A History Lesson, Part 4

After Constantine’s conversion he convened general councils to settle major troubling issues. In 314 he convened a general council of the west at Arles, and in 325 he convened the first General Council of the whole church at Nicea. It was at the Nicene council that a policy of patriarchates was established, where the administration of the church affairs would be by bishops from three or four major cities. Alexandria, Rome and Antioch were preeminent in their areas, while Jerusalem was granted an honorary primacy.

In AD 330, Constantine moved his capital east from Rome to the town of Byzantium, and renamed it Constantinople, but it was also known as “New Rome“. This shifted the political center of the empire to the east, and in turn the bishop of Constantinople became the focus of spiritual and doctrinal leadership.

  

While the favoring of the Christian faith brought advantages, it also brought about great disadvantages.  “Constantine ruled Christian bishops as he did his civil servants and demanded unconditional obedience to official pronouncements, even when they interfered with purely church matters. There were also the masses who now streamed into the officially favored church. Prior to Constantine’s conversion, the church consisted of convinced believers. Now many came who were politically ambitious, religiously disinterested, and still half-rooted in paganism. This threatened to produce not only shallowness and permeation by pagan superstitions but also the secularization and misuse of religion for political purposes.”  (Shelly, p.96)  “…the result was a decline in Christian commitment. The stalwart believers whom Diocletian killed were replaced by a mixed multitude of half-converted pagans. Once Christians laid down their lives for the truth; now they slaughtered each other to secure the prizes of the church.”  (p.118)

There was an underlying cultural problem which helped cause divergence between the two halves of the empire: while the Western church was linguistically Latin, the Eastern church was Greek. When Constantine died in 337 and left his empire divided between his two sons, the divergence grew.

In 380 Emperor Theodosius made belief in Christianity mandatory, under the name of “Catholic Christians.” His imperial command said, “The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with divine judgment.”  As Shelly points out, “Theodosius takes for granted the close link between his own will and God’s. It was a connection implicit in the Christian empire.” (p.97)

In 381 Theodosius called a council in which he said that the bishop of Constantinople was to take precedence immediately after the Roman bishop, because Constantinople was the New Rome. This didn’t set well with Rome, and the following year the Roman bishop Damasus declared for the first time that Rome was of primacy because, as he claimed, Jesus said he built His church on Peter, and Peter founded the Roman church.

Under Theodosius church structure began centering on powerful positions. The bishops of leading cities and imperial provinces became known as archbishops, and the center of his jurisdiction became known as the see. Shelly tells us, “Those bishops in the premier cities of the empire - Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch - were considered highest of all and were called patriarchs. Throughout the fourth and fifth centuries these four powerful patriarchs were attempting to extend the prestige and power of their spiritual offices.”  (p.111).  Rome was now influential in the western empire while Constantinople was influential in the east.

The bishop of Constantinople came to rely on the church’s political position, and religion and politics became so entwined that the bishop began losing his independence from the emperor. Meanwhile, Damasus in Rome was subjected to weakened political control and began asserting the primacy claimed by Damasus’ appeal to Peter’s position.

When Theodosius died in 395, the Eastern part of the empire was ruled by his son Flavius Arcadius until he died in 408, while the Western part of the empire was ruled by his son Flavius Honorius until he died in 423. The leadership of the empire continued changing over the next few decades, and church leadership continued to be more and more focused at the two capitals.

In Rome the church leadership passed through seven bishops after Damasus until Leo 1, who became bishop in 440. Leo immediately preached on the issue of the authority of the church resting in the bishop of Rome by virtue of the authority of Peter’s position as the rock on which Christ said his church would be built (which was a gross misapplication of Scripture).  This erroneously assumed any authority given to Peter thereby became the authority of the bishop of Rome.

The claim by Leo was made into an official imperial claim when, in 445, Emperor Valentinian III “issued a decree instructing Aetius, the Roman commander in Gaul, to compel the attendance at the papal court of any bishop who refused to come voluntarily. … The imperial document ran: ‘As the primacy of the Apostolic See is based on the title of the blessed Peter, prince of the episcopal dignity, on the dignity of the city of Rome, and on the decision of the Holy Synod, no illicit steps may be taken against this See to usurp its authority. For the only way to safeguard peace among the churches everywhere is to acknowledge its leadership universally.’” (Shelly, p.138)

At the council of Chalcedon in October 451, although Leo was the dominant figure, the council ended up giving the bishop of Constantinople the same authority as Leo’s, so that now there were indeed two sole and independent leaders - the bishop of Rome in the West and the bishop of Constantinople in the East. Leo’s representative protested but the 350 bishops meeting at the council did not alter their decision. 

Next time: Attila the Hun and the Vandals change the political and religious status of Rome.

A History Lesson, Part 3

The church in Rome received honor from all Christians for several reasons.  First, Rome was the capital of the empire, and known as the “Eternal City.” Secondly, it was the largest and wealthiest church in the western part of the empire, and it was known for its orthodoxy and charity. Thirdly, even in persecution the Roman congregation grew quickly in numbers so that by the middle of the third century it numbered about 30,000.  This size gave it great influence. Fourth, early Christian writers, beginning in the second century, referred to Peter and Paul as the founders of the Roman church and that the bishops there were their successors, which was important in combating the Gnostic heresies.

Even though Rome had honor among the church, it had no more authority than any other church, and if the Roman bishop was in error, other bishops felt no compunction about disagreeing with him. Before Constantine, there is no evidence that the bishop of Rome exercised any authority outside of Rome, even though his position was accorded honor.

Rome’s influence grew as “part of the increasingly complex church structure emerging in the third and fourth centuries. … Councils arose when churches in various areas began sending their pastors (or bishops) to meetings to discuss common problems.  These were at first irregular, but during the third century these provincial councils began to meet annually. In theory, the bishops from the churches were all equal, but in practice this was seldom the case. The pastors of the churches established by the apostles possessed an informal spiritual prestige, and the bishops from the larger cities exercised authority in certain matters over the pastors from smaller towns. As the church grew it adopted…the structure of the empire. This meant that the provincial town of the empire became the episcopal town of the church. Above the provinces in the empire was the metropolis, so bishops in these larger cities soon supervised the bishops in the provinces in that area. Finally, the empire was divided into several major regions, so within the church, people came to think of the church at Rome exercising authority in Italy, Carthage in North Africa, Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, and so on. As the churches within the province thrust out into the countryside, usually through a preaching tour of the bishop, other churches were established to meet the needs of the converts. At first these churches were cared for by clergy sent out from the city. Ministers who served them, however, were not bishops. They were called “priests” from presbyter, the Greek word for “elder.” These priests in the country parishes were consecrated and controlled by the city bishop…. Thus, as the fourth century began [AD 300], the catholic churches were establishing general policies by regular regional councils of bishops and handling day-to-day affairs under the oversight of bishops in each area.”  (Shelly, pp.134-135)

Notice during this time, the change as to how church leadership was defined. Remember, in the New Testament the office of presbyter (Greek for elder), was also known as an overseer (Greek episkopos - English “bishop”), as well as “pastor” (Latin for “shepherd“). But now that there is a hierarchy being established, presbyter has become “priest” and the head of a city is now a bishop - an “overseer” of the lower level, local pastors.

In the next episode, we will look at what happened to the Church after Constantine converted to Christianity.

A History Lesson, Part 2

In AD 250 Emperor Decius (249-251) started the worst persecution Christians had yet faced. Decius commanded all citizens of the empire to sacrifice to the Roman gods, or face death. Those who sacrificed were given a certificate as evidence they obeyed, while some were able to obtain false certificates without actually sacrificing. Many Christians who could not obtain false certificates sacrificed to save their lives. It was during this time the term “martyr” (witness) became prevalent, used of those who died because of their refusal to participate in the sacrifices. Those who endured the persecution without denying Christ were called “confessors.”  The martyrs and confessors were held in awe, and the names of martyrs were recorded in the churches.  The anniversaries of these “saints‘” deaths were celebrated annually at their tombs.

After Decius was killed in battle, persecution relaxed and the question of readmission to the church was raised in regards to those who were not spiritually prepared to hold fast their faith under torture. Bishop Cyprian of Carthage stated, “Outside the church there is no salvation.”  This led to demands for readmission, but the question was whether or not this was a sin which could be forgiven. Cyprian was then confronted with many who believed that the unusual courage of the confessors led to their being granted special power from God, and that the Holy Spirit ordained them to absolve people of their sins.  Supposedly they could cover with their “merits” the “demerits” of those who apostatized, and they wanted Cyprian to issue a blanket pardon on that basis. Cyprian instead favored a system of readmission based on the degrees of seriousness of sins. He decided that leniency was to be granted to those who had sacrificed to the pagan gods only after extreme torture, while those who went willingly would receive harsher punishments. Cyprian’s argument won, and the church at large created a graded system of penance to allow the lapsed to return. (The North African idea of merits didn’t die - it reappeared later in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Treasury of Merit and indulgences.) Penance became the second sacrament, behind baptism.

When Diocletian came to the throne of the Roman empire in 284, he determined the empire was unmanageable and so divided it up into four parts under himself and three other men; he and Maximian were “Augusti“ and under them were two “Caesars.”  At first he paid no attention to the growing power of the Christian faith, but in 303, two years before the end of his reign, he purged all Christians from his army, destroyed church buildings, burned the Scriptures and prohibited Christian worship.  He issued edicts which led to the most savage persecution of Christians in history.

Diocletian abdicated in 305 and forced Maximian to also abdicate. The new eastern Augustus, Galerius, took the persecution to more intense levels (it is possible he encouraged Diocletian to begin the persecutions). The other replacement Augustus, Constantius Chlorus, who was in Britain, had never pushed the persecution in his district of Gaul, and now he ended persecution and even showed Christians favor.

Galerius, on his deathbed in 311, realized his efforts to eradicate Christianity had failed, so his last official act was to issue an edict of toleration, which effectively brought the worst Roman persecution to an end.

Galerius’ death brought about a struggle for imperial power. Constantius’ son, Constantine, led his forces to solidify the Roman empire under his control.  When he came upon a militarily superior enemy in October 312, he prayed to the Christian God, and supposedly received a vision of a cross in the sky, with the words, “In this sign conquer.”  This convinced him to attack, and his forces won the battle.  Constantine saw this as proof of the superiority of the Christian religion with it’s powerful Christ.

Constantine’s conversion to the Christian faith is debated by historians and scholars, and is beyond the scope of this study.  But, according to Bruce Shelly, “He allowed Christian ministers to enjoy the same exemption from taxes as pagan priests; he abolished executions by crucifixion; he called a halt to the battles of gladiators as a punishment for crimes; and in 321 he made Sunday a public holiday.  Thanks to his generosity, magnificent church building arose as evidence of his support of Christianity.  This public Christianity was matched by changes in Constantine’s private life.  Making no secret of his Christian convictions, he had his sons and daughters brought up as Christians and led a Christian family life.”  (Church History in Plain Language, pp.94-95) 

Next time we will look at how the Roman church rose to prominence prior to Constantine’s conversion.

A History Lesson, Part 1

Over the past decade I’ve posted my own articles, and links to other articles, which are critical of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings, as well as examining doctrinal differences between them. In order to understand the positions of these churches today, we have to learn the history of them up to where they parted company.  This history will be lengthy and therefore posted in parts, but will put all the puzzle pieces together which show how Rome claimed supremacy for itself and how the division between the Eastern and Western Churches came about. 

Bear in mind that the word “catholic” merely means “universal,” as in the “universal Christian church.” For purposes of discussion, the modern academic term “Byzantine empire” will be used of the Eastern half of the empire to differentiate it from the Holy Roman Empire — as the Western empire came to be called in the ninth century.  However, it must be understood that those in the Eastern half saw themselves as a continuation of the Roman Empire, and the leader was still called “Caesar.” The Byzantine emperor was referred to as the Roman emperor, and the citizens spoke of themselves as Romans.

The first local congregations were under the care of the apostles, but as the Christian faith spread across the world the apostles appointed elders, or presbyters (from the Greek for “elders”) to be the local authorities. These men were also called “bishops” (“overseers”) or “pastors” (“shepherds”). Assisting these men in their duties were “deacons.”  As time went by, these local congregations would place themselves under a local leader, known as the bishop of the city.

After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the center of Christianity moved north and then west. The first “headquarters”  after Jerusalem was Antioch of Syria. The third bishop of Antioch was Ignatius, who was martyred during the reign of terror under emperor Trajan (AD 98-117). After the turn of the 2nd century, Ignatius wrote a series of letters to several churches in which he speaks of a single bishop in each church, under which is a body of presbyters and supported by deacons. Apparently the “bishop” was seen as the head presbyter/elder/overseer/pastor. It wasn’t until the end of the 2nd century that this system became common. (Many churches have this system today, with the pastor as the teaching elder supported by a board of elders, with deacons providing service to the congregation.)

At the end of the 2nd century the Christian church had to deal with Gnostic groups who claimed their secret teachings were passed down directly from Jesus. However, a mid-second century historian, Hegesippus, had traveled from Palestine to Rome hearing Christian teachings from the various churches, and discovered that Christian teachings were public and available to all, and the same in every location. He then drew up succession lists of at least the bishops of Corinth and Rome, showing how their teachings came directly from the apostles, who themselves had been taught by Christ.  Later that century, Irenaeus in Gaul and Tertullian in North Africa followed this leading and pointed out direct succession for their teachings for all the bishops, proving that the Gnostics were the ones in the wrong.

During the 2nd century, and even moreso in the 3ed century, many changes were made in the understanding of essential Christian beliefs, including ideas as to the meaning of the Lord’s supper, and the development of the idea of “original” sin, for which infant baptism later became necessary.  Part of this was caused by melding some pagan beliefs with those of Christianity.  

One of the ideas that changed during the first two centuries was the idea of forgiveness for sin. Bruce L. Shelley, in his excellent book, Church History in Plain Language, gives us a good synopsis of this issue and how it related to Rome claiming a special position in the church:

During the first two centuries most Christians believed that baptism cancelled all sins committed up to that moment in the believer’s life.  Serious postbaptismal lapses called for special treatment.  Three sins in particular - sexual immorality, murder, and the denial of the faith (apostasy) - were considered forgivable by God, but never by the church.  The penalty for any one of these was exclusion from the fellowship of the church and deprivation of the Lord’s Supper.  Since the Communion, most believed, was a special channel of divine grace, withholding it placed a person’s salvation in peril.  Ignatius called it “the medicine of immortality and the antidote of death.”

The first half of the third century was a long period of calm for the church; few were called before Roman officials to renounce their faith.  Spiritual warfare seemed like a thing of the past, so many called for a relaxation of church discipline.

The first to accept repentant sinners as a matter of policy was the bishop of Rome.  Callistus (217-222) readmitted penitent members who had committed adultery.  He argued that the church is like Noah’s ark.  In it unclean as well as clean beasts can be found.  Then he defended his actions by insisting that the church of Rome was the heir of Peter and the Lord had given keys to Peter to bind and loose the sins of men.  This marks the first time a bishop of Rome claimed this special authority.  (p.74)

My next post will pick up the tale in 250 AD.

Is Your “Photo” Distorted?

Anyone who studies photography knows that when the setting on the camera are not properly adjusted, the picture can come out distorted or blurry. Such is also the case when someone interprets the Bible without looking at the context or ignoring what the Bible clearly teaches in other places.

Eric J. Bargerhuff, The Most Misused Verses in the Bible, pg.85

Who were the Nephilim in Genesis 6?

There seem to be two primary interpretations of who the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 are:

1. Offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.”
2. A race of wicked people who were contemporaries of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.

(A third view, such as by Matthew Henry, was that they were children of the Seth line marrying Cain’s line — his interpretation of “sons of God” and “daughters of men.”)

Be sure to review the text in various versions in yesterday’s post.

The pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, in chapters 6 and 7, at least gives us what the tradition was during the period it was written:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’ And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.’ And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it….And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

In this narrative it is obvious the the Nephilim are the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men."

Here are commentaries which support the idea that the nephilim were offspring of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” (regardless of the identity of the “sons of God”).

In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, chapter 3, historian Josephus said “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 this whom the Grecians call giants.

In his Second Apology of Justin, chapter 5, Justin Martyr stated:  God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to 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, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them.

Ariel’s Bible Commentary, The Book of Genesis, by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, specifically states that the Nephilim are “the results of the intermarriage between fallen angels and human women.” He goes on to state that the Greek word gigantes used to translate “Nephilim” in the Septuagint is the term for the Latin “Titans,” which were part man and part god; having human characteristics but also superhuman. In that regard it is best to translate “Nephilim” as “fallen ones.” Fruchtenbaum says the rabbinic interpretation of the meaning of “Nephilim” was “because they fell and caused the world to fall.”  Interestingly, he states the use of “Nephilim” in Numbers 13:33 is due to the lie from the spies when they tried to discourage Israel from invading Canaan, and that no giants were found there.

Henry Morris’ Defender’s Study Bible (King James Version): These “giants” were the monstrous progeny of the demon-possessed men and women whose illicit activities led to God’s warning of imminent judgement. The Hebrew word is nephilim (“fallen ones”), a term possibly relating to the nature of their spiritual “parents,” the fallen angels. That they were also physical giants is evident from the fact that the same word is used later in connection with the giants in Canaan at the time of Joshua (Numbers 13:33) and by the fact that the word here was translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word gigantes. “After that” clearly refers to Numbers 13:33 and probably represents an editorial insertion in Noah’s record by Moses. These giants in Canaan may also have had demonically-controlled parents…. The antediluvian giants had, by the time of Moses, become renowned heroes of antiquity, as far as the world was concerned. They, like their parents, were probably demon-controlled. Their gigantic stature was engineered by genetic manipulations. . . A half-angel, half-human being would be an impossible anomaly in terms of soteriology.  The only apparent solution to all the problems posed by these verses is demon possession of both parents and progeny, not demonic marriage or procreation. 

The NET Bible: The Hebrew word [Hebrew letters at this point] (nefilim) is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humankind” (v.2), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner.

Merril F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary: The Nephilim are considered by many as giant demigods, the unnatural offspring of “the daughters of men” (mortal women) in cohabitation with “the sons of God” (angels). This utterly unnatural union, violating God’s created orders of being, was such a shocking abnormality as to necessitate the worldwide judgement of the Flood.

The International Bible Commentary, with F.F. Bruce as general editor, states that, “The obvious inference is that they were the offspring of the unions just mentioned, and the setting suggest that they were the ring-leaders in the evil begin described.”

Harper’s Bible Dictionary says that they are “people of the pre-Flood generation, the offspring of daughters of men and divine beings….” (cited by Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.)

From the Encyclopedia Judaica we find this comment:  In apocryphal writings of the Second Temple period this fragmentary narrative was elaborated and reinterpreted. The angels were then depicted as rebels against God: lured by the charms of women, they "fell" (Heb, nfl. נפל), defiled their heavenly purity, and introduced all manner of sinfulness to earth. Their giant offspring were wicked and violent; the Flood was occasioned by their sinfulness. 

The “Free Messianic Bible” states that they were indeed the offspring, but it does not agree that the “sons of God” were fallen angels.

An article from Logos Talk (the blog of Logos Bible software) seems to accept the Nephilim as offspring, regardless of the identity of the “sons of God.”

Got Questions specifically identifies the Nephilim as the offspring.

Even Wikipedia states that the Nephilim were the offspring of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.”

Here are commentaries which say the nephilim were not the offspring of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.”

John MacArthur’s Study Bible: The word nephilim is from a root meaning “to fall,” indicating that they were strong men who “fell" on others in the sense of overpowering them. … They were already in the earth when the “mighty men” and “men of renown” were born. The fallen ones are not the offspring from the union in 6:1,2.

Charles Ryrie’s Study Bible: Nephilim. From a root meaning “to fall”; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength…. Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Men.6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which Mae the mighty men (military men) and men of renown (of wealth or power).

Kenneth Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III in their “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.”: Here “Nephilim” appears to refer to the great men of antiquity. Since the author has just referred to ten such great men (ch.5), perhaps these were the “men of renown.”

I’m sure one can go through more commentaries (and I have access to many more on CD) and find both sides of the debate, but I’m finding the vast majority believe the Nephilim were the offspring of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” regardless of the identity of the “sons of God.”

After studying all the noted commentaries in regards to who the “sons of God” were, and now studying about who the Nephilim were, I think the most rational understanding is that the Nephilim were indeed the offspring of the union of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” whether or not the fallen angels were direct sires or indirect via possession. 

One thing is certain: they were not aliens from another world as so many claim today.

UPDATE 11/19/19:  Interesting YouTube teaching about this topic, which disagrees with my understanding (but agrees with my understanding of "sons of God"). I think his reasoning about the Nephilim is good and can accept it as an alternative to mine.

Genesis 6:4

Before I post my article on who the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were, I think it would be good to review what various Bibles say in their translations (I’m even including the horrid “The Message” here because I have parallel with it and the NIV, and I found the “translation” to be interesting).  

I’m going to separate them between the translations which seem to say they were offspring of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” and those who seem to say differently or are not clear.

Firstly, here are the ones which appear to say they were the offspring:

Septuagint:  Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

King James Version: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men of which were of old, men of renown.

New Living Translation: In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

The Message: This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land.  The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

Here are the translations which aren’t really clear in my mind as to whether the Nephilim were the offspring (the question for me is whether “those/they/these” refers to the Nephilim or the offspring):

Tanakh: It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on the earth—when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

Hebrew Interlinear: The-Nephilim they-were on-the-earth in-the-days the-those and-also after then when they-went sons-of the-God to daughters-of the-man and-they-bore to-then they the-heroes which of-old men-of the-name.

Jay Green’s Literal Translation: The giants were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them—they were heroes which existed from ancient time, the men of name.

New KJV:  There were giants in the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Darby: In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne [children] to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown. 

New American Standard: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

English Standard Version: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the the daughters of men and they bore children to them.  These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Holman Christian Standard Bible: The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterwards, when the sons of God came to the daughters of man, who bore children to them.  They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.

New International Version (1984): The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The NET Bible: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.

Revised English Bible: In those days as well as later, when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of mortals and children were born to them, the Nephilim were on the earth; they were the heroes of old, people of renown.

God’s Word: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, as well as later, when the sons of God slept with the daughters of other humans and had children by them. These children were famous long ago.

Good, Bad, and Ugly

I am really getting behind on things.  It’s a good thing I’m retired because otherwise I don’t know how I’d have enough time to go to work!!

I’ve been doing a lot of reading articles which come my way, and I’m again going to be sharing with you:

The Good:

Some good information exposing the false nature of the Orthodox Church.  Be sure to also review my article on the topic.

How long did it take Noah to build the Ark?  One thing everyone assumes is that Noah had ONLY three sons.  The Bible doesn’t say that; the Bible only discusses the three sons who boarded the ark with him.  There is no way Noah would have lived to be 500 without any children, so he must have had many sons and daughters, but only three sons who remained faithful to the Lord.

“Courtship” can have many connotations in the Christian realm (essentially unheard of outside of homeschooling), but the severe idea that every date must be considered a future spouse is just plain stupid. Gothardites seem to be the origin of that nonsense as a way to fight the culture’s sex-saturated dating scene, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

An excellent review of Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life.  I said it was bad from the beginning and yet my pastor at the time, ignoring me, bought stacks to pass out to the men. 

A brief argument for the existence of the soul.  Good apologetics information.

A short rebuttal to KJV Only ideology.

The Bad and/or Ugly

Another examination of Andy Stanley’s “Aftermath” teaching.

False teacher Jim Bakker really needs to just shut up and go away.

Jesse Duplantis is a wolf, a con-man, but not a Christian.  He abuses the gullible people who listen to him as he robs their money.  This talk of his “need” for a new jet is nothing more than rank blasphemy, claiming Jesus talked to him and told him to lie to his followers to buy him a new jet. And he says Jesus would be flying all over the world if He was on earth now. Of course quite a few other of his ilk have done the same.  If your “pastor” or other person you follow tells you Jesus wants him to have a jet plane, run away from these wolves as fast as you can.

(Babylon Bee has a great rejoinder!)

The Anglican Church spirals farther into apostasy.

Bethel Redding — proof of just how aberrant, apostate, heretical, and dangerous that place is.

Tony Campolo continues to go off the deep end.  The man has proven to be a non-Christian.

Oh, the apostasy of the Church at large — the promotion of the secular world’s ideology with sexual immorality. The Underlying theory of this ideology is examined here.

Jen Hatmaker and Beth Moore — what a duo for false teachings!

This disgusting and occult practice of the Roman Catholic Church is mind-boggling.

The “pastor” of this “church” has no clue about Jesus if he thinks Jesus would assist people in their sin.  I examined this issue before. Run from this church!

Can’t you just see Paul and the New Testament Church hosting a pagan celebration? NO? Neither can I, but foolish Christians somehow think assisting pagans in their beliefs is okay with God.

The humorous

Paul Washer preached at Lakewood Church; it has to be true because I saw it on the Internet.

This must be what is seems like in these mega-churches.