Before the Flood

[Mikeb85]

My interested is what it was like before the flood, are any present day ruins evidence of a pre-flood civilization?

Not that I know of. Physical evidence would be hard to find, if not impossible.

Are there any records of pre-flood kings?

The Sumerian King list has records of pre-flood kings.

Is there anything out there extra-biblical about the giants for instance?

Yes. The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) explains about the giants, Nephilim, elaborates on Genesis 6.

Instead of looking towards physical evidence of a flood, I prefer to look towards the stories of ancient peoples (for example, Sumerian myths). The similarities of many ancient myths point to a common source, an event that actually occurred (ie. Biblical flood). For instance, the creation story is also contained in Sumerian/Babylonian myths, albeit from a VERY different perspective (eg. - the book of Enoch explains that the ancient pagan gods were in fact the Nephilim or demons)...

Anyhow, the fact that so many ancient peoples believed in a flood strongly suggests that a common event (ie. the Biblical flood) did indeed inspire these stories... To me, historical human record shows more than physical evidence. You just have to sort through different cultural, linguistic, symbolic and religious perspectives to get to the commonalities which point to the truth.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Yes. The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) explains about the giants, Nephilim, elaborates on Genesis 6.

I'm not sure about the book of Enoch, I haven't read it, because it's apocryphal, (I read the gospel of Thomas and it was rubbish) and I'm not sure how far back it goes. Is there an online copy of Enoch 1?

the epic of Gilgamesh seems to me to be almost identical to Gen. Except that it's Ea, Enlil etc. I wonder when the epic was written into the hebrew version, or was it carried in people's heads for all those years.
I am thinking of Baalbek as a possible pre-flood ruin.

 

[LittleNipper]

quote..
If there were a global flood such as Creation Science defends, there could be no life on earth, not even if they were all in an ark during the flood. The forces generated by the events causing the flood would destroy the surface of the earth, cause extreme temperature changes (notably in the HOT direction), and cause such violent waves that there would be nothing to return to (remember that the bird found some branches after the flood waters were subsiding?) and no way to survive even in an ark.

If there was enough force from the moving water to dig out massive canyons and create the Great Lakes, how did trees survive? If the force of water coming out of the earth could split the continents apart and create mountains, how would the resulting waves not cause the ark to capsize? Since only land animals came into the ark, how did water animals that require either fresh water or salt water survive when all the waters got muddled together?

The issue of the water canopy has been addressed. If you take the time to read that article, it's rather insightful. If you haven't, I recommend that you do. It took me about a half hour (I wasn't timing myself, so that's a rough guess).

Now, this is just my humble opinion, but I believe that there was a good reason why the flood story is in the Bible, and I don't believe that reason was to give us a history lesson. I think that Peter gave us a clue as to why it's recorded. And I believe that reason is that it serves a teaching tool to show us what Christ did, and to teach us about baptism. I think that the exact extent to which it is 100% historically factual is irrelevant. It serves as an example of Christ, and gives some baptismal imagery.

I havn't read through those links supplied yet, however I have read the book.. 'The Biblical Flood, a case study of the church's response to extrabiblical evidence' and you remind me of the fact that fresh water fish can't survive in the seas, (and unless there was a huge fish-tank on board the ark...) and the bird with a twig in it's beak also showing that there were trees still living somewhere else, which hints at a local flood.. but.. the other evidence.. what about David Fasolds ark? and the drogue stones? this is good evidence, but YEC don't seem to bother investigating this ark. There are other things around the world, (my head could break), evidence for two different world-views at the same time. What is Peter's clue?
ps. what I understand as the 'vapour canopy' is increased atmosphere, which would allow big dragon flies to fly and also those big pterosaurs, (I know it's 'heretical' thinking for some because all this happened in the pre-cretacious)
but some experiments have been done on fish to create giant fish, when the atmosphere or O2 level is increased, which would account for giant'ism in those days. I've seen some pics on you-tube of giant humans, but I can't track the pics down, so 'am thinking hoax? can any one else confirm those giant fossil humans in India and elsewhere?

While I do not believe in evolution, I do accept that over time of slow change, that organisms can and do adapt. I believe that during the Flood there could have been pockets of fresh water. In fact, it is likely that the major problem might have be sediment, anyway, my feeling is that the oceans have been slowly becoming more saline. The creatures have been able to cope with the slow change within limits. As for the plants, I really feel GOD was in control. Read the story of Jonah. In that story, a vine grows rather fast and is destroyed just as fast (Jonah chapter 4). I see little problem with the olive leaf. GOD provided it somehow and that is all that matters.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

While I do not believe in evolution, I do accept that over time of slow change, that organisms can and do adapt. I believe that during the Flood there could have been pockets of fresh water. In fact, it is likely that the major problem might have be sediment, anyway, My feeling is that the oceans have been slowly becoming more saline. The creatures have been able to cope with the slow change within limits

interesting, I hadn't thought of that. What about diseases and mosquitoes and all the insects? Human diseases that exist now in the total, the crew of the ark would have to carry every disease of man, for a year on board, in order for there to be a host carrier. And all the big spiders, and midges etc. For the bird to be able to carry back a twig showing life to the ark, there must have been a shrub somewhere else, as a shrub cannot survive under water for a year, can it?

 

[Mikeb85]

Yes. The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) explains about the giants, Nephilim, elaborates on Genesis 6.

I'm not sure about the book of Enoch, I haven't read it, because it's apocryphal, (I read the gospel of Thomas and it was rubbish) and I'm not sure how far back it goes. Is there an online copy of Enoch 1?

the epic of Gilgamesh seems to me to be almost identical to Gen. Except that it's Ea, Enlil etc. I wonder when the epic was written into the hebrew version, or was it carried in people's heads for all those years.
I am thinking of Baalbek as a possible pre-flood ruin.

Heres the online copy of the book of Enoch. http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM

BTW, as for the authenticity of the book of Enoch, it's considered canonical by the Ethiopian Tawahedo Orthodox Church. Jude also quotes directly from the book of Enoch. And I believe the content speaks for itself.

 

[Mikeb85]

the epic of Gilgamesh seems to me to be almost identical to Gen. Except that it's Ea, Enlil etc. I wonder when the epic was written into the hebrew version, or was it carried in people's heads for all those years.
I am thinking of Baalbek as a possible pre-flood ruin.

To me, the epic and other Mesopotamian creation stories tell the same story as Genesis from slightly different perspectives. The Mesopotamian stories are very dressed up, with heroes, many gods, etc...

As for possible pre-flood ruins, again I'd look to Sumerian sources (unfortunately all the archaeological sites are in the middle of a warzone at present). Baalbek doesn't seem nearly old enough...

 

[LittleNipper]

While I do not believe in evolution, I do accept that over time of slow change, that organisms can and do adapt. I believe that during the Flood there could have been pockets of fresh water. In fact, it is likely that the major problem might have be sediment, anyway, My feeling is that the oceans have been slowly becoming more saline. The creatures have been able to cope with the slow change within limits

interesting, I hadn't thought of that. What about diseases and mosquitoes and all the insects? Human diseases that exist now in the total, the crew of the ark would have to carry every disease of man, for a year on board, in order for there to be a host carrier. And all the big spiders, and midges etc. For the bird to be able to carry back a twig showing life to the ark, there must have been a shrub somewhere else, as a shrub cannot survive under water for a year, can it?

First and formost GOD was protecting Noah, his family, the animals, and that ark. What I believe is that before there was sin, that viruses and germs had some beneficial purpose. Sin started the downward spiril. It is most likely that as the gene pool has become more and more corrupted. This has caused man to become susceptible to various diseases and germs themselves are mutating (though not into new kinds).

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Heres the online copy of the book of Enoch. http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM

BTW, as for the authenticity of the book of Enoch, it's considered canonical by the Ethiopian Tawahedo Orthodox Church. Jude also quotes directly from the book of Enoch. And I believe the content speaks for itself.

thanks much for the link to Enoch.

First and formost GOD was protecting Noah, his family, the animals, and that ark. What I believe is that before there was sin, that viruses and germs had some beneficial purpose. Sin started the downward spiril. It is most likely that as the gene pool has become more and more corrupted. This has caused man to become susceptible to various diseases and germs themselves are mutating (though not into new kinds).

viruses mutating into bad, interesting idea.

 

[cleminson]

Not that I know of. Physical evidence would be hard to find, if not impossible.



The Sumerian King list has records of pre-flood kings.



Yes. The book of Enoch (1 Enoch) explains about the giants, Nephilim, elaborates on Genesis 6.

Instead of looking towards physical evidence of a flood, I prefer to look towards the stories of ancient peoples (for example, Sumerian myths). The similarities of many ancient myths point to a common source, an event that actually occurred (ie. Biblical flood). For instance, the creation story is also contained in Sumerian/Babylonian myths, albeit from a VERY different perspective (eg. - the book of Enoch explains that the ancient pagan gods were in fact the Nephilim or demons)...

Anyhow, the fact that so many ancient peoples believed in a flood strongly suggests that a common event (ie. the Biblical flood) did indeed inspire these stories... To me, historical human record shows more than physical evidence. You just have to sort through different cultural, linguistic, symbolic and religious perspectives to get to the commonalities which point to the truth.

I would run a million miles from the so called "book of Enoch. It is another source quoted to justify the error that “the sons of God” were fallen angels. However, it is important for any reader to know that the Enoch that is mentioned in Genesis 5 did, not write this Book of Enoch. The book does not contain the words of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since he would have lived several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the so-called “book of Enoch.

This book of Enoch is a “pseudepigraphic” book, which means in Greek “falsely superscripted”. It is a collection of writings from different authors who wished to hide their true identities behind well-known names from the past. It is from a small part of this book and from one author, that the brother of James, quoted in his letter in Jude 1:14-15 “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Unfortunately certain early Christian authors such as, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus expounded “The Book of Enoch” as being true and on a level with scripture. This resulted in others jumping to this erroneous conclusion.

They argue that because Jude quoted from “The Book of Enoch”, therefore all that is contained in the book must be trustworthy. However, it has never been accepted as “inspired Scripture” by most scholars or preachers, especially as it is made up of a collection of works. It is very possible that Jude accepted one small part of the book or one of the many authors, but to say that he accepted them all is not wise. Even though Jude quoted from this book, we have no reason to believe he elevated it to the same level as Holy Scripture. The insertion of the quotation simply acts as a further emphasis to Jude’s main message that God will judge the ungodly and though he discusses fallen angels, nowhere does he mention angels marrying humans.
Some scholars erroneously believe that Jesus got some of His revelation from the book, however, Scripture says that He received all of his revelation directly from God, In John 8:28 “Then said Jesus unto them, when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things”. And again in John 12:49-50 “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak”. And again in John 14:11 “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake”. John 15:15 “No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you.”

It is argued that other works like “The Genesis Apocryphon” which quotes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, mentioning angels interbreeding with human women and “The Book of Jubilees”, which also argues that the “sons of God” were also fallen angels, must prove the argument and that most people in the time of the apostles believed that the “sons of God” were fallen angels. However, just because two ancient books exist, it does not make them scripturally accurate, nor do they prove the thoughts of true men of God at that time. There are plenty of books today that claim to prove thousands of theories but does that make them right? We need to look at the only Book to hold the truth and that is the Bible.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I don't have a problem with fallen angels and human women producing offspring, it says it in Genesis, I can't see any other way of reading it... sons of God, daughters of men. I would only read Enoch as a curiosity, not as the inspired word of God. I also think the book is probably dodgy as it was written, as far as I know about 300BC during the greek gnostic period of influence, and I agree, it wasn't written by Enoch, which is a pity.
Who was it that buried information in the ground, before the flood, to retain knowledge, some myth, I can't remember now.

 

[cleminson]

I don't have a problem with fallen angels and human women producing offspring, it says it in Genesis, I can't see any other way of reading it... sons of God, daughters of men. I would only read Enoch as a curiosity, not as the inspired word of God. I also think the book is probably dodgy as it was written, as far as I know about 300BC during the greek gnostic period of influence, and I agree, it wasn't written by Enoch, which is a pity.
Who was it that buried information in the ground, before the flood, to retain knowledge, some myth, I can't remember now.

I do not believe that the sons of God were fallen angels and if you go to the "creationist" section of this site and look in My Genesis Enigm Parts 22 to 26 you will read a possible but very different explaination. Please disagree if you do. Yours in Christ.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

It's a lot of info to read through. I just think that the contrast with sons of God, and daughters of men, shows that they weren't sons of men, but sons of God. I don't really know, I'd have to check if it's actually God used as the word, and what was that word in the original? Elohim? I watched a video today by a messianic, who quoted this also, and also Jesus saying, 'as it was in the time of Noah... seems like a popular interpretation, that the sons of God, if that's what they are, are returning, from space or the sky-dimension whatever that is, being cast down to earth. I don't think the book of Enoch is going to be reliable, if it was a babylonian tablet found in Iraq, that would be something to get exited about.
I actually bought the Enuma Elish, but it's not much cop. I've been fascinated by the Sumerian tablets, the temptation seal, and others, one on a creationist site showing dinosaurs, and another showing the sun and planets in orbit. If only there was a new discovery of interest as a text.

 

[Mikeb85]

I would run a million miles from the so called "book of Enoch. It is another source quoted to justify the error that “the sons of God” were fallen angels. However, it is important for any reader to know that the Enoch that is mentioned in Genesis 5 did, not write this Book of Enoch. The book does not contain the words of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since he would have lived several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the so-called “book of Enoch.

This book of Enoch is a “pseudepigraphic” book, which means in Greek “falsely superscripted”. It is a collection of writings from different authors who wished to hide their true identities behind well-known names from the past. It is from a small part of this book and from one author, that the brother of James, quoted in his letter in Jude 1:14-15 “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Unfortunately certain early Christian authors such as, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus expounded “The Book of Enoch” as being true and on a level with scripture. This resulted in others jumping to this erroneous conclusion.

They argue that because Jude quoted from “The Book of Enoch”, therefore all that is contained in the book must be trustworthy. However, it has never been accepted as “inspired Scripture” by most scholars or preachers, especially as it is made up of a collection of works. It is very possible that Jude accepted one small part of the book or one of the many authors, but to say that he accepted them all is not wise. Even though Jude quoted from this book, we have no reason to believe he elevated it to the same level as Holy Scripture. The insertion of the quotation simply acts as a further emphasis to Jude’s main message that God will judge the ungodly and though he discusses fallen angels, nowhere does he mention angels marrying humans.
Some scholars erroneously believe that Jesus got some of His revelation from the book, however, Scripture says that He received all of his revelation directly from God, In John 8:28 “Then said Jesus unto them, when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things”. And again in John 12:49-50 “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak”. And again in John 14:11 “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake”. John 15:15 “No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you.”

It is argued that other works like “The Genesis Apocryphon” which quotes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, mentioning angels interbreeding with human women and “The Book of Jubilees”, which also argues that the “sons of God” were also fallen angels, must prove the argument and that most people in the time of the apostles believed that the “sons of God” were fallen angels. However, just because two ancient books exist, it does not make them scripturally accurate, nor do they prove the thoughts of true men of God at that time. There are plenty of books today that claim to prove thousands of theories but does that make them right? We need to look at the only Book to hold the truth and that is the Bible.

First of all, I'm well aware of the origins of the book of Enoch. When reading all apocryphal and pseudoepigraphical writings I always make sure to check the content against other scriptures, tradition, and sometimes even other history, etc...

As for the beliefs that fallen angels interbred with human women, it's contained in Genesis 6:4 - whether or not you want to believe that's the correct interpretation (the contrasts given in the wording make sense only in the context of the fallen angels). Not only that, but you can look to other ancient cultures as well. Sumerians believed that gods at one time dwelled on earth, that their heroes were demi-gods. Greeks believed the same. Many other ancient cultures believed the same. When there are too many coincidences, some times you have to start questioning why... Enoch, Jubilees, again, when are there too many coincidences? Why did so many people, early Christians and even Jews before them, other cultures, all believe in essentially the same story?

 

[NathanCGreen]

I don't have a problem with fallen angels and human women producing offspring, it says it in Genesis, I can't see any other way of reading it... sons of God, daughters of men.

I see the sons of God as being the obedient of God (descendants of Seth), and then they corrupted themselves with idolatrous women (descendants of Cain).
But as to the 'Nephilim', the giants, I would say that they were not unique in their height, for I believe that all humans were larger in the pre-flood world, than the average human today. I realise that there were 'giants' after the Flood as well though.
But their uniqueness was from their tyrannical, bullish behaviour. They were 'fellers', forceful characters.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I see the sons of God as being the obedient of God (descendants of Seth), and then they corrupted themselves with idolatrous women (descendants of Cain).
But as to the 'Nephilim', the giants, I would say that they were not unique in their height, for I believe that all humans were larger in the pre-flood world, than the average human today. I realise that there were 'giants' after the Flood as well though.
But their uniqueness was from their tyrannical, bullish behaviour. They were 'fellers', forceful characters.

yeah maybe. I've seen photo pics of giants on you-tube, that look genuine, huge they are, are they fake? I can't find anymore info. about them on a google. Does anyone have any info.?

 

[LittleNipper]

yeah maybe. I've seen photo pics of giants on you-tube, that look genuine, huge they are, are they fake? I can't find anymore info. about them on a google. Does anyone have any info.?

What about the Himalayan Abominable Snowman found by Napal India? Could it be that what they found are only tracks of a long extinct creature?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

What about the Himalayan Abominable Snowman found by Napal India? Could it be that what they found are only tracks of a long extinct creature?

I saw that film of the bigfoot in the US again recently, and it still hasn't gone away, the experts are still arguing about it, saying that it is or isn't a bloke in a monkey suit.

 

[cleminson]

It's a lot of info to read through. I just think that the contrast with sons of God, and daughters of men, shows that they weren't sons of men, but sons of God. I don't really know, I'd have to check if it's actually God used as the word, and what was that word in the original? Elohim? I watched a video today by a messianic, who quoted this also, and also Jesus saying, 'as it was in the time of Noah... seems like a popular interpretation, that the sons of God, if that's what they are, are returning, from space or the sky-dimension whatever that is, being cast down to earth. I don't think the book of Enoch is going to be reliable, if it was a babylonian tablet found in Iraq, that would be something to get exited about.
I actually bought the Enuma Elish, but it's not much cop. I've been fascinated by the Sumerian tablets, the temptation seal, and others, one on a creationist site showing dinosaurs, and another showing the sun and planets in orbit. If only there was a new discovery of interest as a text.

In the New Testament we start to get a clue to the status of the sons of God where it is clear that being a “son of God” is something to be aspired. In John 1:12 we read “but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”. Romans 8:14-23 shows that becoming a “son of God” was dependent on being led by the Holy Spirit. We read, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
have seen that Jesus certainly met the requirement for being a son of God, as well as being the Son of God but does Adam meet the requirement to be called a son of God. Let us look again at the definition of the “sons of God”. We have seen that a son of God must be “led by the Spirit of God,” must “shine as lights to the world,” and must be a different creature to the rest of mankind in the world. Adam had a walking, talking relationship with God, both before and after the “fall”.

The first theory is that “the sons of God” were fallen angels; the second view was that “the sons of God” were the sons of pre-Flood rulers or magistrates and the third view was that the “sons of God” were simply the sons of Seth. The first theory was that it was fallen angels who came to Earth and took human women as wives, producing a race of “super” humans of which some people believe that they were giants called in Hebrew “nephilim” but the literal translation of this Hebrew word is “bully”. This view was popular amongst many of the first century theologians such as Flavius Josephus and Eusebius. A number of the Ante-Nicene Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Commodianus also supported this theory.

Why it was assumed that the “fallen ones” could only be demons, when we have been told in scripture that the demons are locked in chains, I do not know. Surely the “fallen ones” come from the sons of the original sinner – Adam, who fell from Eden to our physical Earth. The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew term nephilim as “gigantes”, which literally means, “Earth-born.” This is often misunderstood to mean “giants” – who the some of the nephilim may also have been.

First, let’s look at all of the Old Testament references to “sons of God.” As I have already mentioned, this phrase is translated from the Hebrew “ben el-o-heem’”. I will quote from the Modern King James Version from: Genesis 6:1-4, Deuteronomy 32:8, Job1: 6, Job 38:4-7. It is argued by many that all these scriptures refer to the angels because they were divine creations, created with “God’s Breath” or Spirit. However, I believe that the “sons of God” were not Angels or fallen angels but came from Seth, who came from Adam, the first son of God, who was formed from a mixture of “God’s breath” and the “dust of the earth” the “Adamah” in Hebrew.

The fallen angels were cast out of Heaven because they listened to Satan and tried to usurp God’s place in Heaven, they were most certainly not cast out of Heaven for consorting with uncreated women. In fact Satan was already a serpent in the Garden of Eden, if he had not fallen by then he would have been an Angel of Light and would certainly not have tempted Eve.

Jude 1 says, And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Everlasting bonds, not temporary bonds or until they see pretty women. No! Everlasting bonds.

The loyal Angels can take on human form and walk amongst mankind without being recognized by most, however, there is no sexual intercourse in Heaven, therefore any need for genitalia. It stretches the human mind to extremes to decide that the fallen angels could get out of their prison at will, acquire genitalia and breed or commit lascivious acts, just because they chose to, especially as it is God that locked them up in hell, in chains of darkness, to await judgment. Would He have allowed them out to consort with women and then punish mankind for their wrongdoing? No!

Christ Himself plainly said that Angels do not marry. In Matthew 22:30 we read “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven”, and in Mark 12:25 “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are as the angels in Heaven,” and in Luke 20:34 – 36, “And answering, Jesus said to them, The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage, but they who shall be counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage. Nor can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels, and are the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection”.

How the offspring of demons could be called the “sons of God” beggars belief, especially as in Romans 8:14 it says, “As many are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Demons, fallen angels or whatever else you want to call them, are not led by God’s Spirit and God would not have called these fallen angels that are locked in chains, “sons of God”. To confirm this, we are told in 2 Peter 2:4, that chains in Hell bind the fallen angels, “For if God did not spare sinning angels, but thrust them down into Tartarus, and delivered them into chains of darkness, being reserved to judgment”.
In Matthew 5:9 we are told that, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” Once again, there is no way that fallen angels can be described as peacemakers.

Another great proof against the “sons of God” being demons, is that if the fallen angels could have procreated with the “daughters of men”, the Flood did not, nor could not, have wiped them out and if they found women so attractive then, they would have carried on mating with women to this day and we would still have the bullies of old. Demons do not die in floods and as they are still in rebellion, they would have taken no notice of the flood, they would have waited for the first pretty woman after the flood and carried on.

Let us now look at the scriptures that finally prove that the fallen angels were not the “sons of God”. In Genesis 6:2-3 scripture very clearly says, “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” It says very clearly that these “sons of God” were men with a limited life span. “And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh”. These “sons of God” were “men” and “flesh” and God was angry with them for “helping themselves” to the daughters of men. Fallen angels did not have limited life spans, only humans could have had limited life spans. If they were angels that consorted with the human women, scripture would have been clear. However, Gods anger was with the “sons of God” and He calls them “men” and they made of “flesh”.

There is overwhelming Scriptural support for the fact the fallen angel were not the “sons of God”. In Hebrews 1:5 we read “For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son; today I have begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me.” God never called any of his angels “sons” and certainly neither good or bad, “sons”. If He does not recognize them as sons, we should be careful not to twist the Bible to suit our own theories and in doing so make them the “sons of God”.

 

[busterdog]

First of all, I'm well aware of the origins of the book of Enoch. When reading all apocryphal and pseudoepigraphical writings I always make sure to check the content against other scriptures, tradition, and sometimes even other history, etc...

As for the beliefs that fallen angels interbred with human women, it's contained in Genesis 6:4 - whether or not you want to believe that's the correct interpretation (the contrasts given in the wording make sense only in the context of the fallen angels). Not only that, but you can look to other ancient cultures as well. Sumerians believed that gods at one time dwelled on earth, that their heroes were demi-gods. Greeks believed the same. Many other ancient cultures believed the same. When there are too many coincidences, some times you have to start questioning why... Enoch, Jubilees, again, when are there too many coincidences? Why did so many people, early Christians and even Jews before them, other cultures, all believe in essentially the same story?

Don't forget Jude.

 

[cleminson]

Don't forget Jude.

Let us take a look at the accounts of the sons of God. First in Genesis 6:1 - 7, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them”.

As for the beliefs that fallen angels interbred with human women, it is based on the erroneous interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, where scripture very clearly says, “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” It says very clearly that these “sons of God” were men with a limited life span. “And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh”. These “sons of God” were “men” and “flesh” and God was angry with them for “helping themselves” to the daughters of men. Fallen angels did not have limited life spans, only humans could have had limited life spans of one hundred and twenty years. If they were angels that consorted with the human women, scripture would have been clear. However, Gods anger was with the “sons of God” and He calls them “men” and they made of “flesh”.

Further scriptures where the sons of God are mentioned are Deuteronomy 32:8, Job1:6, Job 38:4-7 and Jude 1:6. In Jude 1:6 we are told, “And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day”. They left God’s spiritual Heaven which was their “proper habitation” and were placed into a part physical prison into “everlasting bonds”, not temporary bonds or until they see pretty women. No! Everlasting bonds.

There is overwhelming Scriptural support for the fact the fallen angel were not the “sons of God”. In Hebrews 1:5 we read “For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son; today I have begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me.” God never called any of his angels “sons” and certainly neither good nor bad, “sons”. If He does not recognize them as sons, we should be careful not to twist the Bible to suit our own theories and in doing so make them the “sons of God”.