Demons (devils) are in fact - fallen angels. (According to the Bible)

[Dan1988]

4 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.

Nephilim were there BEFORE the sons of God (people of Seth's descendants) mingled with the "daughters of men" -- women of the descendants of Cain.


In all of scripture "sons of God" are always those obedient to God - see John 1:12.

. God created Angels and men, so these sons of God must be descendants of Seth.

P.S. Angels are alien to Earth - they are not from New Jersey or any other such Earthly origin.

=======================

details that should not be skimmed over or ignored.

That doesn't sound Biblically correct to me, I've never heard any preacher arrive at that conclusion. It sounds like a novel interpretation and I never ever accept any novel interpretations as it would mean that 2000 years of Church fathers got it wrong and you came along and cracked the code.

I have never invested much time looking into this, as it is quite irrelevant to us in our time. But I plan to doing a deeper study in the future, just out of interest.

 

[BobRyan]

This doesn't answer who the "Sons of God were, the mighty Ones of old"

1. Gen6:4 "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."

2. In that text we clearly see that the Nephilim were there BEFORE the sons of God (people of Seth's descendants) mingled with the "daughters of men" -- women of the descendants of Cain. (A detail that some preachers skim over, apparently)


In all of scripture "sons of God" are always those obedient to God - see John 1:12.

. God created Angels and men, so these sons of God must be descendants of Seth.

P.S. Angels are alien to Earth - they are not from New Jersey or any other such Earthly origin.

=======================

details that should not be skimmed over or ignored.

That doesn't sound Biblically correct to me,

How is it a direct quote from the Bible on the only text in all of scripture that even talks about this... does not "sound" Biblically correct???

I've never heard any preacher arrive at that conclusion.

I've heard a great many come to that conclusion and they have been doing it for centuries.

"Biblically correct" means that what the Bible says has value rather than a selected preacher.

Your response points to no detail in the quote as in error -- you simply argue that whatever preacher you are listening to - is the source that determines what the Bible says.

Since the Protestant Reformation - the rule is more along the lines of - "read the Bible and see what it says".

 

[BobRyan]

s it would mean that 2000 years of Church fathers got it wrong and you came along and cracked the code.

I belong to what Christianity Today calls the fastest growing and the "fifth largest Christian denomination in the world" in its Feb 2015 article about the denomination I belong to - and all the pastors know of Genesis 6:4 and the fact that John 1:12 tells us that "sons of God" are those people who obey God (so then not - fallen angels).

All those pastors also know that Jesus said in Matt 22 that Angels don't even have the function of forming families and having children not even within their own species... let alone across species.

this is not about a Bible detail so obscure that only I can see it.

=======================================
so then non-SDA scholars "notice" the details as well...

Scofield Bible commentary

Gen 6:4
sons of God

Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" Judges 1:6. It is asserted that the title is in the O.T. exclusively used of angels. But this is an error Isaiah 43:6. Angels are spoken of in a sexless way. No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels. Matthew 22:30.

The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse Genesis 6:2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth Genesis 4:26. For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment; Isaiah 1:2-7; Isaiah 1:24; Isaiah 1:25; Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26-31. Noah, "a preacher of righteousness," is given 120 years, but he won no convert, and the judgment predicted by his great- grandfather fell; Judges 1:14; Judges 1:15; Genesis 7:11.

 

[DamianWarS]

NT writers quote from it as literally true.

They quote from it but it is your assumption that has detemined their thoughts on if it's literal. It being literal or not really has nothing to do with how they are using these text as the product is of spiritual revelation not material revelation.

But I don't recall rejecting the account as literal or for that matter even bringing up the creation account which is your assumption. I don't say the account is not litteral but rather the litteralness of the account is the most uninteresting and unimportant part of them and we waste our time trying to reconstruct the material elements.

Are the parents of nephilim fallen angels, people, reptilian or something else? It doesn't matter, the point of the text is not to highlight the sons of God so it really doesn't matter what they are. The point of the text is to show the deprevity of man.

Jesus said that we will be like angels in the heaven and neither marry nor be given in marriage. Does this mean angels, fallen or otherwise, are incapable of procreating with humans? No, that has nothing to do with what Jesus is saying. Jesus does not say this so we may make far reaching conclusions of the limits of angels and it is too little of information to infer their procreation abilities.

The bible is not a study on angels or the nephilim so you will just have to accept what little information we have has nothing to do with what the bible is for and the bible simply does not answer this question. When we get stuck at these details we have already lost and missed the point. Read Gen 6 again. What is the goal of the passage in question? 1. Who parented the nephilim? or 2. how great the wickedness of the human race had become? What does this lead us to? Setting up the scene for the flood or further study of who the nephilim are? You are stuck at the latter and asking questions the text was not meant to answer.

 

[BobRyan]

They quote from it but it is your assumption that has detemined their thoughts on if it's literal. It being literal or not really has nothing to do with how they are using these text

on the contrary it has everything to do with it. The very "details" so hoped to be "not real" are what is appealed to.

1. In the TEN Commandments - the 4th commandment appeals to the literal "detail" in Genes 1-2:4 of a 7 day creation week as seen in Ex 20:11
2. In 1 Tim 2:13-14 it is the very 'detail' in Genesis 2 and 3 of

• a. Only two people
• b. Adam created before Eve
• c. Eve was tempted and fell first - before Adam

3. Christ appeals to the very "detail" of God performing the first marriage in Genesis 2.

4. In Matt 22 Christ gives us "details" about the fact that Angels don't have the feature/function/created-design such that they engage in family relationships within their own species. Then he points out that in the future, bodily condition of resurrection for the saints - their future condition is such that in some way they are "like the angels" in also not having that function. The text does not presume that the reader is saying "Well that is most certainly not true, or accurate, or factual". -- obviously.

Christ's enemies proposed a logic puzzle/problem for Christ and assumed that He had no "answer" for how the problem was solvable given a factual future resurrection such as Christ taught and such as also the Pharisees taught. They "were put to silence" by this part of Christ's most compelling answer as well as by the next part of it that followed.

==========================================
It is the details themselves and not some 50,000 foot generalized "moral idea" that is appealed to in the later statements.

This is particularly noticeable in legal code as in Ex 20:11 and in the imperatives of Paul in 1 Tim 2 where commands regulating behavior are based on the details being true.

You can't say things like "do not steal because the easter bunny never steals" - that does not work in legal code where the presumption for the reader is to be "no such thing as that".

Is the bodily resurrection of Christ true?, fact? even without the Bible being a "biology text book on how to raise the dead"??? -- YES!!

Is the incarnation of Christ true? Fact? even without the Bible being a science text on how to incarnate infinite God into the form of a human baby?? -- YES!!

 

[DamianWarS]

Is the bodily resurrection of Christ true?, fact? even without the Bible being a "biology text book on how to raise the dead"??? -- YES!!

Is the incarnation of Christ true? Fact? even without the Bible being a science text on how to incarnate infinite God into the form of a human baby?? -- YES!!

Your conflating a bunch of things I didn't say. Let's stay on track, I'm contrasting pre Abrahamic accounts with post Abrahamic account and I have been explicit with this. So let's keep it to pre Abrahamic accounts and not jump to denying Christ. And again I will repeat I have never said these accounts are not literal i've said their litteralness is not important (pre Abrahamic accounts too in case you've lost track and think I'm saying Christ isn't important).

Citing this arbitrary term may be rational in a court of law when speaking of the material to define laws made and enforced by humans but what does that have to do with the bible? Why exactly does God need to abide by this legal code argument?

If God is powerful enough to declare his glory and truth through the literal is he not powerful enough to declare his glory and truth through the non-litteral too (or do you think God can't do this?). He is God and your legal code box doesn't phase him.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Is the bodily resurrection of Christ true?, fact? even without the Bible being a "biology text book on how to raise the dead"??? -- YES!!

Is the incarnation of Christ true? Fact? even without the Bible being a science text on how to incarnate infinite God into the form of a human baby?? -- YES!!

Your conflating a bunch of things I didn't say.

I am pointing out that there are things nobody questions as in the cases above - and that "has implications" that don't fit with your suggestions.

The point remains.

Let's stay on track, I'm contrasting pre Abrahamic accounts with post Abrahamic account

You brought up the idea that the Bible not some sort of scientific " study on angels or the nephilim" as if that sort of idea would work and it does not as I show in some examples above.

The point remains.

And again I will repeat I have never said these accounts are not literal

IN which case "the details" we find in these accounts continue to be significant and trust worthy.

Citing this arbitrary term may be rational in a court of law when speaking of the material to define laws made and enforced by humans but what does that have to do with the bible?

It shows that in each they appeal to those details as reliable trusted fact. Which gets us back to Genesis 6 and noticing "the details".

If God is powerful enough to declare his glory and truth through the literal is he not powerful enough to declare his glory and truth through the non-litteral too .

He could make up parables and songs to illustrate a point - but I point to "details" in how those early Genesis details are appealed to as accepted fact by other Bible writers and show that they are literal and the details need to be looked at.

 

[DamianWarS]

I am pointing out that there are things nobody questions as in the cases above - and that "has implications" that don't fit with your suggestions.

The point remains.

My suggestions are pre-abrahamic accounts where those implications may operate by different rules

You brought up the idea that the Bible not some sort of scientific " study on angels or the nephilim" as if that sort of idea would work and it does not as I show in some examples above.

The point remains.

I didn't say scientific and my point had nothing to do with science. The bible is still not a study on angels (regardless of what adjective you add to study) and it's details are not sufficient to make the conclusions you are making.

IN which case "the details" we find in these accounts continue to be significant and trust worthy.

For spiritual application not a litmus test on if it litteral or not

It shows that in each they appeal to those details as reliable trusted fact. Which gets us back to Genesis 6 and noticing "the details".

They don't appeal to it as being fact but truth. Modern Western world view sees facts as the highest value... ancient Eastern world view sees honor as the highest value. When they conflict a westerner keeps the facts regardless of what it exposes where an eastern keeps the honor and details are there not to proclaim the facts but to proclaim the honor. You are superimposing your world view over biblical world views and interpreting them to proclaim facts at its centre. Might I suggest you study ancient cultures more.

He could make up parables and songs to illustrate a point - but I point to "details" in how those early Genesis details are appealed to as accepted fact by other Bible writers and show that they are literal and the details need to be looked at.

They accept the truth but your appeal to fact is your world view that I'll suggest they didn't hold as high as you.

 

[d taylor]

Sons of God in The Tanakh was a reference to beings that God directly created example Adam, angels

When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This verse is speaking about the creation of the earth. And that was before Adam. So sons of God in the Tanakh are angels.

 

[HappyHope]

demons and fallen angels are names for the same thing...

Just as in Rev 12, Satan, Devil, Dragon, Serpent are all names for Satan.

I understand that sometimes demons are referenced as angels. But I would never have considered to use the word "demons" in place of "angels" in 1 Cor 6:3. It does not seem to fit Paul's context at all here or of what we know about how God intends to handle demons in Revelation. It does not seem likely that believers will judge demons. So, either believers will one day judge angels or believers will one day judge demons? Which is it?

My point is angels are superior to us in many ways right now but maybe not quite as morally superior as we would all like to believe. They are not all as perfectly "angelic" as we may assume ironically. They can fall. They have their own hierarchy. They have the same God. Maybe-- just maybe-- angels can do wrong but not to the degree of turning them demon. Maybe that is why believers will judge angels one day? Because angels can be evaluated too according to a certain set of standards we know very little about?

In sum, I do not accept "demon" in place of angel in 1 Cor. 6:3. That's just me. Cheerio!

 

[BobRyan]

I understand that sometimes demons are referenced as angels. But I would never have considered to use the word "demons" in place of "angels" in 1 Cor 6:3. It does not seem to fit Paul's context at all here or of what we know about how God intends to handle demons in Revelation.

Demons are not mentioned in Revelation has being sent to some doom/fire/ etc. It only mentions them 3 times and none of those times indicates that they are tormented with something like fire or brimstone or hell or ...

Using the term "demons" as "devils" and in fact fallen angels is the same as we see in Rev 12 with Satan as "devil" and as Satan and as dragon and as serpent of old.

It does not seem likely that believers will judge demons.

So then fallen angels and demons being two names for the same thing -- makes it appear that humans will not judge demons?

IS there a text that you know of saying humans will judge fallen angels but not demons - as if they are two different things?

So, either believers will one day judge angels or believers will one day judge demons? Which is it?

Another name for fallen angels is demons .. just as in Rev 12 another name for Satan is devil.

My point is angels are superior to us in many ways right now

That is true. It is also true of Satan even though he is called both Satan and "the devil" in Rev 12.

 

[Blade]

A fallen angel has no need for a host. Their body is far superior then ours. A demon has no body this is why as Christ says that empty house? If you don't put something else in it the demon will come back with 7 more that worse then the first.

And no there were not a legion of angels in that one man that Christ cast out. Demons are not in heavenly places... fallen angels are. Gab in Daniel didn't fight demons it was fallen angels and Gab needed help and called on Michael.

Just before Noah every thought in mans mind was evil. Just who were all those people? There could have been thousands to billions we don't know. Most were part man part angel and they died..what was left? No body.. yet always seeking a host.

Demons and angels not the same. All Gab could do was say the lord rebuke you to Satan fighting over Moses body. See every gift God gave those fallen angels they still have. One just one took out what 200k men? You never play with them. This earth is where we have all authority.. but what does the word say about 2nd heaven and up? Are HIS! Sorry.. going a tad deep.

And again a fallen angel has no need to possess us. They can show up in brilliant light and most of us would not have a clue if it was fallen or an angel of the Father.

 

[BobRyan]

A fallen angel has no need for a host.

True -- they don't do evil because they "need" to.

 

[BobRyan]

I understand that sometimes demons are referenced as angels. But I would never have considered to use the word "demons" in place of "angels" in 1 Cor 6:3. It does not seem to fit Paul's context at all here or of what we know about how God intends to handle demons in Revelation. It does not seem likely that believers will judge demons. So, either believers will one day judge angels or believers will one day judge demons? Which is it?

My point is angels are superior to us in many ways right now but maybe not quite as morally superior as we would all like to believe. They are not all as perfectly "angelic" as we may assume ironically. They can fall. They have their own hierarchy. They have the same God. Maybe-- just maybe-- angels can do wrong but not to the degree of turning them demon. Maybe that is why believers will judge angels one day? Because angels can be evaluated too according to a certain set of standards we know very little about?

In sum, I do not accept "demon" in place of angel in 1 Cor. 6:3. That's just me. Cheerio!

already responded to that here --

You said: "how God intends to handle demons in Revelation"

Demons are not mentioned in Revelation has being sent to some doom/fire/ etc. It only mentions them 3 times and none of those times indicates that they are tormented with something like fire or brimstone or hell or ...

Using demons as devils and in fact fallen angels is the same as we see in Rev 12 with Satan as "devil" and as Satan and as dragon and as serpent of old.



So then fallen angels and demons being two names for the same thing -- makes it appear that humans will not judge demons?

IS there a text that you know of saying humans will judge fallen angels but not demons - as if they are two different things?



Another name for fallen angels is demons .. just as in Rev 12 another name for Satan is devil.



That is true. It is also true of Satan even though he is called both Satan and "the devil" in Rev 12.

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm unaware of any scripture that says demons = angels. Afaik ancient beliefs were almost universal that they aren't.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm unaware of any scripture that says demons = angels. Afaik ancient beliefs were almost universal that they aren't.

Rev 12 -- devil = Satan = dragon = serpent of old...
Satan and "his angels" as the prince of demons.

Aside from the origin provided in scripture for fallen angels as demons - there is no other origin for demons given in scripture.

Aside from the fate of hell for "the devil and his angels" Matt 25 -- there no other fate in the Bible for demons.

 

[ChetSinger]

Rev 12 -- devil = Satan = dragon = serpent of old...
Satan and "his angels" as the prince of demons.

Aside from the origin provided in scripture for fallen angels as demons - there is no other origin for demons given in scripture.

Aside from the fate of hell for "the devil and his angels" Matt 25 -- there no other fate in the Bible for demons.

I think in all three of those cases you're arguing from silence. I'm wary of such arguments.

 

[HappyHope]

Demons are not mentioned in Revelation has being sent to some doom/fire/ etc. It only mentions them 3 times and none of those times indicates that they are tormented with something like fire or brimstone or hell or ...

Using the term "demons" as "devils" and in fact fallen angels is the same as we see in Rev 12 with Satan as "devil" and as Satan and as dragon and as serpent of old.



So then fallen angels and demons being two names for the same thing -- makes it appear that humans will not judge demons?

IS there a text that you know of saying humans will judge fallen angels but not demons - as if they are two different things?



Another name for fallen angels is demons .. just as in Rev 12 another name for Satan is devil.



That is true. It is also true of Satan even though he is called both Satan and "the devil" in Rev 12.

So, you are saying 1 Cor 6:3 means we will judge demons not angels? And angels cannot do wrong? We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Niels]

To my understanding, angels are messengers. Good and honest messengers, whereas demons are corrupt and dishonest messengers. Perhaps primarily linguistic beings, or conveyors of symbolic meaning. Similar to us in our use of symbols, but as information without the flesh and blood.

Just look at all the pernicious misunderstandings and mistruths in this world, and the death and destruction that they cause. Messages may look similar on a surface level, but the angelic is constructive and truthful whereas demonic is dishonest and harmful. This is how I envision the clash between the angelic and the demonic. The delivery of correct or false meaning, which can seem to take on a life of its own.

This doesn't mean that I would dismiss them as merely linguistic devices, however. At least no more than we are.
Think of what happens when God, The Word, The Logos speaks. The stuff that this is all made of, and how its creation or corruption can manifest. The use and misuse of symbols. The delivery of meaning, and the tension between truth and corruption of that meaning. In this light, it would seem to me that demons are fallen angels. At least that's how they might be thought of conceptually.

 

[BobRyan]

So, you are saying 1 Cor 6:3 means we will judge demons not angels?

Fallen Angels are demons.

No such things a "demons not angels" - -- it is like reading Rev 12 and saying "Satan not the devil" ... they are two terms for the same person according to Rev 12.

And angels cannot do wrong?

Fallen angels do wrong all the time.
Sinless ones have free will which is how 1/3 of them turned into fallen angels

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Not a problem for me. I freely accept that everyone has free will.