The Birth Of A Nation: Revelation 12 Study Part II

Incredible article

In regards to the Nephilim, I reject the idea of the Angel-Hybrid (A-H) theory and favor the "Fallen Man (FM) view". On the surface in Genesis 6 at least, the argument between all the views seem to miss the point of the text: that the holy (sons of God) mixed with the profane (daughters of men) and produced something that God found abominable and worthy of destruction; however, with the "days of Noah" comment by Jesus, the eschatological implications are huge.  

Take the A-H theory: it seems it's most vocal proponents equate the manipulation of DNA by scientists in a laboratory with Angels having sex with humans, which to me doesn't make sense. Also, the text doesn't suggest that a physical manipulation took place. Noah was perfect in his "generations", which uses a Hebrew word denoting 'all those living at a particular moment in time'.

In the FM theory, which is further explained here, the text suggests that those who were sons of God by faith (see Mat 5:9, Luk 20:36, Rom 8:14, Rom 8:19, and Gal 3:26) married those who are not of faith, based on physical beauty, and produced men of celebrity, which the world followed. As a result, the world was ungodly and filled with violence (Genesis 6:11-13).

Ladies and Gentlemen, if the FM theory is true, we've been in the 'Days of Noah' for decades. Remember Christ's teaching in Matthew 5 on adultery and murder, that they are both conditions of the heart, and Luke 6 that, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". Yet in 2017, we have violence in movies, video games, television, music, books, etc. and we worship celebrities, even in the church. We love violence and celebrity, and if the FM view is correct, well then we are much, much farther along than we think. 

Again I whipped this up arguing this theory: paper.dropbox.com/doc/Who-Are-The-Nephilim-Nqyss2ArwLfVrsj6N6JiE

Note: Dr. Heiser in fact, rejects that prophecy can be understood and he goes so far to try to prove, using some very poor and even deceptive argumentation, that studying it, "is a  waste of time". I have watched and commented on one of his lectures I saw on YouTube here. It seems he argues from the perspective that, 'if he doesn't understand it then certainly no one else will, therefore there's no point in studying it at all'.  In the video in the link, he uses some very deceptive arguments, including deflection and distraction, as well as ignoring the LXX when it suited his argument. 

Yeah he flat-out says the Holy Spirit won't lead everyone to the correct interpretation here; then he says that Christ isn't what scripture always points to. This guy IMO is one to avoid.