Are angels the same as demons?

[JacksBratt]

How is a curse giving of great stature, heroes of old, men of renown? Try again.

Because they are an abomination and throughout the OT we see the genocide that was commanded by God to cull the world of these hybrids. Or, to kill them off so that they did not have a chance to interfere with the events that were necessary to lead up to the Gospel... or even keep the Jewish people from irreparable harm.

Anytime we see giants or the nephilime or anything to do with their type... it is always against God.

Nimrod was a Giant hunter... then he did something, it seems, to become a giant himself and it was he who planned to build the tower of Babel .

 

[JacksBratt]

Which book of the Bible am I quoting when I say God will judge evil people? Many prophets have said this. This is a generic statement. Just because Enoch said it does not make the Book of Enoch unquestionably true.

Whether Jude read it from a book of half truths or Jude was inspired by the Holy Spirit to learn what Enoch said, it really doesn't matter. Because Jude does not explicitly say his quote was from the Book of Enoch we do not know if he was giving an endorsement of the book.

What I am saying is if you quote a common idea in a book, that does not make authentic every book that says the same.

Your post that I questioned had no other statement than the simple "words are quoted, not a book". That is what I was commenting on.
To say "words are quoted, not a book"... sounds very picky to me. That was my point.

People are always saying "to quote the Bible" or "to quote Wiki" or "to quote (insert book name here)".

We can say that a book was quoted, or we can say a person was quoted...

So to say that "words are quoted, not a book" I find semantics. We quote words from a book and we can say we quote a book and totally be truthful.

 

[JacksBratt]

It is not canon according to most Protestants.

I said "Nothing in the Book of Enoch contradicts the canon."

Please show me where, in my words above, in quotations, where I said that it was canon.

If people would comment on what someone actually said in a post and avoided twisting and spinning of a comment to assume some other concept, the threads here would be much shorter.

 

[food4thought]

This is the first time I have considered this verse so I don't feel as confident as I would like in my answer. But it may be that spirits here refers to the angels or a group of deceased human kings, and demons to the spirits of Nephilim.

I think we can find a good indication of this from Eusebius.
"Thus then at length the terrestrial daemons, and 'the world-rulers' that haunt the air, and the 'spiritual hosts of wickedness,' 2 and the leader of them all in malice, were regarded among all men as the greatest of gods; the memory also of those long dead came to be thought worthy of greater worship." (Praeparatio Evangelica book 5 chapter 2. )
I take the world rulers to be angels. I am not sure of what 'spiritual hosts of wickedness' refers to, but given the context of Eusebius's statement it could be the spirits of wicked kings worshiped as gods. Many human kings were viewed as gods even while alive, and many went through rituals of dedication that authorized them as rulers on behalf of demons or angels. (you can get a clearer view of that system of ritual here. Ninurta, as described here, is probably Nimrod) Isaiah 14:9 talks about the rephaim rising up to meet the king of Babylon so maybe Eusebius sees a group of humans as in league with the Nephilim spirits and that might be what is refereed to in Timothy.

In regards to the reference in idolatry, the Nephilim were worshiped as gods. The Nephilim were mighty men of renown, the kind people turned into gods. Eusebius draws that out further in the first few chapters of what I linked above. I think of the gods that people worshiped, most were Nephilim but some may have been fallen angels. In particular I have in mind Enlil.

Thank you for such a thoughtful reply. I must admit I know little about ancient Mesopotamian gods. You've given me much to look into, thanks.

 

[food4thought]

IDK. Why do men have nipples?

IDK. Good question. I don't buy into evolutionary theory, so I am at a loss to explain that. I was just hoping someone here would have a good answer to the question I have most often been confronted with when presenting the angel view of Genesis 6... sorry if I sounded argumentative, it was not my intent.

I just do not hold to the "sons of God" being any human being, genealogy or bloodline. The Sethite view has been debunked and proven to be wrong on many fronts.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Sethite view is a colossal failure.

The only explanation for what happened after Genesis 6 is that they were fallen angels who took human women for wives and procreation.

IDK... there could be a third explanation you haven't considered yet. More on that later.

 

[JacksBratt]

Sorry, not a compelling argument. There are only 5 chapters in the Bible before the flood is described. There is a lot missing. I once read how someone calculated there could be 10 Trillion people that died in the flood.

Someone may have calculated wrongly... 10 Trillion? Seriously?

What does this have to do with when demons are first mentioned anyway?

You may say that the text says each person was full of violence, but I say the world was full of people and they were violent people.

I really don't see any difference in these two concepts. Sorry.

Regardless, the cause was hopeless and God had to start over. Do you think that the world is so hopeless today? Then I say our level of violence and evil is not what it was at the flood.

Ya, you're right. We are not what is described here:

Genesis 6:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 And God 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.

Not yet.

What about NT scripture that says the end times will be like it was with Noah?

Matthew 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

I wish I had of posted that verse () Check out post #70

 

[food4thought]

I think any angel is able to change into a human form. I think that when they do it, it should be under the permission of God for God's work.

These fallen ones sinned when they did this, for many reasons...one being doing this outside of the permission of God.

Fair enough. I understand your position much more clearly now. Not sure whether I agree with all of it, but it does make sense. Thank you.

 

[JacksBratt]

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small."
Gen 1:27 So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female,
Gen 1:28 blessed them, and said, "Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals. GNB

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live. GNB

Your original post, that I questioned was this:

One teachings says angels fell and became demons, while another simply calls them fallen angels and has the origin of demons being creatures that were people, who fell from grace at a later time. Looking at Genesis, the people before the creation of Adam.

None of your scripture back this up.

As for Genesis 6 and the Sons of God, they probably were not angels.

"Probably not angels"? That is rather vague.

Angels need not resemble God. They were more likely human like creatures from an older world.

More than Likely? Again vague.

Creatures from an older world? Where does this concept even come from? Other than from those that cannot accept that when God said that Adam was the first man..... Adam was the first man.

Angels are not called sons of God.

Check out the book of Job.

Job 38:7
Job 1:6
Job 2:1
Job 1: 6-12

Jude quoted Enoch, but does that mean the whole book is in order and true? Jesus quotes Tobit in reverse, from "do not do unto others what you do not want them to do to you", into "do unto others as you would have them do to you." Tobit is considered an historical Hebrew book, but not the word of God.

Maybe it should be.

 

[JacksBratt]

IDK. Good question. I don't buy into evolutionary theory, so I am at a loss to explain that. I was just hoping someone here would have a good answer to the question I have most often been confronted with when presenting the angel view of Genesis 6... sorry if I sounded argumentative, it was not my intent.



I agree wholeheartedly that the Sethite view is a colossal failure.



IDK... there could be a third explanation you haven't considered yet. More on that later.

I would be interested on any "third explanation".

However, I go with Akum's Razor here...

Genesis 6 meaning fallen angels is not beyond the capabilities and fits to well with the events of that time and after.

If people have a problem with it.. I would like to know why.

I don't mean all their explanations as to why it must not be this way. I mean why it would not be possible. I mean, the bible says it happened and it's not like the bible doesn't have weird stuff happening and we accept it as truth.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Your original post, that I questioned was this:

One teachings says angels fell and became demons, while another simply calls them fallen angels and has the origin of demons being creatures that were people, who fell from grace at a later time. Looking at Genesis, the people before the creation of Adam.

None of your scripture back this up.


"Probably not angels"? That is rather vague.


More than Likely? Again vague.

Creatures from an older world? Where does this concept even come from? Other than from those that cannot accept that when God said that Adam was the first man..... Adam was the first man.



Check out the book of Job.

Job 38:7
Job 1:6
Job 2:1
Job 1: 6-12



Maybe it should be.

As a teenager, I thought that if the sons of God could fly, they must be angels. Others already had such thoughts. So some considered Genesis 6 about fallen angel and human hybrids with very ill natures.

I read the Job quotes, and in several translations, DRB, KJV with numbers, YLT, LITV, ISV, GNB and do not find the word "angels"!

I have pondered the idea that angels collectively are called sons, but Hebrews reads that no angel will ever be called a son. Heb 1:5.

Angels in Ezekiel do not resemble God in image, and so how can they be called sons?
Ezekiel 1:18 and 10:12.

I am not most interested in the Old Testament. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth beyond being vaguely sure of what it means.

I quoted Genesis 1, and there was a multitude of people. Then in ch 2 God creates Adam. Either the book was put together with two authors making one conglomerate Genesis or something went wrong between chapter 1 and 2. I have not thought into this book that much and do not know the answer, but I am persuaded to think something went wrong by a Bible teacher called Benny Hinn.

In your Job quote there is reference to the formation of this world and it reads "the sons of God rejoiced". So it is that there were older sons of God.

 

[food4thought]

I would be interested on any "third explanation"

Well, the third possibility goes into the OP of this thread a bit, since it concerns whether fallen angels have the capability of "possessing" a human like unclean spirits do. To make my case better, I'll comment on the relevant verses in Genesis 6.

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
(Gen 6:1-2)

I want to note two things here... first, the obvious nature of the difference between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men". If the Sethite view were accurate, it would state "sons of Seth", not "sons of God", and "sons of Cain", not "sons of Adam". The Sethite version of Scripture would say "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain". Also, the antithetical parallelism points to the "sons of God" being of a different sort than the "daughters of Adam". This parallelism strongly supports the angel view of this passage.

Secondly, the word translated "wives" literally means women, not wives specifically. More on why that could be significant later.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
(Gen 6:4)

What I want to do here is look at the word translated "came in". The Hebrew word is bo' (Strong's H935), and it is used in a wide variety of senses. It is true that it is used as a euphemism for sex in places, but more commonly it means just what the text says... the angel entered into the women. If fallen angels can do this, there is no need for them to have intercourse with the women (making them "wives"), they could simply possess a woman and do something to her egg that would cause the DNA to be changed. I do not believe that this would be beyond the capabilities of angels (who knows what kind of technology they are capable of?). So when the possessed women was impregnated by a man, they could thus produce the Nephilim thru the distorted DNA of the possessed woman's egg. The child could then be possessed from conception by the same fallen angel (or another) as well, further twisting their soul/mind so they would be "only evil continually".

That's the framework I was considering as a possible third option, but it depends on the ability of fallen angels to possess someone. Any thoughts?

------------------------Edited for clarity at 1219------------------------

 

[JacksBratt]

As a teenager, I thought that if the sons of God could fly, they must be angels. Others already had such thoughts. So some considered Genesis 6 about fallen angel and human hybrids with very ill natures.

I read the Job quotes, and in several translations, DRB, KJV with numbers, YLT, LITV, ISV, GNB and do not find the word "angels"!

I have pondered the idea that angels collectively are called sons, but Hebrews reads that no angel will ever be called a son. Heb 1:5.

Angels in Ezekiel do not resemble God in image, and so how can they be called sons?
Ezekiel 1:18 and 10:12.

I am not most interested in the Old Testament. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth beyond being vaguely sure of what it means.

I quoted Genesis 1, and there was a multitude of people. Then in ch 2 God creates Adam. Either the book was put together with two authors making one conglomerate Genesis or something went wrong between chapter 1 and 2. I have not thought into this book that much and do not know the answer, but I am persuaded to think something went wrong by a Bible teacher called Benny Hinn.

In your Job quote there is reference to the formation of this world and it reads "the sons of God rejoiced". So it is that there were older sons of God.

You are not alone in this view. However, the bible is not written chronologically. It also has places where one event is described two or three times.

Think of an event and think of the details of that event. You could tell two people about this event and be totally honest both times. However, on each one you would or could highlight different details.

I do not hold to the view that any human existed before Adam. Since you are not big on the OT, I will post from the NT:

1 Corinthians 15:45 King James Version (KJV)

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Also, I do not hold to the view that the Nephilim and giants were created by human to human procreation. There is no real basis for this to happen and, even today, with the technology that they have in the field of genetics.... try as they might, they cannot produce a giant... steroid monsters who lift weights...yes... giants....no.

Even in the 30's and 40's when Nazi Germany was trying to make super soldiers.... they couldn't. They even tried to mate humans with gorillas. No progress.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, the third possibility goes into the OP of this thread a bit, since it concerns whether fallen angels have the capability of "possessing" a human like unclean spirits do. To make my case better, I'll comment on the relevant verses in Genesis 6.

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
(Gen 6:1-2)

I want to note two things here... first, the obvious nature of the difference between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men". If the Sethite view were accurate, it would state "sons of Seth", not "sons of God", and "sons of Cain", not "sons of Adam". The Sethite version of Scripture would say "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain". Also, the antithetical parallelism points to the "sons of God" being of a different sort than the "daughters of Adam". This parallelism strongly supports the angel view of this passage.

Secondly, the word translated "wives" literally means women, not wives specifically. More on why that could be significant later.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
(Gen 6:4)

What I want to do here is look at the word translated "came in". The Hebrew word is bo' (Strong's H935), and it is used in a wide variety of senses. It is true that it is used as a euphemism for sex in places, but more commonly it means just what the text says... the angel entered into the women. If fallen angels can do this, there is no need for them to have intercourse with the women (making them "wives"), they could simply possess a woman and do something to her egg that would cause the DNA to be changed. I do not believe that this would be beyond the capabilities of angels (who knows what kind of technology they are capable of?). So when the possessed women was impregnated by a man, they could thus produce the Nephilim thru the distorted DNA of the possessed woman's egg. The child could then be possessed from conception by the same fallen angel (or another) as well, further twisting their soul/mind so they would be "only evil continually".

That's the framework I was considering as a possible third option, but it depends on the ability of fallen angels to possess someone. Any thoughts?

------------------------Edited for clarity at 1219------------------------

That is a very interesting theory.. Never thought of it that way... This would get around the concern that some have for the angels not being able to impregnate a woman.

This definitely is a unique view.

 

[food4thought]

That is a very interesting theory.. Never thought of it that way... This would get around the concern that some have for the angels not being able to impregnate a woman.

This definitely is a unique view.

Thanks. It's something I've been rolling around in my mind for a while now. Haven't let it see the light of day until now because I am unsure if it will stand up to scrutiny.

 

[food4thought]

With regard to the OP, my view would think that the word translated "demon" could be a word that encompasses both fallen angels and unclean spirits (spirits of the Nephilim). Not sure of the etymology of the Greek word, though.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Weren't demons once angels?

Honestly, most of what people say about angels or demons is based on cultural traditions etc. The Bible actually says very little about either angels or demons.

Also, most of what the bible does say ends up being misinterpreted because of the cultural lenses that people filter things through.

For example, the word "Angel" in Hebrew is "Malak" and in Greek is "Angelos" both words mean "messenger". Biblically speaking "angel" is not a type of being, it is a job description. We tend to call all spirit beings "angels" but the Bible doesn't.

The Bible mentions 9 different categories of celestial beings, though again these are more titles than types of beings necessarily.

Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominions
Virtues
Powers
Archangels
Principalities
Angels

These are often referred to as the 9 choirs of angels, but again technically only one of them are actually described as "angels" which is they serve the function of messengers. This list is also often assumed to be hierarchical.

The bible makes it clear that some of the celestial beings have fallen and become evil. It is often assumed that these "fallen angels" are the same thing as demons, but technically the Bible never directly says this.

Technically the bible never says what demons are or where they come from. The word demon itself comes from the Greek Daimonion. Technically the Greek word Daimonion just refers to a spirit being, not necessarily evil. However, the Bible tends to use the word only to refer to evil spirits. Daimonion is mostly used in the New Testament.

The Bible also uses the term "unclean spirit" but again there is no more information given really about what unclean spirits are or where they come from.

As has been mentioned the Book of Enoch gives a story about where demons and unclean spirits come from, however this is not part of scripture. That being said, it is obvious that the Apostles and Jesus both knew the Book of Enoch and they do quote the book of enoch. So it is certain that the Apostles and Jesus knew that story and it is possible maybe they had it in mind when they talked about demons, but we don't know that for sure.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

You are not alone in this view. However, the bible is not written chronologically. It also has places where one event is described two or three times.

Think of an event and think of the details of that event. You could tell two people about this event and be totally honest both times. However, on each one you would or could highlight different details.

I do not hold to the view that any human existed before Adam. Since you are not big on the OT, I will post from the NT:

1 Corinthians 15:45 King James Version (KJV)

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Also, I do not hold to the view that the Nephilim and giants were created by human to human procreation. There is no real basis for this to happen and, even today, with the technology that they have in the field of genetics.... try as they might, they cannot produce a giant... steroid monsters who lift weights...yes... giants....no.

Even in the 30's and 40's when Nazi Germany was trying to make super soldiers.... they couldn't. They even tried to mate humans with gorillas. No progress.

Genesis chapter 1 says the men and women filled the Earth, it does not then exactly mention them when it says God was pleased. But obviously God was not pleased with the descendants of Adam by the time they filled the Earth. The first man Adam, in my view was the first of our race, not the very first created male in God's image and likeness.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I said "Nothing in the Book of Enoch contradicts the canon."

Please show me where, in my words above, in quotations, where I said that it was canon.

And, I said:

It is not canon according to most Protestants.

Please show me where, in my words above, in RED, where I said that you said it was canon.

If people would comment on what someone actually said in a post and avoided twisting and spinning of a comment to assume some other concept, the threads here would be much shorter.

If people that whine about the twisting of people's comment actually read what was written and respond as they would like to be treated, threads here would be much shorter.

 

[Abraxos]

As a teenager, I thought that if the sons of God could fly, they must be angels. Others already had such thoughts. So some considered Genesis 6 about fallen angel and human hybrids with very ill natures.

I read the Job quotes, and in several translations, DRB, KJV with numbers, YLT, LITV, ISV, GNB and do not find the word "angels"!

Though some scholarly translations do not use the word "angel", the original Hebraic wording from where they are translated from is quite clear and it doesn't lose any of it's context that these verses are referring to angels.

I have pondered the idea that angels collectively are called sons, but Hebrews reads that no angel will ever be called a son. Heb 1:5.

Hebrews 1:5 does not apply to believers and angels, but applies exclusively to Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:5 quotes Psalms 2:7 as an official decree, meaning that this is a prophecy in regards to the coming Messiah. It is not specifically saying that angels are not sons of God, but that this particular verse in Hebrews when put into context is exclusively about Jesus who was appointed the "Son of God" (a title being equal to God) by his resurrection as stated in Romans 1:4.

When we read further we see mention that God is described as the father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9), and Hebrews 1:14 is rather clear that angels are indeed spirits, so it logically follows that angels are sons of God, but not thee Son of God as decreed by Psalms 2:7.

Angels in Ezekiel do not resemble God in image, and so how can they be called sons?
Ezekiel 1:18 and 10:12.

These are not meant to be taken as literal but as illustrations of what Ezekiel saw. Like John the Revelator saw great beasts, they were representations of world power systems and countries, and multitudes of peoples, even demonstrating the Son of Man through imagery that don't resemble our conservative understandings on the image of God. (Revelation 1:14-15) This style of exposition is seen throughout the Bible and the books of the OT prophets are no exception.

I am not most interested in the Old Testament. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth beyond being vaguely sure of what it means.

I quoted Genesis 1, and there was a multitude of people. Then in ch 2 God creates Adam. Either the book was put together with two authors making one conglomerate Genesis or something went wrong between chapter 1 and 2. I have not thought into this book that much and do not know the answer, but I am persuaded to think something went wrong by a Bible teacher called Benny Hinn.

In your Job quote there is reference to the formation of this world and it reads "the sons of God rejoiced". So it is that there were older sons of God.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different creation accounts but are an explanation of the same creation account. Genesis 1 is talking broadly about what God did from day 1 to day 6, and Genesis 2 talks only about day 6 about an enclosed area called Eden, and what happened within it.
Wrote about it in detail a while back. Here's the Link: Genesis 1 & 2 | Christian Forums

So it was certainly a misinterpretation of scripture from Bible teachers that preach Genesis 1 and 2 as two separate creation accounts. A misleading doctrine that have lead some Christians astray to believe in the likes of Lilith and other unbiblical teachings.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Your post that I questioned had no other statement than the simple "words are quoted, not a book". That is what I was commenting on.

You jumped in a chain of exchanges between myself and Sanoy. We were arguing about the truth of the Book of Enoch, that it was scripture because "It's quoted in scripture as scripture". If you want to claim ignorance to the discussion, then maybe you should not have jumped in.