, why is the book quoted in the new testament?
Third....why does Jesus reference the book?
Fourth....why was portions (fragments) of it found with the dead sea scrolls?
Sixth...Why is it said the ancient Jewish temples contained copies of it?
Seventh...why is it included with the Ethopian bible?
I wouldn't simply write it off because someone said it isn't "biblical".