PDA

View Full Version : The sons of God



Turbo
March 2nd, 2006, 10:01 AM
A few years ago there was a great thread started by CrimsonHope by the same title on the topic of whether or not giants were the offspring of fallen angels and human mothers. Unfortunately, that thread has been pruned. But a remnant remains in this SPOTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=391858#post391858) which sums up the case nicely (though it is not exhaustive).

I invite those who reject the notion that fallen angels were capable of producing offspring with human women to read this post carefully and reconsider their position in light of it. You may find that there is a stronger Biblical case for this than you had thought:



Originally posted by LightSon

If you accept the premise that the phrase "sons of God", as translated in the OT, refers to a single class of beings, then some inferences can be made. The phrase is found in the OT 5 times.

Job 38:4-7 states that these "sons of God" were present when the foundation of the Earth was laid. If you hold that "sons of God" are human, then you have a problem, since God hadn't created mankind as yet.

Job 1:6 shows that "sons of God" were aligned with Satan as he came before God to get permission to plague Job. Why are they mentioned in this text? An inference needs to be made. My inference is that these were Satan's henchmen. If you reject this, then who were they and why are they mentioned as specifically coming with Satan? The burden then falls on you, and I can’t even come up with an alternate reason.

I'm not sure I can prove that "sons of God" are fallen angels, but the preponderance of the texts strongly suggests it to me.

Gen 6 SEEMS to suggest a link between giants being produced and the cohabitation of "sons of God" with "daughters of men". Also, these giants and the presentation of "sons of God" are very closely aligned with wickedness that God identified and His ensuing action to destroy man. All these concepts are wrapped together in the context of Gen 6. Why is that? The notion that these were "righteous" persons doesn't hold up, since wickedness immediately ensues.

Fold in a couple of related passages.

1 Peter 3:19,20 makes reference to Christ, By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

That reference shows strong support by way of corroboration, IMO.

What about these “spirits in prison”.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment 2 Peter 2:4

And
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6

I hold to Sibbie’s view that Satan was moving to corrupt the messianic line.

And it should be noted that this OT phrase, thus translated “sons of God” has no correlation to the NT usage of the same. The OT “sons of God” were present at the foundation of the world; we, as NT “sons of God” were not. I don’t think I’ve proven anything, but do think there is strong support for this position.




It's possible that the Sibbie still has some offline notes from her posts from that thread. I'll look into that.

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 11:08 AM
A few years ago there was a great thread started by CrimsonHope by the same title on the topic of whether or not giants were the offspring of fallen angels and human mothers. Unfortunately, that thread has been pruned. But a remnant remains in this SPOTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=391858#post391858) which sums up the case nicely (though it is not exhaustive).

I invite those who reject the notion that fallen angels were capable of producing offspring with human women to read this post carefully and reconsider their position in light of it. You may find that there is a stronger Biblical case for this than you had thought:



Originally posted by LightSon

If you accept the premise that the phrase "sons of God", as translated in the OT, refers to a single class of beings, then some inferences can be made. The phrase is found in the OT 5 times.

Job 38:4-7 states that these "sons of God" were present when the foundation of the Earth was laid. If you hold that "sons of God" are human, then you have a problem, since God hadn't created mankind as yet.

Job 1:6 shows that "sons of God" were aligned with Satan as he came before God to get permission to plague Job. Why are they mentioned in this text? An inference needs to be made. My inference is that these were Satan's henchmen. If you reject this, then who were they and why are they mentioned as specifically coming with Satan? The burden then falls on you, and I can’t even come up with an alternate reason.

I'm not sure I can prove that "sons of God" are fallen angels, but the preponderance of the texts strongly suggests it to me.

Gen 6 SEEMS to suggest a link between giants being produced and the cohabitation of "sons of God" with "daughters of men". Also, these giants and the presentation of "sons of God" are very closely aligned with wickedness that God identified and His ensuing action to destroy man. All these concepts are wrapped together in the context of Gen 6. Why is that? The notion that these were "righteous" persons doesn't hold up, since wickedness immediately ensues.

Fold in a couple of related passages.

1 Peter 3:19,20 makes reference to Christ, By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

That reference shows strong support by way of corroboration, IMO.

What about these “spirits in prison”.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment 2 Peter 2:4

And
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6

I hold to Sibbie’s view that Satan was moving to corrupt the messianic line.

And it should be noted that this OT phrase, thus translated “sons of God” has no correlation to the NT usage of the same. The OT “sons of God” were present at the foundation of the world; we, as NT “sons of God” were not. I don’t think I’ve proven anything, but do think there is strong support for this position.




It's possible that the Sibbie still has some offline notes from her posts from that thread. I'll look into that.


---Why do people do this????
---At that time, with Abel killed, there was ONLY Cain and Seth, as heads of families. - Cain, the son of Perdition or the lost, which is the MAN, and the sons of man. --- Then there is Seth, and the children of the Promise, straight to Christ. - Noah’s son or two sons took wives, of the family of Cain, bringing the bloodline through the flood. That crossed blood followed through to Christ, making Christ the Son of Man also, AND through the blood line of Juda by the spoken word of God at Christ Baptism. – We are now, Sons of man and Children of God as we live on the earth. But when we put of the flesh of the MAN in our death, there remains the Spirit which is of God through Abel and SETH. ---/--- A very wise way of doing things I think. Maybe you’ll not like it.
*
---------------Paul---
*

Turbo
March 2nd, 2006, 11:16 AM
---Why do people do this????
---At that time, with Abel killed, there was ONLY Cain and Seth, as heads of families. - Wrong!


After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Genesis 5:4

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. As with a long math problem, there's no reason to expect that your conclusion will be correct when you've made a mistake right off the bat.

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 11:37 AM
Wrong!


After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Genesis 5:4

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post. As with a long math problem, there's no reason to expect that your conclusion will be correct when you've made a mistake right off the bat.


---Christ came through Seth, Abel and Cain, and none of the other children of Adam and Eve, and you know that.
---So be Ignorant then.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

Turbo
March 2nd, 2006, 11:39 AM
---Christ came through Seth, Abel and Cain, and none of the other children of Adam and Eve, and you know that.
---So be Ignorant then.
*
-----------------Paul---
*
Christ came through Seth's lineage, not Cain's or Abel's. It wouldn't even be possible for a man to be a direct descendant all of three brothers. But none of this is even relevant to the topic at hand.

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 11:44 AM
Christ came through Seth's lineage, not Cain's or Abel's. It wouldn't even be possible for a man to be a direct descendant all of three brothers. But none of this is even relevant to the topic at hand.


---Nothing is relevant, if the whole word is not relevant. Just because YOU can't make the connection, doesn't mean it's not there. YOU need to study more so you can SEE.
*
---------------Paul---
*

elohiym
March 2nd, 2006, 11:46 AM
I invite those who reject the notion that fallen angels were capable of producing offspring with human women to read this post carefully and reconsider their position in light of it. You may find that there is a stronger Biblical case for this than you had thought:I reject it.

If you accept the premise that the phrase "sons of God", as translated in the OT, refers to a single class of beings...LightSon's argument is based on the assumption that "sons of God" refers to a single class of being. The same class of beings are refered to in the NT as "sons of God" (Romans 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1,2, etc.). LightSon's argument end's with an assumption that the "sons of God" in the OT, cannot be the same as the "sons of God" being refered to in the NT. I believe that both OT and NT references to "sons of God" are refering to the exact same class of beings, which are not angels.

Job 38:4-7 states that these "sons of God" were present when the foundation of the Earth was laid. If you hold that "sons of God" are human, then you have a problem, since God hadn't created mankind as yet."Sons of God" are not men, so not mankind. Although that might sound strange, the Bible supports it.
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High [sons of God]. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Psalm 82:6,7Clearly, the "sons of God" are not men. God has contrasted the sons of God with men. True that we inhabit flesh and blood bodies (mankind), but we are not in the flesh as "sons of God."
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2To be the son of God is to have the spirit of God's son.
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Galatians 4:6So, the fact that God had not created mankind yet is irrelvant, since "sons of God" is a spiritual term that can apply to a son of God at the foundation of world, and a son of God at the end of world, as we are now.
Job 1:6 shows that "sons of God" were aligned with Satan as he came before God to get permission to plague Job. Why are they mentioned in this text? An inference needs to be made. My inference is that these were Satan's henchmen. If you reject this, then who were they and why are they mentioned as specifically coming with Satan? The burden then falls on you, and I can’t even come up with an alternate reason.I can't believe that LightSon would suggest this. It makes no sense at all, and the scripture clearly refutes it.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6Satan came among the sons of God as they were presenting themselves to the LORD. They are not Satan's henchmen. :doh:

Gen 6 SEEMS to suggest a link between giants being produced and the cohabitation of "sons of God" with "daughters of men". Also, these giants and the presentation of "sons of God" are very closely aligned with wickedness that God identified and His ensuing action to destroy man. All these concepts are wrapped together in the context of Gen 6. Why is that? The notion that these were "righteous" persons doesn't hold up, since wickedness immediately ensues.LightSon is making many assumptions. The sons of God are ALWAYS righteous. Here is what they did...
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:2 We see the term "sons of God" is contrasted with men again, yet we know that the sons of God can appear in human form as shown in Psalm 82. There is nothing immoral about them choosing wives.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4 Regardless of the reference to giants, we see that the sons of God had children with the daughters of men that they chose in verse 2, and that those children grew up to be mighty and renowned. Nothing unrighteous about the sons of God in those verses.

Fold in a couple of related passages.

1 Peter 3:19,20 makes reference to Christ, By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

That reference shows strong support by way of corroboration, IMO.The spirits in prison are not the sons of God.
What about these “spirits in prison”.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment 2 Peter 2:4

And
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6These verses have nothing to do with the sons of God.
And it should be noted that this OT phrase, thus translated “sons of God” has no correlation to the NT usage of the same. The OT “sons of God” were present at the foundation of the world; we, as NT “sons of God” were not. It is an undisputable fact that at least one Son of God was present at the foundations of the world. He is not an angel.

The "sons of God" represent the indwelling Word. The Word was presnt at the foundation of world (John 1). Furthermore, the "sons of God" existed at the foundation of the world. It is written, "let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26), and "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:6,7)

logos_x
March 2nd, 2006, 11:46 AM
Then how did the line of Cain and Seth coming together produce Nephilim, Letsague?

Your racist interpretation of scripture is tiresome.

This is about two worlds colliding, with someone or something coming down to Earth from above and breeding with humans. Hard to believe? You ought to look at what the ancient Sumerians believed, which also presents the same scenario.

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 11:55 AM
Then how did the line of Cain and Seth coming together produce Nephilim, Letsague?

Your racist interpretation of scripture is tiresome.

This is about two worlds colliding, with someone or something coming down to Earth from above and breeding with humans. Hard to believe? You ought to look at what the ancient Sumerians believed, which also presents the same scenario.


---Why can't any of you guys us the Scriptures to prove our point??? Who can answer a question that has nothing to with the Word. --- NEPHILIM??? That isn't from the Word, it's you crap.
*
----------------Paul---
*

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 12:00 PM
"Sons of God" could it be a way of saying "souls" the ones that have always existed?

logos_x
March 2nd, 2006, 12:39 PM
---Why can't any of you guys us the Scriptures to prove our point??? Who can answer a question that has nothing to with the Word. --- NEPHILIM??? That isn't from the Word, it's you crap.
*
----------------Paul---
*

Nephilim is the Hebrew word translated giants, Letsargue.
Man also is a translation of Adam. The Ben ha Elohiym (sons of God) came and mated with the offspring of Adam. This produce offspring called Nephilim...Earth born...from naphal, “he fell.”

The subject of the Nephilim is a complicated matter, and one of the great puzzles of the Bible. The same general theme is found throughout ancient writings of many peoples and is not confined exclusively to the Bible.
They were obviously a race of impressive physical stature compared to the smaller Hebrews, from Numbers 13:33. This particular reference is glossed by a statement which implies that the offspring of Anak in Canaan were descended from the renowned Rephaim or Nephilim

The origination of the Nephilim begins with a story of the fallen angels. Originating in the Book of Enoch {Apocrypha} Shemhazai, an angel of high rank, led a sect of angels in a descent to earth to instruct humans in righteousness. The mission lasted for a few centuries, but soon the soldiers/missionaries/angels became corrupted in their lusting after human females. After lusting, the fallen angels instructed the women in magic and conjuring, mated with them, and produced offspring, who would later be referred to as the Nephilim.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 12:49 PM
For permission to exist in the physical world. Would that be considered a fallen angel? Perhaps we ask God permission.

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 01:44 PM
"Sons of God" could it be a way of saying "souls" the ones that have always existed?



---The Spirit of God’s dwelling on earth is started with Abel. Before the blood of Abel cried from the ground, there was no Spirit dwelling on earth. Even Satan was a carnal person. The Lord’s Word, Himself, walked in the cool of the day. However the Blood of Abel crying from the ground, gives place for the first Angel, - Michael the first / or Arch Angel. You may know the rest of the STORY.
*
------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 02:01 PM
For permission to exist in the physical world. Would that be considered a fallen angel? Perhaps we ask God permission.


---An Angel can be just about anything that does the will of God. Hornets, Men, wind, rain, or an army of the wicked can do the will of God for a certain purpose. All the bones of the valley of Jehoshaphat, I think it was, were the bones of the Israelites Solders who have lost their lives. God calls them Angels when he brought them against Jerusalem and Judaea. -- Usually Angels are AS men in the Spirit. --- The Apostle Paul, In the Spirit, was Michael the Archangel. That’s easy to show. It doesn’t mean you’ll believe it.
*
---------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 02:03 PM
For permission to exist in the physical world. Would that be considered a fallen angel? Perhaps we ask God permission.


---If a Saint of God falls from God's Grace, that is a falling Angel.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

thelaqachisnext
March 2nd, 2006, 02:10 PM
---Why do people do this????
---At that time, with Abel killed, there was ONLY Cain and Seth, as heads of families. - Cain, the son of Perdition or the lost, which is the MAN, and the sons of man. --- Then there is Seth, and the children of the Promise, straight to Christ. - Noah’s son or two sons took wives, of the family of Cain, bringing the bloodline through the flood. That crossed blood followed through to Christ, making Christ the Son of Man also, AND through the blood line of Juda by the spoken word of God at Christ Baptism. – We are now, Sons of man and Children of God as we live on the earth. But when we put of the flesh of the MAN in our death, there remains the Spirit which is of God through Abel and SETH. ---/--- A very wise way of doing things I think. Maybe you’ll not like it.
*
---------------Paul---
*
If you go to the Scriptures for yourself [check the Hebrew], and see what they say -then you will see that the Scripture says the sons of God took wives of the daughters of" Adam".

Then; after you check the original wording for who the sons of God married, you might look up the word "Adam", in other passages, and see that each and every single human being is called "Adam": both male and female of our human race are called "Adam", singly and corporately, and person, male or female, is a 'multiplied person' 'in' Adam.

The 'daughters and sons' of Adam only refer to the seed multiplied from the first created human being who was called (named) Adam, by the Creator -Genesis 5:2.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when Adam [men] began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam [men] that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 5:2 and Malachi 2:15 show that we are all one being, in our spirit; "human"; but singly, we are multiplied 'persons'; and multiplied from the seed placed in the first male, through the genetically changed, cloned [in a fashion], female :), according to the command to 'multiply' [our kind =Adam], given in Genesis 1:28; "And God blessed them [Adam, the male and female 'pair'], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So: there are 'persons' multiplied 'in' Adam; and some of the multiplied 'daughters in Adam'
were taken as wives by 'the sons of God' -and those angels were created to interact with mankind in the beginning, as 'watchers', Enoch said.


Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when [Hebrew] "Adam" began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them [born unto 'multiplied' Adam]..."

In Ezekiel 27:13; the word for men is also 'Adam', there, 'persons' [in-of] Adam were 'traded'.

So the sons of God -not the seed of Adam- took wives of the daughters of 'Adam' -not daughters of some 'men' in general, but daughters [of/in] Adam.

From the wording of Enoch, which original is lost, 'methinks' the fallen angels used a bit of cloning and genetic changing, themselves -a no-no!- to multiply their own 'spirit' beings through the female Adam persons they took as wives.

elohiym
March 2nd, 2006, 02:29 PM
It's too bad that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. :(

Obviously, the book of Enoch is not inspired because we know that sin did not enter the world through fallen angels, but through Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Are we to believe that the secrets of heaven are astrology and enchantments? That is what the plot of the Book of Enoch suggests.

The OT cannon was established at the time of Jesus, and the Book of Enoch was not part of it. I suggest that Christians stick to the OT canon included in the Bible.

thelaqachisnext
March 2nd, 2006, 02:54 PM
It's too bad that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. :(

Obviously, the book of Enoch is not inspired because we know that sin did not enter the world through fallen angels, but through Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Are we to believe that the secrets of heaven are astrology and enchantments? That is what the plot of the Book of Enoch suggests.

The OT cannon was established at the time of Jesus, and the Book of Enoch was not part of it. I suggest that Christians stick to the OT canon included in the Bible.
The Book of Enoch is quoted extensively in the Scriiptures, in the Old and New Testaments. If you are familiar with it, then the mystery is removed of some of the quotes made by the men of old -Job, for instance.

Jesus Christ quoted extensively from Enoch, also, as did Peter and Paul, James, and Jude, and many more -even the demons quoted it when they were afraid Jesus would cast them "into the pit before the appointed time!". -Enoch was given the appointment time to tell them of. In fact; Enoch was written for the fallen angels and their offspring, in the main, who were the nephillim -from whom Goliath was descended as a son of Anak, who came of the nephillim.


Enough of what is known through the Old and New Testaments verifies the fallen angels taking wives of the daughters of Adam.

I do not think the Book of Enoch is necessary for us, but the early Believers used it, as the Jews did, at that time -so I have read. It was quoted from extensively in the early Church writings, and the Roman Catholic church banned it -kind of disputes their theology, you know!

It was never banned by the Ethiopian Church, where the modern English translations were gotten from.

There is plentious Scripture in the Old and New Testaments to prove the truth of Scripture as taught; that the 'daughters' of multiplied Adam 'persons' were taken as wives by sons of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam was created as a human son of God, male and female, and told to multiply his kind [=Adam kind] and to fill this planet (his kingdom, to rule it 'under' the creator). Redemption is about restoration and regeneration of the kingdom and of the sons of God who are brought back from the dead [in spirit] Adam, through the Living Christ, 'to the glory'.

Luke 3:38 says Adam was 'son of God': but since the fall, when the Presence of the indwelling glory departed from the corrupted Adam -and we all died in him, our firstborn, as his seed- we are no longer sons of God, which we were first to be, brought forth through the commanded multiplying (Malachi 2:15): that is what the second Adam is; 'Son of God', by being the New Creation human being who is brother to the dead ['in spirit'] 'Adam'; and He adopts (marries) all we who are born 'in Adam' into His Spirit of the New Creation Man [second Adam, last man, New Man, New Creation Man], by making us clean, in our being, through His blood of sprinkling on the Mercy Seat [His New Human flesh body], and adopting us by the regeneration in spirit, so that we may be called sons of God; which is a restoration of our 'being', 'back' to the purpose of our creation; which is to be dwelling places for the Father to indwell in His glory forever; and to dwell on this planet, our home, that He created and gave our human race, forever; that we were to multiply and fill [multiplying would have stopped when the planet was filled, cause that's in the command 'fill'], to inhabit forever as sons of God, which is to say, 'a house of God'.

Sons are the 'house' of a person who has a kingdom. Adam was made to be over this earth, as his kingdom, and to be a 'dwelling place for the glory of the Father'.

The house of Adam is dead, his kingdom is lost -sold into sin and slavery- and the Father departed from the kingdom and no longer indwells the entire kingdom in His Presence of glory.

Redemption is about the Ransom back; and the purchase price, and Who, what, how, when, and where: and it's all taught as symbols, types, and shadows in the oracles entrusted to the Jews.



.



.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 02:57 PM
From the wording of Enoch, which original is lost, 'methinks' the fallen angels used a bit of cloning and genetic changing, themselves -a no-no!- to multiply their own 'spirit' beings through the female Adam persons they took as wives.

As the physical world deceives us. As the spirit not free to play a game? If the spirit is not from the physical, then it was there to plan out what this world would be like before the physical took form. Would it not?

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 03:05 PM
---If a Saint of God falls from God's Grace, that is a falling Angel.
*
-----------------Paul---
*
:cheers:
Grace is before being hired?

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 03:07 PM
what i find interesting are the giants Joshua's spies found in Canaan.

is there a connection?

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 03:12 PM
Is Adam a man, or a mankind. Was the Adam kind in existence in other parts of this world? If we are body and Spirit. Do we read how Spirit lives in flesh, or flesh in spirit? Is not each of us a soul?

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 03:15 PM
what i find interesting are the giants Joshua's spies found in Canaan.

is there a connection?
does it say giants are bad or this giants had an ego problem?

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 03:19 PM
does it say giants are bad or this giants had an ego problem?

um... i, i don't know...:think:

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 03:23 PM
um... i, i don't know...:think:
Maybe some sons of God are sons of bitches?

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 03:24 PM
what i find interesting are the giants Joshua's spies found in Canaan.

is there a connection?
I believe so, but for me it's basically an inference. I don't believe scripture actually makes any explicit connection.

elohiym
March 2nd, 2006, 03:29 PM
The Book of Enoch is quoted extensively in the Scriiptures, in the Old and New Testaments. If you are familiar with it, then the mystery is removed of some of the quotes made by the men of old -Job, for instance.

Jesus Christ quoted extensively from Enoch, also, as did Peter and Paul, James, and Jude, and many more -even the demons quoted it when they were afraid Jesus would cast them "into the pit before the appointed time!". -Enoch was given the appointment time to tell them of. In fact; Enoch was written for the fallen angels and their offspring, in the main, who were the nephillim -from whom Goliath was descended as a son of Anak, who came of the nephillim. Show me where Jesus quotes the Book of Enoch, and include a few other NT examples.

You cannot prove that the Book of Enoch isn't quoting the OT rather than the other way around.

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 03:31 PM
For a long time I have believed that the "sons of God" were in fact angels and that the "giants" were their offspring. Today when TB posted to me I began to reconsider because it wasn't anything I had thought much about. I am still on the "angel" side of it but right now my main question is that even though I do believe angels can take physical/bodily form, does that necessarily mean they can produce offspring with human women?
But in any case I think a stronger argument can be made that they were angels. I very strange belief, but there you go....

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 03:34 PM
I believe so, but for me it's basically an inference. I don't believe scripture actually makes any explicit connection.

it doesn't, and it would be impossible for it to do so without compromising the literal truth of the deluge account... of course the biblical deluge account is the only one on earth where there were no survivors except the heroes of the story... but once again in order for there to be a connection the biblical account would have to be...:shocked:... inaccurate!!!

Nineveh
March 2nd, 2006, 03:35 PM
what i find interesting are the giants Joshua's spies found in Canaan.

is there a connection?

Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, ...

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 03:35 PM
it doesn't, and it would be impossible for it to do so without compromising the literal truth of the deluge account... of course the biblical deluge account is the only one on earth where there were no survivors except the heroes of the story... but once again in order for there to be a connection the biblical account would have to be...:shocked:... inaccurate!!!
It wouldn't disprove anything. I'm not saying they survived the flood. I'm saying that it may have happened again after the flood.

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 03:36 PM
Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, ...
Sometimes it's right there and I miss it! I just can't see for lookin :noid:

:up:

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 03:45 PM
It wouldn't disprove anything. I'm not saying they survived the flood. I'm saying that it may have happened again after the flood.

oh yes, i see :) but the bible would reference it the first time and not the second? i don't know about that. the best guess is that there was no connection between the giants unless the flood story is compromised.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 03:45 PM
Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, ...
Do you by chance know if the root word implies big size. or physical only size. I am not knowledge on this. Can anyone share please?

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 03:51 PM
oh yes, i see :) but the bible would reference it the first time and not the second? i don't know about that. the best guess is that there was no connection between the giants unless the flood story is compromised.
Why must the bible explicitly say so again? Nineveh posted a verse saying that it happend later also. I guess the writer assumes the reader has a memory.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 03:57 PM
Why must the bible explicitly say so again? Nineveh posted a verse saying that it happend later also. I guess the writer assumes the reader has a memory.
MEMORY?

Can a person use that?

Better check the Bible.

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 03:57 PM
Why must the bible explicitly say so again? Nineveh posted a verse saying that it happend later also. I guess the writer assumes the reader has a memory.

well then, if the giants that happened afterwards had any connection with the giants of Canaan, then the writer of Genesis couldn't have been Moses... but i don't know if you believe he was the writer to begin with.

it's possible that it happened again. whether it happened at all is the more important question to me, but i won't go there.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 04:00 PM
If you write what has been writen. Are you the writer? yes and no.

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 04:00 PM
well then, if the giants that happened afterwards had any connection with the giants of Canaan, then the writer of Genesis couldn't have been Moses... but i don't know if you believe he was the writer to begin with.

it's possible that it happened again. whether it happened at all is the more important question to me, but i won't go there.
I already said that I think the giants mentioned in Gen 6:4 are connected to the giants you mentioned. I don't follow you when you say that the writer couldn't have been Moses.

And why don't you "go there"? That's what this whole thread is about. :duh:

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 04:01 PM
MEMORY?

Can a person use that?

Better check the Bible.
What does the bible say about memory?

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 04:03 PM
What does the bible say about memory?
It says to have at least 512 mb.

256 can only keep you going as a robot.

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 04:04 PM
It says to have at least 512 mb.

256 can only keep you going as a robot.
:help:

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 04:08 PM
I already said that I think the giants mentioned in Gen 6:4 are connected to the giants you mentioned. I don't follow you when you say that the writer couldn't have been Moses.


Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward...

is the "afterward" a reference to the giants discovered in Canaan? if it is, Moses had already been long dead at that point and couldn't have known about the giants found afterwards unless

a) the afterward doesn't refer to the giants discovered in Canaan or

b) Genesis wasn't written until long after Moses died (and the rest of the Pentateuch follows)


And why don't you "go there"? That's what this whole thread is about. :duh:

i'm not opening a big enough can of worms by questioning the authorship of the first five books of the bible?

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 04:14 PM
is the "afterward" a reference to the giants discovered in Canaan? if it is, Moses had already been long dead at that point and couldn't have known about the giants found afterwards unless

a) the afterward doesn't refer to the giants discovered in Canaan or

b) Genesis wasn't written until long after Moses died (and the rest of the Pentateuch follows)

Num 13:30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
Num 13:31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
Num 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.



i'm not opening a big enough can of worms by questioning the authorship of the first five books of the bible?
Well yes, this is the EC forum so you aren't allowed to here.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 04:15 PM
:help:
knowledge of the flesh alone will keep you bound by man's law. Knowledge of the spirit within you will set you free.

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 04:19 PM
Num 13:30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
Num 13:31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
Num 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.



.
they were to enter the land peacefully. And had they entered peacefully there would be peace in the Middle East right now. But they disobeyed God. Moses believed his spies rather than the Word of God

Nineveh
March 2nd, 2006, 04:23 PM
oh yes, i see :) but the bible would reference it the first time and not the second? i don't know about that. the best guess is that there was no connection between the giants unless the flood story is compromised.

The Bible references nephilim before and after the flood:

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—...

Numbers 13:33
We saw the Nephilim there...

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 04:24 PM
Num 13:30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
Num 13:31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
Num 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.



Well yes, this is the EC forum so you aren't allowed to here.

okay, so i got my chronology of events mixed up, my bad :) i was working from memory and thought that the discovery of the giants wasn't until after Moses died.

thanks man.

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 04:28 PM
okay, so i got my chronology of events mixed up, my bad :) i was working from memory and thought that the discovery of the giants wasn't until after Moses died.

thanks man.
:cheers:

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 04:32 PM
dang it, just when i thought i was on to something too :chuckle:

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 04:34 PM
dang it, just when i thought i was on to something too :chuckle:
IA 1 2 A 1 2 3 4

On 2 something?

kmoney
March 2nd, 2006, 04:35 PM
dang it, just when i thought i was on to something too :chuckle:
That's why you should leave the bible talk to Christians! :banana:

;)

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 04:40 PM
That's why you should leave the bible talk to Christians! :banana:

;)

yeah, 'cuz god knows i couldn't have opened a bible and found it for myself :chuckle:





:spam:

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 04:43 PM
yeah, 'cuz god knows i couldn't have opened a bible and found it for myself :chuckle:





:spam:
hey if you're not willing to admit that God wants you to listen to people in what his word means. And if you think using your own brain to read the word will get you a better knowledge or understanding. Well I pray everybody starts thinking that way. :banana:

allsmiles
March 2nd, 2006, 04:53 PM
hey if you're not willing to admit that God wants you to listen to people in what his word means. And if you think using your own brain to read the word will get you a better knowledge or understanding. Well I pray everybody starts thinking that way. :banana:

this has nothing to do with a message from god, this has everything to do with me not remembering the way a story went properly. i forgot, Kmoney reminded me, your god didn't.

but this is EC so i'm sure someone will ask me to leave soon, so i'll take my leave :wave2:

OlDove
March 2nd, 2006, 05:05 PM
this has nothing to do with a message from god, this has everything to do with me not remembering the way a story went properly. i forgot, Kmoney reminded me, your god didn't.

but this is EC so i'm sure someone will ask me to leave soon, so i'll take my leave :wave2:
perhaps you read what you thought you would see. If you took what I said asking you to leave, then please understand I was not. Your idea to read and understand on your own was agreed with. That was not to imply you should leave. It is implied you should share your thoughts and not be bound by other people's thoughts

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 06:19 PM
If you go to the Scriptures for yourself [check the Hebrew], and see what they say -then you will see that the Scripture says the sons of God took wives of the daughters of" Adam".

Then; after you check the original wording for who the sons of God married, you might look up the word "Adam", in other passages, and see that each and every single human being is called "Adam": both male and female of our human race are called "Adam", singly and corporately, and person, male or female, is a 'multiplied person' 'in' Adam.

The 'daughters and sons' of Adam only refer to the seed multiplied from the first created human being who was called (named) Adam, by the Creator -Genesis 5:2.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when Adam [men] began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam [men] that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 5:2 and Malachi 2:15 show that we are all one being, in our spirit; "human"; but singly, we are multiplied 'persons'; and multiplied from the seed placed in the first male, through the genetically changed, cloned [in a fashion], female :), according to the command to 'multiply' [our kind =Adam], given in Genesis 1:28; "And God blessed them [Adam, the male and female 'pair'], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So: there are 'persons' multiplied 'in' Adam; and some of the multiplied 'daughters in Adam'
were taken as wives by 'the sons of God' -and those angels were created to interact with mankind in the beginning, as 'watchers', Enoch said.


Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when [Hebrew] "Adam" began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them [born unto 'multiplied' Adam]..."

In Ezekiel 27:13; the word for men is also 'Adam', there, 'persons' [in-of] Adam were 'traded'.

So the sons of God -not the seed of Adam- took wives of the daughters of 'Adam' -not daughters of some 'men' in general, but daughters [of/in] Adam.

From the wording of Enoch, which original is lost, 'methinks' the fallen angels used a bit of cloning and genetic changing, themselves -a no-no!- to multiply their own 'spirit' beings through the female Adam persons they took as wives.

---I leave the Book the way it is, I don't need to change it to fit some nonsense that some fool teaches. The Book is Good enough. -- I understand it's never good enough for some of you fools. -- (GODS TERM).
*
-------------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 06:23 PM
It's too bad that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. :(

Obviously, the book of Enoch is not inspired because we know that sin did not enter the world through fallen angels, but through Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Are we to believe that the secrets of heaven are astrology and enchantments? That is what the plot of the Book of Enoch suggests.

The OT cannon was established at the time of Jesus, and the Book of Enoch was not part of it. I suggest that Christians stick to the OT canon included in the Bible.


---The Bible don't fit their doctrine, so they'll find proof anywhere they can, even if they have to make up something.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 06:45 PM
It's too bad that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. :(

Obviously, the book of Enoch is not inspired because we know that sin did not enter the world through fallen angels, but through Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Are we to believe that the secrets of heaven are astrology and enchantments? That is what the plot of the Book of Enoch suggests.

The OT cannon was established at the time of Jesus, and the Book of Enoch was not part of it. I suggest that Christians stick to the OT canon included in the Bible.


---Death reigned from Adam to Moses / Law. It was the Law that was the enmity between Satan and the Woman. It lasted until the death of Christ. Christ broke down the middle wall of partition that was between them, slaying the enmity thereby.
*
--------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 06:58 PM
what i find interesting are the giants Joshua's spies found in Canaan.

is there a connection?


---There was never a Nation of Giants. There were Giants of several Nations, The Philistines for one. There's not enough information in the Bible to form a doctrine, but that won't stop some of you fools from teaching anything and everything the world wants to know about Giants in the land in those days.
*
----------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 07:08 PM
Do you by chance know if the root word implies big size. or physical only size. I am not knowledge on this. Can anyone share please?


---The Book says there were Giants in the land in those days. - We read about David killing one, and he had a brother. --- What do you want??? The bible does not say what you may want it to say. SO WHY PRESS IT???
*
--------------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 07:15 PM
Do you by chance know if the root word implies big size. or physical only size. I am not knowledge on this. Can anyone share please?

---There were giant fruit in Canaan, I don’t suppose, Giant; - Must refer to JUST PEOPLE.
*
-------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 2nd, 2006, 07:23 PM
hey if you're not willing to admit that God wants you to listen to people in what his word means. And if you think using your own brain to read the word will get you a better knowledge or understanding. Well I pray everybody starts thinking that way. :banana:

---God said, (of Christ), Hear Him. We are not to try to explain what Christ said. We are to BELIEVE WHAT CHRIST SAID. -- (ALL SAID, ALL DONE).
*
-----------------Paul---
*

thelaqachisnext
March 2nd, 2006, 07:58 PM
---I leave the Book the way it is, I don't need to change it to fit some nonsense that some fool teaches. The Book is Good enough. -- I understand it's never good enough for some of you fools. -- (GODS TERM).
*
-------------------Paul---
*
I did not realize you had such a low Biblical literacy level and were not interested in checking out exactly what the Word does actually say, so I will leave you to yourself, as you are who you want to believe and quote, alone.

Letsargue
March 3rd, 2006, 04:42 AM
I did not realize you had such a low Biblical literacy level and were not interested in checking out exactly what the Word does actually say, so I will leave you to yourself, as you are who you want to believe and quote, alone.


---That’s a stupid and FOOLISH way to fight for what you BELIEVE. -- Where is the first Word of God in all that garbage you JUST SPIT OUT OF YOUR HOLE????
---The WORD says exactly what it says, it doesn’t NEED YOUR HELP TO SCREW IT UP. Why not just leave it as it is???? – That’s what God said to do. But you have to be wise as explain what GOD SAID. -- VERY VERY WISE OF YOU. You stupid fool. (GODS TERM).
*
---------------Paul---
*

The Berean
March 5th, 2006, 04:37 AM
First, I'd like to thank Turbo for inviting to respond in this thread.

These two articles pretty much sum up my belief on what the phrase "sons of God" refers to in Genesis 6:4

http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm

http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm


To those who believe that "sons of God" refer to fallen angels (demons), I have some questions:

1) Do angels have DNA?

2) If Angels can take on biological human form, doesn't that imply that they can be killed like humans (stabbed, shot, posioned, electrocuted, hit by a drunk driver, forced to watch American Idol, etc)

3) If fallen angels can impregnate human women can the human-demon hybrid offspring receive eternal salvation by accepting Jesus Christ?

Letsargue
March 5th, 2006, 09:43 AM
First, I'd like to thank Turbo for inviting to respond in this thread.

These two articles pretty much sum up my belief on what the phrase "sons of God" refers to in Genesis 6:4

http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm

http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm


To those who believe that "sons of God" refer to fallen angels (demons), I have some questions:

1) Do angels have DNA?

2) If Angels can take on biological human form, doesn't that imply that they can be killed like humans (stabbed, shot, posioned, electrocuted, hit by a drunk driver, forced to watch American Idol, etc)

3) If fallen angels can impregnate human women can the human-demon hybrid offspring receive eternal salvation by accepting Jesus Christ?
---Those questions are chosen for their lack of the possibility of having a clear answer, as do most Foolish churches do. I’ll ask you a like question;
--Did, or can a cow, jump over the moon??? God does not cover that in His Word, Maybe in His Precepts. However in your world, the cow did, but not in my world.
---However, -- If the Angel is in the flesh, the Angel would indeed have DNA, as did the Apostle Paul. He was also killed, and I would say, Paul as the Arch Angel who was, sees you now being very foolish.
*
-------------Paul---
*

Letsargue
March 5th, 2006, 09:50 AM
First, I'd like to thank Turbo for inviting to respond in this thread.

These two articles pretty much sum up my belief on what the phrase "sons of God" refers to in Genesis 6:4

http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm

http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm


To those who believe that "sons of God" refer to fallen angels (demons), I have some questions:

1) Do angels have DNA?

2) If Angels can take on biological human form, doesn't that imply that they can be killed like humans (stabbed, shot, posioned, electrocuted, hit by a drunk driver, forced to watch American Idol, etc)

3) If fallen angels can impregnate human women can the human-demon hybrid offspring receive eternal salvation by accepting Jesus Christ?

---""GOD"" TOOK ON, (your biological) THE FORM OF MAN, AND DIED. -- What is your problem?????????????????
*
--------------------Paul---
*

logos_x
March 5th, 2006, 10:08 AM
To those who believe that "sons of God" refer to fallen angels (demons), I have some questions:

1) Do angels have DNA?

Yes.


2) If Angels can take on biological human form, doesn't that imply that they can be killed like humans (stabbed, shot, posioned, electrocuted, hit by a drunk driver, forced to watch American Idol, etc)

No


3) If fallen angels can impregnate human women can the human-demon hybrid offspring receive eternal salvation by accepting Jesus Christ?

Yes

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/watchers.asp

The Berean
March 5th, 2006, 01:34 PM
---Those questions are chosen for their lack of the possibility of having a clear answer, as do most Foolish churches do. I’ll ask you a like question;
--Did, or can a cow, jump over the moon??? God does not cover that in His Word, Maybe in His Precepts. However in your world, the cow did, but not in my world.
---However, -- If the Angel is in the flesh, the Angel would indeed have DNA, as did the Apostle Paul. He was also killed, and I would say, Paul as the Arch Angel who was, sees you now being very foolish.
*
-------------Paul---
*

It's common with people with no answers to respond with silly insults. I will disregard them as having no bearing on this discussion.

Those question are honest hard hitting questions for the "fallen angel" group. How can angels have human DNA if they are not human. Fallen angels, like all angels, were created by God. They are bodiless, non-sexual beings. They do not procreate even with each other. Paul was not the Arch Angel, if he was please give us Scriptural evidence for this. If God does not cover the issue of angel DNA then why do you assume that they do without have any Biblical basis for such a belief? :think:

The Berean
March 5th, 2006, 01:37 PM
---""GOD"" TOOK ON, (your biological) THE FORM OF MAN, AND DIED. -- What is your problem?????????????????
*
--------------------Paul---
*
So? Jesus Christ is the LORD and SAVIOR, the Creator of all and the One that gives us eternal life. As you saying that fallen angels have the same creative power as Jesus Christ? That's ridiculous.

In Christ,

the Berean

The Berean
March 5th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Yes.
If angels have human DNA that would make them human, right? But angels do not procreate even with themselves so how can the procreate with human women?




No
Wait, you just said that angles have human DNA. If this is true then they would have the same human biological frailities, with similar resistence to heat, cold, diease, aging, etc., unless they are the Incredible Hulk, types or something.




Yes

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/watchers.asp

Are you sure? Ther is no redemptive plan for fallen angels as there is for people. The fallen angles do not have the option to repent and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So with the demon-human hybrid what part gets saved?

logos_x
March 5th, 2006, 02:35 PM
If angels have human DNA that would make them human, right? But angels do not procreate even with themselves so how can the procreate with human women?

As I said, this is one of the most contoversial situations in the Bible. Today, we understand what DNA is. When these things were written they didn't.
The belief was common to virtually all cultures..not just the writers of the Bible. It was also the basis for much of Mythology.
The river Jordan's name was Yar-dane in the Hebrew...which means "the place of the decent". The common belief was that someone came down from the sky...and caused much mischief..including messing with the Human genome.

The B'nai Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fit extensions. And they took wives for themselves from all those that they chose...The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the B'nai Elohim CAME IN TO the daughters of Adam, and they bore to them -- they were Powerful Ones which existed from ancient times, the men of name. (from the Interlinear Hebrew Bible Genesis 6)

In the Old Testament, the designation "sons of God" (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known--angels. And the term "sons of God" applies to both good and bad angels.

The designation "sons of God" is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God." The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, "like a son of the gods." Since Jesus had not yet become the "only begotten son" of God, this "son" would have had to be angelic.

Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the "sons of God" came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan--a further implication that the "sons of God" must have been angels.

Since the designation "sons of God" is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.

Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.

Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.

The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are sexless.



Wait, you just said that angles have human DNA. If this is true then they would have the same human biological frailities, with similar resistence to heat, cold, diease, aging, etc., unless they are the Incredible Hulk, types or something.

The off-spring of this union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were so extraordinary that it indicates an unusual parentage. In no way could the progenitors of such beings be ordinary humans. Their mothers possibly could be human, or their fathers, but certainly not both. Either the father or the mother had to be superhuman. Only in such a way can one account for the extraordinary character and prowess of the off-spring.

God's law of reproduction, according to the biblical account of creation, is "everything after his kind." God's law makes it impossible for giants to be produced by normal parentage. To produce such monstrosities as the Nephilim presupposes super- natural parentage.

When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as "gegenes." This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little reference to size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born." The same term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" -- being partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin.

The Hebrew and the Greek words do not exclude the presence of great physical strength. Indeed, a combined supernatural and natural parentage would imply such a characteristic. Angels, according to Scripture, are known for their power. They are often referred to as "sons of the Mighty" (Psalm 103:20). Therefore, if the ones who sired them were strong and mighty, it could be assumed that their offspring were likewise.

No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.





Are you sure? Ther is no redemptive plan for fallen angels as there is for people. The fallen angles do not have the option to repent and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So with the demon-human hybrid what part gets saved?

Is there no redemptive plan for "fallen" angels? This is an assumption.
While it might be true that there is no explicit redemptive plan for fallen angels in scripture...there are still hidden things in God.
There was no redemptive plan for Gentiles either...unill it was explicitly revealed to the Apostle Paul.

But..at any rate..the real issue for me is this at this point:

In 1947 an Arab boy tending his sheep accidentally discovered an ancient cave near the Dead Sea. In it were found a priceless collection of ancient scrolls which soon became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Qumran Texts. Among these writings was one known as the Genesis Apocryphon. At first it was thought to be the long lost Book of Lamech. Although the scroll consisted of a speech by Lamech and a story about some of the patriarchs from Enoch to Abraham; it was not that book.

According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the antedeluvian world.

It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also elaborates considerably on the succinct statements found in the Bible, and provides valuable insights into the way these ancient stories were interpreted by the ancient Jews.

The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back to the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older sources. When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from the ravages of time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly stuck together that years passed before the text was deciphered and made known. When scholars finally made public its content, the document confirmed that celestial beings from the skies had landed on planet Earth. More than that, it told how these beings had mated with Earth-women and had begat giants.

Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research has revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact.

Then..we have Genesis 6 in our Bibles. If it was Mythological, How much of the rest of the Bible is Mythological? And why was it the subject of so much Apocryphal writing.

The book of the Jubilees remarks that Jared or Yeh-red, an Old Testament patriarch, was so called because in his days the angels descended upon the earth - Yaw-rad "descend". It is interesting to note that "Jordan" comes from that same root word denoting "descent, coming down or falling" - Yar-dane "the place of the descent". Jordan, "place of the descent", is located in the ancient boundary of Israel. Israel is currently a major location for "sightings" according to UFO researchers.

The Book of Enoch explains that the Sons of God descended first onto the mountain called Hermon which in Hebrew means desolation, in the land of Jordan the place of the descent. The rebel angels intended to thwart God's plan for the earth by destroying the descendents of Adam.

In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of the "daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say that these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."

"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these? Were they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer space?

The reason is that this is where this whole story is leading many today. From demonology to UFO enthusiasts, From Bible scholars to Zechariah Sitchen...the story is becoming more and more an issue today.

As weird as all this is...the data is something to wrestle with.

Letsargue
March 8th, 2006, 05:33 PM
So? Jesus Christ is the LORD and SAVIOR, the Creator of all and the One that gives us eternal life. As you saying that fallen angels have the same creative power as Jesus Christ? That's ridiculous.

In Christ,

the Berean

---What is it that you want????? --- I said no such thing. -- You're just looking for a fight. Go fight with yourself.
*
----------------Paul---
*

thelaqachisnext
March 8th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Show me where Jesus quotes the Book of Enoch, and include a few other NT examples.

You cannot prove that the Book of Enoch isn't quoting the OT rather than the other way around.
I didn't remember posting to this thread and had not seen your reply to me.

Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, a title from Enoch, about Him, the 'elect One'.
Jude, the brother of the LORD -from the same womb, anyway- directly quotes Enoch; Peter almost word for word says the same thing Jude says.

First: I do not say we should use the book of Enoch as inspired canon, as we do not know what may have been messed with; but those things that are quoted in the New Testament and in the old do verify the passages from Enoch that they quote -or the themes of the passages of the themes they quote, at least.
When I read it I found some passage in the Old and New Testament made clear that were not clear, to me, before; that is, there are references in the accepted canon to things that are not found in the accepted canon but were found mentioned in Enoch; and to me that cleared up where they had come from that the Biblical authors had referenced.
I can prove nothing; I believe there is much in Enoch that is true. I do not accept all things just because I accept the veracity of some; however, in the translations, some of the things I find that I cannot accept in Enoch may have gotten translated wrongly because of a lack of understanding -just as the KJV has wrong statements because of the translators mis-understandings, in some places; although the original as given through the prophets is inspired: translations are not inspired either in the Bible or in Enoch, as far as I'm concerned, and if we had the original of Enoch we coud clear up some things, I suppose -if we were interested, anyway.
One thing in Enoch that I do not accept as written is the cuttings of plants that took root that the fallen angels taught the women, as supposedly being sin; I do not believe the original is written the way it is translated, and I suspect -and cannot prove- that the original had to do with cloning and gene splicing to produce offspring from the fallen angels, but that the translators had no idea what the original meant. That is my own opinion and I do not make a religion of it.

but the parts of the Book of Enoch that was found in the dead sea scrolls were pre-New Testament by three hundred years (if I remember correctly -and I may have mis-remembered), and those writers of the New Testament who quoted from it gave credence to those parts they quoted, at least.

Jesus was familiar with it and quoted from it by referring to Himself as the Son of Man many times: also, when the demons reference Enoch when Jesus was going to cast them out of Legion, Jesus knew their point of reference and understood what they were asking -He did not say, "Huh?'; his 'brethren', James and Jude, were familiar with it; Peter, John, and Paul were familiar with it; and it was a part of the canon of the early Church and was also quoted by some of the early Believers -some of whom accepted it as canon and whose writings we have access to- until the Roman Catholic Church banned it.

The Ethiopian Church has never banned it and has kept it as canon since the beginning of the Ethiopian Church, which is where the first modern copies were gotten from, in the 1800's, and translated to English from.

I read a lot, and all these things I have read, and the Bible I am very familiar with, also; but no, I can prove nothing.

Below is a quote from a site I found by google search: I know nothing of the site -if they are Christian or false cult, but the quote is informational, about the use of Enoch by the LORD Jesus, which was in circulation and used by the Jews of His 'day'.;

http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

"Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch. Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked" - the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.

There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch. Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the
transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him." The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One" - the one promised in the Book of Enoch."

Letsargue
March 13th, 2006, 05:45 AM
So? Jesus Christ is the LORD and SAVIOR, the Creator of all and the One that gives us eternal life. As you saying that fallen angels have the same creative power as Jesus Christ? That's ridiculous.



In Christ,

the Berean

---I didn't say they had the same Creative power. You said I said that. I was referring that they had the same dieing ability, if they were in the FLESH. THE SPIRIT CANNOT DIE.
*
-------------Paul---
*