Where in Revelation is a Rapture Mentioned?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
You speak of immortal titans from the previous age and say what I have presented is myth???

In all fairness we may have some agreement here but that remains to be seen until I have heard more about what you believe about these “titans”.
LOL, I am just explaining the Greek term Tartarus as Peter used it. There are Christian myths just as their are pagan myths. People interpret scripture thru a preconceived bias.

I just think the Greek legend of the titans is the Greek pre-flood myths about the angels that were locked up. Even in the Greek myths four angels fought on the side of right to help imprison those titans but we also have four more angels bound at the Euphrates and we know by the Greek myths that those four Olympians also fell into error of having children but it was later.

We know the ancient paganism and rebellion post flood against Noah's authority was at Babel, at the Euphrates where we have four more angels bound.

I see the Greek era of the titans as the period pre-flood and the 'golden age' of the gods is post flood until Babel. They just have their own myths about it from their religious texts.

ALL the paganism of the ancient world was the worship of the same group of pagan deities. We are just more familiar with the Greek myths and the NT uses the Greek terms and the Greek language.

Revelation even gives the Greek name of the 'king of the abyss' as Apollyon! That is an alternate spelling of Apollo. Lucifer is a Latin reference to the ancient pagan sun god. The Romans even called Apollo's twin sister Artemis by the name Diana Luciferah and the 'seat of Satan' in Pergamos was the Alter of Zeus that is now in the Berlin Museum.

300px-Pergamonmuseum_Pergamonaltar.jpg


Peter equates the prison of the titans with the pre-flood angels that sinned.

Are you familiar with the other ancient pagan religions of Babylon, Syria, Phoenicia (Canaanite)? I am.

The Babylonians have many references to the pre-flood days and the Apkallu that taught mankind and about the four post-flood Apkallu, the divine rivers that watered paradise that continued to teach man after the flood and Babylon was the repository of that teaching. BTW, Babylon and Babel are the same word in Hebrew. It is in English that we separate it into two different words implying pre verses post Tower era. Isn't it interesting that scripture also has four 'rivers' that watered Eden and one of them was called Euphrates and scripture even calls angelic beings 'waters above'.

I see the four angels bound at the Euphrates as the four 'rivers' of Eden that were not apart of the pre-flood watchers but helped to imprison them. They were the guardians of Eden that kept man out after the fall. They were Yah's appointed representatives on the earth but post flood also fell into error of having children.

Most of your commentaries and such are very outdated. Within recent years mass amounts of cuneiform clay tablets of ancient texts have been translated. There is so much more we know about the ancient pagan religions of those days now. The common doctrines followed today that Lucifer was some super angel that fell and led a major revolt in heaven and took 1/3 of the angels with him is rooted in early church father doctrine that was not held by the Jews of the NT period. It is myth that has been accepted as fact by the church. It is one of the great deceptions to make the enemy appear to be even greater then he is. Once you realize that the current Satan is just the ghost of a dead half-breed nephlim... an evil spirit that appears as an angel of light not an actual angel, he is not so great. Deceiving the church into making him greater then he is is one of his greatest achievements.

Peter and Jude both reference the angels being in prison but Jude goes on to mention a quote from Enoch then quotes out of the book of Enoch. If you are not familiar with the books of Enoch, I suggest you read them. It was common knowledge of the day and Enoch was a common book in the synagogues. Many copies were found among the dead sea scrolls including fragments of the 'book of giants'.

You have to take scripture in the context of the cultural knowledge of the audience, not of the cultural knowledge of our society. Peter's audience knew exactly what he meant by referencing the fallen angels with Tartarus.

The problems with myths is they tend to be a mixture of truth and lies. But people forget that even pagan myths may have a kernel of truth behind some of it.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
You assume the angels of Rev 12 were in prison to be let out. Nothing in the text even hints at that. We are told they are cast down to the earth . Do you assume they were in chains of darkness in heaven ?

It is obvious you don't understand the concept of the 2nd and 3rd heaven. The 2nd heaven is the realm of the stars, planets, constellations NOT the heavenly city, the domain of Yah which is referenced as the 3rd heaven. The actual sky is the 1st heaven. When it is said that the Tower of Babel was built into the heavens, it doesn't mean into the realm of Yah but into the SKY. The Hebrew word Shammayim means 'heavens' and is everything above you. Scholars break it down into 3 distinct areas, sky, stary realm and the abode of Yah. You have to be real careful in scripture when it says heaven/heavens to determine which is being referenced.

No those 'stars' are not even angels but principalities of the demonic realm that are part of the OT 'hosts of heaven/sky' that referenced MANY places in the OT as a reference to the pagan principalities. They are just spirits of the dead that oppose the spirits of angels that try to pass through their realm between the 3rd heaven and the earth.

BTW, these 'stars' are pulled down DURING THE TRIBULATION. This is not a rebellion but a dividing of the demonic realm with 1/3 backing the 'dragon' who you are assuming is the serpent in Eden whereas I see him as the cockatrice of the OT who is the father of the 'fiery flying serpent' (Sereph [singular of Serephim] in Hebrew, a fiery angelic being). The name of the cockatrice in Hebrew is Ziz, the giant bird. In the Hebrew texts, the cockatrice is the dragon of the sky, the leviathan is the dragon of the sea and Bohemoth is the dragon of the earth.

So, no I do not see any angels in chains of darkness in heaven. That is ridiculous. ALL fallen angels are either in Tartarus or bound at the Euphrates. It is spirits of the dead Nephilim, the giants and demi-gods that are the ONLY ones influencing the earth as 'evil spirits' since the time of Babel. Angels that sin are prosecuted, not let run rampant for ages. It is the judgement of man that is postponed until the appointed time of judgement.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Have you read the books of Enoch? Even if you don't consider them original writings of Enoch but inter-testamental Jewish writings, they provide the concepts from the Jewish perspective. Both Jude and Peter followed that knowledge. Jude even after making his statement about the angels that sinned quotes directly out of 1 Enoch chapter one. In Enoch it is clearly presented that 'evil spirits' are the spirits of the giants and mighty men, the nephilim. They are the spirits of the offspring of angels, not fallen angels themselves.

You also have the parable of the wheat and tares. The tares are the 'seed of Satan' sown into the same field as the 'son of man'. That field is referenced in the story of Balaam and the talking donkey. Do some research on the 'Field of Zophim', ie 'Field of the Watchers' that is on Mt Pisgah. Oh and btw, Pisgah is a reference to a sex act with 'mother earth', the goddess Asherah. A 'field' in Hebrew is an idiom for 'the womb'. It is the place the seed is sown whether that seed is a plant seed or a human/angelic seed. Watchers are fully defined in Enoch but also attributed in scripture. One scriptural reference to watchers are of women with wings like a stork, ie angelic or at least, winged beings.

In Gen it is the 'seed of the serpent' in conflict with the 'seed of the woman'. In Isa 14, the 'fiery flying serpent' is the fruit/child/offspring of the cockatrice. This is the same passage that calls Lucifer 'ben Shachar' and Shachar is another Canaanite deity that is called a 'son of El' and mentioned in Job 38 as the individual that shakes the wicked from the skirts of 'the earth', ie Asherah.

Even the ancient Babylonian equates two individuals among the pagan gods as the 'adudicators'. They are Hadad/Adad, the thunderer and his son Shemesh the sun god.

Proverbs 9 is a good scriptural reference that equates demons as spirits of the dead.

Pr 9:
13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
14 For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city,
15 To call passengers who go right on their ways:
16 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.

The Hebrew word used here for 'the dead' means 'shades/spirits of the dead' and states their abode is Sheol but they are demons that infest her house. She is following the pagan ritualistic sexual practices of the Baalim worship. Those demons are specifically called 'spirits of the dead', NOT fallen angels.

Then of course you have Peter's reference to Tartarus.

2 Pet 2:
4 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;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Note Peter ties this verse about the angels with Noah and the flood. This is a reference to the pre-flood angels that sinned. The Greek word used for 'cast down to hell' is the ONLY reference in scripture to Tartarus, the 'lowest hell' that in the Greek was the prison of the immortal Titans of the previous age. In the Greek, the Olympians where on the side of right and helped to imprison the evil Titans and locked them in prison in Tartarus. Only the most wicked individuals were asigned to this area of Hades in prison. Why would Peter use the term Tartarus unless he is equated the Greek immortal Titans to the pre-flood angels that sinned?

Now the passage that many people use to suggest a rebellion of 1/3 of the angels is from Revelation.

Re 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:

These 'stars of heaven/sky' are not Yah's heavenly host but what the OT calls the 'hosts of heaven/sky' that are part of the pagan worship. It has MANY references. Here are a few.

De 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

2Ki 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

Note who they are linked with the sun god, moon goddess, Baal, and the planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, ...) the pagan gods.

And all the events after the start of Rev 4 are FUTURE events, not past events. That event takes place DURING the tribulation. It is NOT a reference to some pre-adamic mythical rebellion.

I can go on and on giving many references. Even the name Lucifer is a Latin epithet of the pagan sun god that equates the the Greek epithet Pheobus as in Pheobus Apollo, or Apollyon the king of the abyss. Lucifer is NOT some mighty fallen angel but the pagan sun god who we would commonly know as the Greek god Apollo, the son of Zeus. Zeus was the Satan cast down 'as lightning'. He was Adad/Hadad, the thunderer that was the 'adjudicator' along with his son Shemesh (sun god). Zeus was the Canaanite Shachar, 'the Morning' that Lucifer is the 'son of'. The 'stars of heaven/sky' that Lucifer was setting his throne above was not to take Yah's authority but to take over his father's role as adjudicator, ie Satan.

Don't forget that dominion over the earth was given to MAN in the garden, not to angels. Isa 14 classifies Lucifer 'as a MAN'.

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms.

Realize he is on earth trying to elevate himself. Not in heaven being cast down.

Why is it that people pull verses 12-15 totally out of context and ignore the very next verse and the rest of the prophecy? Oh, and the word translated as 'heaven' is Shammayim. It means 'heavens/sky'. The above passage is just as valid to be translated as 'I will ascend into the sky' as in a reference to the Tower of Babel, not Yah's 3rd Heaven. This passage is about the shameful king of Babel being cast down and dying then descending into hell. This is a rebellion on earth, not in heaven.

YES I have read Enoch and IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!

It is the most absurd and false production that any serious minded Christian could ever hope to read.

PLEASE do not try to quote Bible doctrine to me out of a book of heresy my friend.

The Devil is working relentlessly to corrupt God's Word, as he has been doing since the Garden of Eden, when he caused Eve to doubt God's Word. Satan is so shrewd that he even tried to confuse our Lord by misinterpreting the Scriptures in Matthew 4:1-10. In these apostate times, the Word of God is under attack like never before. The reason why is simple...
if Satan can pervert the Word of God into a lie, then he can control the masses!

Do not allow him to use you my friend by quoting the book of Enoch!!!!

Enoch 40:9-10.......
" seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That my friend is what is called blasphemy!

That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches. We read in 1st Timothy 2:5............"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise. 1st John 2:22 clearly indicts all Christ-deniers as LIARS, guilty before God.

Here's chapter 48:1-3...
" And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."

Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? This is an attack on the deity of Jesus. Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. Head of Days? Lord of Spirits? These terms are NOT found in the Bible. IF the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren't. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur'an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God.

Now when you get your thinking straight on this, then maybe we can talk about those silly Nelphilian thing a ma gigs.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
YES I have read Enoch and IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!

It is the most absurd and false production that any serious minded Christian could ever hope to read.

PLEASE do not try to quote Bible doctrine to me out of a book of heresy my friend.

The Devil is working relentlessly to corrupt God's Word, as he has been doing since the Garden of Eden, when he caused Eve to doubt God's Word. Satan is so shrewd that he even tried to confuse our Lord by misinterpreting the Scriptures in Matthew 4:1-10. In these apostate times, the Word of God is under attack like never before. The reason why is simple...
if Satan can pervert the Word of God into a lie, then he can control the masses!

Do not allow him to use you my friend by quoting the book of Enoch!!!!
Nonsense. My primary spiritual gift is discernment of spirits. I can sense lying spirits behind false teachings. I do believe parts of Enoch were added or altered by later scribes but totally disregarding Enoch is not an option for any scholar if for no other reason then to understand the concepts of the authors and the culture of the NT times. Many scholars don't consider it authored by Enoch himself but attribute it to the inter-testamental time period between the OT and NT times so it does show the teachings and mindset of the era.

Jude equates Enoch as scripture. That should be good enough for anyone. I certainly take the entire chapter Enoch quotes from as valid. It resonates with the Holy Spirit via my discernment.

Scripture is clear, it is up to prophets to test the words of other prophets. Unless you hold the office of prophet, it isn't up to you to determine if it is inspired prophetic words or not. Oh, and I do hold the office of prophet. That is my calling and has been since I was 20. And I do take it as both inspired and most of it written by Enoch himself. The books of Enoch hold many references that are useful in understanding scripture. For example the animal dream in book 4 of Enoch explains what animals are associated with what nations and why Israel is referenced as sheep. Those same animal associations are used through out scripture.

Enoch IS in the bible but not our western canon. It is and always has been a part of the Ethiopian canon. The bible is just a collection of inspired writting but what books are included have changed many times. For example the bible during the NT time had additional book not in the KJV. Even the Catholic bible contains other books.

I suggest you stop IDOLIZING a book.

What got me interested in reading Enoch was being told by a high priestess of Ashtoreth that the enemy was behind attempts to discredit and destroy the book of Enoch because of what it contained.
 
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,524
1,313
South
✟105,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You said........
"ALL fallen angels are in prison and are not even let back out to interact with mankind until the tribulation period."

If there is a Bible verse to prove that would you please post it?

IF all fallen angels are in prison, who is it that is afflicting the man in Mark 5:2............
"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit."

Then in verse #9 we see........
"And he asked him, What is thy name? And HE answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many."

Again, if THEY ARE ALL LOCKED UP, who is this in Luke 4:41.........

"And DEMONS also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ."

Major1 said:

You said........

"ALL fallen angels are in prison and are not even let back out to interact with mankind until the tribulation period."

No actually I didn’t, Yahu said that, as quoted in my post.

If there is a Bible verse to prove that would you please post it?

We will let him do that.

IF all fallen angels are in prison, who is it that is afflicting the man in Mark 5:2............

"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit."

Then in verse #9 we see........

"And he asked him, What is thy name? And HE answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many."

Again, if THEY ARE ALL LOCKED UP, who is this in Luke 4:41.........

"And DEMONS also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ."

We have a fundamental disagreement here on what demons or evil spirits are. They are not fallen angels.


Since you obviously believe they are fallen angels, tell us what the sin was that got some of them chained up until judgement , and those that did not commit it to roam the earth? Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4


Explain how you arrive at the conclusion demons and fallen angels are the same?
 
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,524
1,313
South
✟105,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course there is no verse in the Scripture that says that. I thought that was well know and what I posted was my opinion which I thought was obvious.

We do however know that in Genesis 4:26........
"And to Seth, to him also was born a son, and he called his name Enos, then began men to call upon the name of the Lord".

The other explanation being that that these beings were from the union of fallen angels and humans is impossible Biblically.

When Jesus, was answering the question put to him about marriage in heaven, (Matthew 22:30) says that when we get there we will be like the angels, who neither marry nor have children. Jesus, the Master teacher, God in the flesh said that we just like angels would be ASEXUAL.

Now you can disagree with me all you like but I did not say those words in Matthew 22:30 so your argument will have to be with Jesus and not me.

It seems to me logically and with applied common sense that it would be unlikely that God have would allowed this intermingling, even if it was physically possible.

THINK for just a moment!!!!!

"If" it was possible and there had been a mingling of demonic blood with human blood through sexual contact.......that means that in the physical line of the Lord Jesus Christ there would have been Satanic blood in Mary.

That my friend means that NO ONE could ever be saved.

Major1 said:

Of course there is no verse in the Scripture that says that. I thought that was well know and what I posted was my opinion which I thought was obvious.

Thanks for clearing that up.

We do however know that in Genesis 4:26........

"And to Seth, to him also was born a son, and he called his name Enos, then began men to call upon the name of the Lord".

How do you tie that to Genesis 6, since all other references to “sons of God” in the Old Testament are obviously created beings (angels, in my opinion).

The other explanation being that that these beings were from the union of fallen angels and humans is impossible Biblically.

Disagree.

When Jesus, was answering the question put to him about marriage in heaven, (Matthew 22:30) says that when we get there we will be like the angels, who neither marry nor have children. Jesus, the Master teacher, God in the flesh said that we just like angels would be ASEXUAL.

Now you can disagree with me all you like but I did not say those words in Matthew 22:30 so your argument will have to be with Jesus and not me.

I have no argument with Jesus , just your interpretation of what He said.


Mathew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


This verse does not say we or angels will be “ASEXUAL” that is your interpretation inserted here. The passage only says that we or angels of God in heaven will not marry. Fallen angels are no longer angels of God they are angels of satan Revelation 12:9. Using this verse to make the leap you have just made is not correct interpretation IMHO.

It seems to me logically and with applied common sense that it would be unlikely that God have would allowed this intermingling, even if it was physically possible.

We should not interpret the word of God based on our flawed logic we should simply by faith believe what is written. That is what we do to be saved nothing changes after that.

THINK for just a moment!!!!!

"If" it was possible and there had been a mingling of demonic blood with human blood through sexual contact.......

Yes, IMHO that was one of the reasons for the flood. “the earth also corrupt before God” Gen 6:11, Noah was perfect in his generations, scripture already said he was a just man, perfect in his generations was his DNA not his standing before God.

that means that in the physical line of the Lord Jesus Christ there would have been Satanic blood in Mary.

Not true, Noah was perfect in his generations, Verse 9 says these are the generations of Noah verse 10 lists his offspring his generations (DNA). So no, Mary could not have been corrupted.

That my friend means that NO ONE could ever be saved.

You are almost on tract here. I believe that was the goal of the evil one, that was stopped by God Almighty with the flood.
Genesis 3:15
 
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,524
1,313
South
✟105,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is obvious you don't understand the concept of the 2nd and 3rd heaven. The 2nd heaven is the realm of the stars, planets, constellations NOT the heavenly city, the domain of Yah which is referenced as the 3rd heaven. The actual sky is the 1st heaven. When it is said that the Tower of Babel was built into the heavens, it doesn't mean into the realm of Yah but into the SKY. The Hebrew word Shammayim means 'heavens' and is everything above you. Scholars break it down into 3 distinct areas, sky, stary realm and the abode of Yah. You have to be real careful in scripture when it says heaven/heavens to determine which is being referenced.

No those 'stars' are not even angels but principalities of the demonic realm that are part of the OT 'hosts of heaven/sky' that referenced MANY places in the OT as a reference to the pagan principalities. They are just spirits of the dead that oppose the spirits of angels that try to pass through their realm between the 3rd heaven and the earth.

BTW, these 'stars' are pulled down DURING THE TRIBULATION. This is not a rebellion but a dividing of the demonic realm with 1/3 backing the 'dragon' who you are assuming is the serpent in Eden whereas I see him as the cockatrice of the OT who is the father of the 'fiery flying serpent' (Sereph [singular of Serephim] in Hebrew, a fiery angelic being). The name of the cockatrice in Hebrew is Ziz, the giant bird. In the Hebrew texts, the cockatrice is the dragon of the sky, the leviathan is the dragon of the sea and Bohemoth is the dragon of the earth.

So, no I do not see any angels in chains of darkness in heaven. That is ridiculous. ALL fallen angels are either in Tartarus or bound at the Euphrates. It is spirits of the dead Nephilim, the giants and demi-gods that are the ONLY ones influencing the earth as 'evil spirits' since the time of Babel. Angels that sin are prosecuted, not let run rampant for ages. It is the judgement of man that is postponed until the appointed time of judgement.

Yahu said:

It is obvious you don't understand the concept of the 2nd and 3rd heaven.

Wrong, I do have and understanding of the 3 heavens and have written about it many times in other posts. My statement to you was rhetorical because of the disagreement I have with your statement all fallen angels are in chains.

Yahu said:

No those 'stars' are not even angels but principalities of the demonic realm that are part of the OT 'hosts of heaven/sky'

We will just have to disagree here I believe they are Fallen Angels , just research stars and angels in scripture. I believe scripture teaches us demons or evil spirits are of a lower order and primarily roam this earth causing chaos. Fallen angels on the other hand IMHO are those principalities that you assign to being just the spirits of dead Nephilim.

Yahu said:

BTW, these 'stars' are pulled down DURING THE TRIBULATION. This is not a rebellion but a dividing of the demonic realm with 1/3 backing the 'dragon' who you are assuming is the serpent in Eden

Are you talking of Revelation 12:4 or Revelation 12:9 or both?

Yahu said:

So, no I do not see any angels in chains of darkness in heaven. That is ridiculous.

I agree, as I said it was a rhetorical question based on my disagreement with your statement.

Yahu said:

ALL fallen angels are either in Tartarus or bound at the Euphrates.

I do not believe you even have a hint of that from scripture.

Yahu said:

It is spirits of the dead Nephilim, the giants and demi-gods that are the ONLY ones influencing the earth as 'evil spirits' since the time of Babel.

Disagree, are you saying the prince of the kingdom of Persia was a demon , a disembodied spirit of a dead Nephilim? Not buying that if that is what you are implying. It’s not going to take 2 angels of God to contain one demon. Angels, fallen or not are of greater power than evil spirits.
 
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,524
1,313
South
✟105,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
LOL, I am just explaining the Greek term Tartarus as Peter used it. There are Christian myths just as their are pagan myths. People interpret scripture thru a preconceived bias.

I just think the Greek legend of the titans is the Greek pre-flood myths about the angels that were locked up. Even in the Greek myths four angels fought on the side of right to help imprison those titans but we also have four more angels bound at the Euphrates and we know by the Greek myths that those four Olympians also fell into error of having children but it was later.

We know the ancient paganism and rebellion post flood against Noah's authority was at Babel, at the Euphrates where we have four more angels bound.

I see the Greek era of the titans as the period pre-flood and the 'golden age' of the gods is post flood until Babel. They just have their own myths about it from their religious texts.

ALL the paganism of the ancient world was the worship of the same group of pagan deities. We are just more familiar with the Greek myths and the NT uses the Greek terms and the Greek language.

Revelation even gives the Greek name of the 'king of the abyss' as Apollyon! That is an alternate spelling of Apollo. Lucifer is a Latin reference to the ancient pagan sun god. The Romans even called Apollo's twin sister Artemis by the name Diana Luciferah and the 'seat of Satan' in Pergamos was the Alter of Zeus that is now in the Berlin Museum.

300px-Pergamonmuseum_Pergamonaltar.jpg


Peter equates the prison of the titans with the pre-flood angels that sinned.

Are you familiar with the other ancient pagan religions of Babylon, Syria, Phoenicia (Canaanite)? I am.

The Babylonians have many references to the pre-flood days and the Apkallu that taught mankind and about the four post-flood Apkallu, the divine rivers that watered paradise that continued to teach man after the flood and Babylon was the repository of that teaching. BTW, Babylon and Babel are the same word in Hebrew. It is in English that we separate it into two different words implying pre verses post Tower era. Isn't it interesting that scripture also has four 'rivers' that watered Eden and one of them was called Euphrates and scripture even calls angelic beings 'waters above'.

I see the four angels bound at the Euphrates as the four 'rivers' of Eden that were not apart of the pre-flood watchers but helped to imprison them. They were the guardians of Eden that kept man out after the fall. They were Yah's appointed representatives on the earth but post flood also fell into error of having children.

Most of your commentaries and such are very outdated. Within recent years mass amounts of cuneiform clay tablets of ancient texts have been translated. There is so much more we know about the ancient pagan religions of those days now. The common doctrines followed today that Lucifer was some super angel that fell and led a major revolt in heaven and took 1/3 of the angels with him is rooted in early church father doctrine that was not held by the Jews of the NT period. It is myth that has been accepted as fact by the church. It is one of the great deceptions to make the enemy appear to be even greater then he is. Once you realize that the current Satan is just the ghost of a dead half-breed nephlim... an evil spirit that appears as an angel of light not an actual angel, he is not so great. Deceiving the church into making him greater then he is is one of his greatest achievements.

Peter and Jude both reference the angels being in prison but Jude goes on to mention a quote from Enoch then quotes out of the book of Enoch. If you are not familiar with the books of Enoch, I suggest you read them. It was common knowledge of the day and Enoch was a common book in the synagogues. Many copies were found among the dead sea scrolls including fragments of the 'book of giants'.

You have to take scripture in the context of the cultural knowledge of the audience, not of the cultural knowledge of our society. Peter's audience knew exactly what he meant by referencing the fallen angels with Tartarus.

The problems with myths is they tend to be a mixture of truth and lies. But people forget that even pagan myths may have a kernel of truth behind some of it.

Yahu said:

The common doctrines followed today that Lucifer was some super angel that fell and led a major revolt in heaven and took 1/3 of the angels with him is rooted in early church father doctrine that was not held by the Jews of the NT period. It is myth that has been accepted as fact by the church. It is one of the great deceptions to make the enemy appear to be even greater then he is. Once you realize that the current Satan is just the ghost of a dead half-breed nephlim... an evil spirit that appears as an angel of light not an actual angel, he is not so great. Deceiving the church into making him greater then he is is one of his greatest achievements.

Underline by Postvieww;

Well I have been on this forum for over two years now and I am still amazed at the “new” doctrines put forth here as fact.


Jesus made a distinction between satan (the devil), and mere demons. If satan is just “the ghost of a dead half-breed nephlim” as you claim how his offering of the kingdoms of this world a temptation to our Savior? That would be like me saying to you if you will worship me I will give the kingdoms to you. Since I have no claim on the kingdoms, those would be hollow words which you would ignore and not be tempted in the least. Scripture says Jesus was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1) and overcame all temptation (Hebrews 4:5).


Your above statement is not an accurate description of the evil one.


Isaiah 14:12-15


Ezekiel 28:13-15


Luke 22:31


Revelation 20:1-3


You accuse me of “not understanding” I believe it is you who are very much confused on what demons and fallen angels are and what they can and cannot do.


I stand firmly on my statement “all” fallen angels are absolutely not held in chains. I see nothing you have offered to sway that belief in the least.


BTW you misquote :


2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


It does not say he appears as an angel of light it says he is transformed into an angel of light.


Your statement he is “not an actual angel” is not an accurate statement based on the text.


Yahu said:

Peter and Jude both reference the angels being in prison but Jude goes on to mention a quote from Enoch then quotes out of the book of Enoch. If you are not familiar with the books of Enoch, I suggest you read them. It was common knowledge of the day and Enoch was a common book in the synagogues. Many copies were found among the dead sea scrolls including fragments of the 'book of giants'.

I am familiar with the book of Enoch, discussing it on this form is allowed and I have used it myself. Be advised most who post here will not accept it. The book of Enoch does not agree with your theory of “all” fallen angels being held in chains, it is only those who committed the sin of cohabiting with humans. Enoch clearly states demons are the disembodied spirits of that relationship.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major1 said:

Of course there is no verse in the Scripture that says that. I thought that was well know and what I posted was my opinion which I thought was obvious.

Thanks for clearing that up.

We do however know that in Genesis 4:26........

"And to Seth, to him also was born a son, and he called his name Enos, then began men to call upon the name of the Lord".

How do you tie that to Genesis 6, since all other references to “sons of God” in the Old Testament are obviously created beings (angels, in my opinion).

The other explanation being that that these beings were from the union of fallen angels and humans is impossible Biblically.

Disagree.

When Jesus, was answering the question put to him about marriage in heaven, (Matthew 22:30) says that when we get there we will be like the angels, who neither marry nor have children. Jesus, the Master teacher, God in the flesh said that we just like angels would be ASEXUAL.

Now you can disagree with me all you like but I did not say those words in Matthew 22:30 so your argument will have to be with Jesus and not me.


It seems to me logically and with applied common sense that it would be unlikely that God have would allowed this intermingling, even if it was physically possible.

We should not interpret the word of God based on our flawed logic we should simply by faith believe what is written. That is what we do to be saved nothing changes after that.

THINK for just a moment!!!!!

"If" it was possible and there had been a mingling of demonic blood with human blood through sexual contact.......

Yes, IMHO that was one of the reasons for the flood. “the earth also corrupt before God” Gen 6:11, Noah was perfect in his generations, scripture already said he was a just man, perfect in his generations was his DNA not his standing before God.

that means that in the physical line of the Lord Jesus Christ there would have been Satanic blood in Mary.

Not true, Noah was perfect in his generations, Verse 9 says these are the generations of Noah verse 10 lists his offspring his generations (DNA). So no, Mary could not have been corrupted.

That my friend means that NO ONE could ever be saved.

You are almost on tract here. I believe that was the goal of the evil one, that was stopped by God Almighty with the flood.
Genesis 3:15

#1.
You are very welcome.

#2. You said.............
How do you tie that to Genesis 6, since all other references to “sons of God” in the Old Testament are obviously created beings (angels, in my opinion).

I am not tying it to anything at all. Just an observation.


The phrase "sons of God" is found 5 in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7).
It has 2 primary meanings in the Bible, only one of which is made in reference to angels.

An example of the first primary meaning is found in the Book of Job when it states that angels presented themselves before the Eternal (Job 1:6, see also 38:7).
Now consider the fact that Satan the devil was also with them. If we accept your opinion would that not mean he was considered a son as well. ?????????????

A second usage of this phrase occurs in the King James Bible translation of the Book of Genesis. In the sixth chapter it states that certain people married women and together produced children who became giants, "mighty men" and "men of renown."

Gen. 6:1-3 is then the subject we are discussing.............
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 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 which they chose. And the LORD (God) said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

This phrase CANNOT be a reference to angels, either to those who are righteous or evil. The Bible does not contain even a HINT that flesh and blood humans can somehow mate with spirit-composed beings! Although there are some parallels in pagan thought regarding this possibility, this concept is simply not taught in Scripture.


I would encourage you to consider CONTEXT and LOCATION!

In Gen. 6 the scene described is the EARTH hence the fact the reference in to HUMANS.
In Job the scene described is HEAVEN hence the "sons of God" would obviously be angels.


#3. You said..........
Disagree.

Perfectly OK. You can take a number and wait in line. Your number will be ....34.

#4. You said.........
Mathew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


This verse does not say we or angels will be “ASEXUAL” that is your interpretation inserted here. The passage only says that we or angels of God in heaven will not marry. Fallen angels are no longer angels of God they are angels of satan Revelation 12:9. Using this verse to make the leap you have just made is not correct interpretation IMHO.

I have no interpretation whatsoever my brother. I only make comments on the things I have been taught over the years and then have shared with others. It is TEACHING and not interpretation of the Scriptures.

Jesus clearly states in the New Testament that angelic beings do not marry (Matthew 22:29 - 30).
Now as I said already, you are welcome to reject that and of course you will have to do that to make your theory work.
You see, only human beings are given, right when they are created, the gift of not only being able to marry but also to reproduce (see Genesis 1:28, 2:18, 21 - 24, 3:16).
There is not a HINT anywhere of that being the ability of spirits found in the Scriptures.

#5. You said............

We should not interpret the word of God based on our flawed logic we should simply by faith believe what is written. That is what we do to be saved nothing changes after that.

Absolutely correct. Which is why I am discussing this subject with you. Again, may I say to you that there is no Scripture which teaches us that spirits can reproduce much less have sexual relations with men.

Now of course YOU have to reject the literal words of Jesus so as to make your theology work. You actually have no choice but to do that so I expected you would say exactly what you said.

#6. You said..........
Yes, IMHO that was one of the reasons for the flood. “the earth also corrupt before God” Gen 6:11, Noah was perfect in his generations, scripture already said he was a just man, perfect in his generations was his DNA not his standing before God.

If you think about this a moment you would realize that Noah would have actually had the same DNA after the flood as he did before the flood. IF your theology is correct, he would have carried the blood of the fallen angels and the Lord Jesus came from the line traced by to Noah so your argument in this case is completely wrong.

#7. You said......
Not true, Noah was perfect in his generations, Verse 9 says these are the generations of Noah verse 10 lists his offspring his generations (DNA). So no, Mary could not have been corrupted.

No sir, you are in error here on this. See the above #6 comment. We all trace our roots back to Noah. He would have brought the same DNA to his children which were conceived BEFORE the flood my friend. The flood did not change his DNA.


I am sorry to have to correct you again, but your opinion of Noah being "Perfect" is erroneous my friend.

The crux of the matter, for your thinking to be correct is the word perfect.
In the Hebrew text, in Genesis 6:9 is tamiym (Strong's #8549), and its basic meaning is "complete" or "entire."

It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamiym better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yahu said:

The common doctrines followed today that Lucifer was some super angel that fell and led a major revolt in heaven and took 1/3 of the angels with him is rooted in early church father doctrine that was not held by the Jews of the NT period. It is myth that has been accepted as fact by the church. It is one of the great deceptions to make the enemy appear to be even greater then he is. Once you realize that the current Satan is just the ghost of a dead half-breed nephlim... an evil spirit that appears as an angel of light not an actual angel, he is not so great. Deceiving the church into making him greater then he is is one of his greatest achievements.

Underline by Postvieww;

Well I have been on this forum for over two years now and I am still amazed at the “new” doctrines put forth here as fact.


Jesus made a distinction between satan (the devil), and mere demons. If satan is just “the ghost of a dead half-breed nephlim” as you claim how his offering of the kingdoms of this world a temptation to our Savior? That would be like me saying to you if you will worship me I will give the kingdoms to you. Since I have no claim on the kingdoms, those would be hollow words which you would ignore and not be tempted in the least. Scripture says Jesus was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1) and overcame all temptation (Hebrews 4:5).


Your above statement is not an accurate description of the evil one.


Isaiah 14:12-15


Ezekiel 28:13-15


Luke 22:31


Revelation 20:1-3


You accuse me of “not understanding” I believe it is you who are very much confused on what demons and fallen angels are and what they can and cannot do.


I stand firmly on my statement “all” fallen angels are absolutely not held in chains. I see nothing you have offered to sway that belief in the least.


BTW you misquote :


2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


It does not say he appears as an angel of light it says he is transformed into an angel of light.


Your statement he is “not an actual angel” is not an accurate statement based on the text.


Yahu said:

Peter and Jude both reference the angels being in prison but Jude goes on to mention a quote from Enoch then quotes out of the book of Enoch. If you are not familiar with the books of Enoch, I suggest you read them. It was common knowledge of the day and Enoch was a common book in the synagogues. Many copies were found among the dead sea scrolls including fragments of the 'book of giants'.

I am familiar with the book of Enoch, discussing it on this form is allowed and I have used it myself. Be advised most who post here will not accept it. The book of Enoch does not agree with your theory of “all” fallen angels being held in chains, it is only those who committed the sin of cohabiting with humans. Enoch clearly states demons are the disembodied spirits of that relationship.

I agree completely with you that the demons of hell are alive and well and are in fact causing all the aches, and pains, and sufferings we see today.

I can not however agree with your use of the book of Enoch to support any theology whatsoever.

It my friend is one of those productions that should be discarded by all serious Bible teachers and learners.

As you read the Book of Enoch, you will notice a big difference between it and the genuine Word of God. The Bible is readable, from cover to cover, it tells a story. In sharp contrast, the Book of Enoch appears to be mocking the Word of God, quoting phrases here-and-there from the Bible, without any meaningful logic or order. This, coupled with a bunch of added mumbo-jumbo, makes the Book of Enoch a ridiculous piece of literature to even consider inspired by God. As a person progresses deeper into the Book of Enoch, they will eventually find the Books of Adam and Eve fascinating as well, and then they will be into New Age occultism without even realizing it. Don't be fooled friend, the Book of Enoch is occult material that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamiym better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Will you consider The Scholarly Work Of Dr. E. W. Bullinger about the subject at hand.

NOAH "PERFECT".
(GENESIS 6:9).
APPENDIX 26. NOAH PERFECT GENESIS 6:9

This Is Appendix 26 From The Companion Bible.

The Hebrew word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in Exodus 12:5; 29:1. Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2, 3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12, 18. Numbers 6:14; 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36. Ezekiel 43:22, 23, 25; 45:18, 23; 46:4, 6, 13. Without spot. Numbers 19:2; 28:3, 9, 11; 29:17, 26.
Undefiled. Psalms 119:1.
This shows that Genesis 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection,

but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels.

See Appendix 23
"THE SONS OF GOD"
IN GENESIS 6:2, 4.
APPENDIX 23. THE SONS OF GOD IN GENESIS 6

and Appendix 25.
"GIANTS" OF GENESIS 6, Etc.
APPENDIX 25. THE NEPHILIM OR GIANTS OF GENESIS 6

The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Genesis 6, and Appendix 23 are called in Genesis 6, Ne-phil´-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Genesis 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Peter 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).
But we read of the Nephilim again in Numbers 13:33: "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Genesis 6:4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men (Hebrew gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (literally, men of the name, that is to say, who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).
So that "after that", that is to say, after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.
As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Genesis 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated: "The Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land." And in Genesis 14:5 they were already known as "Rephaim" and "Emim", and had established themselves at Ashteroth Karnaim and Shaveh Kiriathaim.
In chapter 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21; compare Exodus 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deuteronomy 7; 20:17. Joshua 12:8).
These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Joshua 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judges 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we know not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.
As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from one Anak which came of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33¹), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.
From Deuteronomy 2:10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (verses 12, 20¹) and Avim (verse 23¹), etc.

As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned: but, unfortunately, instead of this,

their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead", "deceased", or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isaiah 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased", and verse 19, where it is rendered "the dead").
It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26:5. Psalm 88:10. Proverbs 2:18; 9:18; 21:16. Isaiah 14:8; 26:19).
It is rendered "deceased" in Isaiah 26:14.
It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Genesis 14:5; 15:20. Joshua 12:15 (margin). 2Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13. 1Chronicles 11:15; 14:9; 20:4 (margin). Isaiah 17:5.
In all other places it is rendered "giants", Genesis 6:4, Numbers 23:33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16:14, where it is gibbor (Appendix 14. iv).
By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings.
It is certain that the second irruption took place before Genesis 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrha, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Genesis 14:5).
Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak's father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Genesis 35:27. Joshua 15:13; 21:11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Arbahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, 21, 22, 23; 9:2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Numbers 13:33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deuteronomy 3:11).
Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" to-day; and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem.
Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Numbers 13:22.
If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day?
Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Genesis 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.
Thus the Babylonian "Creation Tablets", the Egyptian "Book of the dead", the Greek mythology, and heathen Cosmogonies, which by some are set on an equality with Scripture, or by others adduced in support of it, are all the corruption and perversion of primitive truths, distorded in proportion as their origin was forgotten, and their memories faded away.



Source:
List APPENDIXES
TO
THE COMPANION BIBLE
NUMERICAL INDEX OF APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

GENERAL INDEX
TO THE APPENDIXES
GENERAL INDEX TO THE APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major1 said:

You said........

"ALL fallen angels are in prison and are not even let back out to interact with mankind until the tribulation period."

No actually I didn’t, Yahu said that, as quoted in my post.

If there is a Bible verse to prove that would you please post it?

We will let him do that.

IF all fallen angels are in prison, who is it that is afflicting the man in Mark 5:2............

"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit."

Then in verse #9 we see........

"And he asked him, What is thy name? And HE answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many."

Again, if THEY ARE ALL LOCKED UP, who is this in Luke 4:41.........

"And DEMONS also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ."

We have a fundamental disagreement here on what demons or evil spirits are. They are not fallen angels.


Since you obviously believe they are fallen angels, tell us what the sin was that got some of them chained up until judgement , and those that did not commit it to roam the earth? Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4


Explain how you arrive at the conclusion demons and fallen angels are the same?
#1. You said..........
We have a fundamental disagreement here on what demons or evil spirits are. They are not fallen angels.

That seems obvious.

It is also obvious that you did not speak to the verses I posted for your comments.
Luke 4:41.
Mark 5:2 & 9

Clearly not all the demonized angels are "cast into hell, committed to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment," as Peter writes. This same Peter says that Satan is still somewhat loose, and prowls around like a roaring lion" in 1 Pet. 5:8.

The simplest way to resolve this problem is to take the "angels" in this passage as a reference to the Godly line of Seth. This is not at all a strained interpretation, and it does full justice to the context.

#2. You said..........
Since you obviously believe they are fallen angels, tell us what the sin was that got some of them chained up until judgement , and those that did not commit it to roam the earth? Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4.

If you had responded to the 2 Bible verse I asked you about, you would see that demons are found affecting men and Jesus rebuked them. IF they are all chained as you suggest, who were the ones Jesus rebuked and then they went into the pigs?????

Clearly not all the demonized angels are "cast into hell, committed to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment," as Peter writes. This same Peter says that Satan is still somewhat loose, and prowls around like a roaring lion" in 1 Pet. 5:8.

The simplest way to resolve this problem is to take the "angels" in this passage as a reference to the Godly line of Seth. This is not at all a strained teaching, and it does full justice to the context.

#3. You then said...........
Explain how you arrive at the conclusion demons and fallen angels are the same?

Honestly, the better question would be.....Why do you come to your conclusion that there is a difference between demons and fallen angels?

I come by my conclusion from the Word of God. If you choose to call "fallen angels" demons....no problem with me. I believe and accept the simple explanation that they are one in the same.

It is the teaching of Dr. J. Vernon MaGee that and Dr. Oliver B. Green that the group of demons in everlasting darkness

So when Satan, who was once the angel Lucifer, rebelled against God and fell from heaven as seen in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, one third of the angelic host joined his insurrection (Revelation 12:3-4,9). IMO, There is no doubt these fallen angels are now known as the demons.

Matthew 25:41......
“Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Some reject the idea that the demons are the fallen angels due to the fact that Jude verse 6 declares the angels who sinned to be "bound with everlasting chains." However, it is clear that not all of the angels who sinned are "bound," as Satan is still free and is seen in 1 Peter 5:8.


Will you consider The Scholarly Work Of Dr. E. W. Bullinger about the subject at hand.

NOAH "PERFECT".
(GENESIS 6:9).
APPENDIX 26. NOAH PERFECT GENESIS 6:9

This Is Appendix 26 From The Companion Bible.

The Hebrew word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in Exodus 12:5; 29:1. Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2, 3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12, 18. Numbers 6:14; 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36. Ezekiel 43:22, 23, 25; 45:18, 23; 46:4, 6, 13. Without spot. Numbers 19:2; 28:3, 9, 11; 29:17, 26.
Undefiled. Psalms 119:1.
This shows that Genesis 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection,

but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels.

See Appendix 23
"THE SONS OF GOD"
IN GENESIS 6:2, 4.
APPENDIX 23. THE SONS OF GOD IN GENESIS 6

and Appendix 25.
"GIANTS" OF GENESIS 6, Etc.
APPENDIX 25. THE NEPHILIM OR GIANTS OF GENESIS 6

The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Genesis 6, and Appendix 23 are called in Genesis 6, Ne-phil´-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Genesis 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Peter 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).
But we read of the Nephilim again in Numbers 13:33: "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Genesis 6:4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); 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 [the] mighty men (Hebrew gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (literally, men of the name, that is to say, who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).
So that "after that", that is to say, after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.
As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Genesis 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated: "The Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land." And in Genesis 14:5 they were already known as "Rephaim" and "Emim", and had established themselves at Ashteroth Karnaim and Shaveh Kiriathaim.
In chapter 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21; compare Exodus 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deuteronomy 7; 20:17. Joshua 12:8).
These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Joshua 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judges 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we know not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.
As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from one Anak which came of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33¹), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.
From Deuteronomy 2:10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (verses 12, 20¹) and Avim (verse 23¹), etc.

As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned: but, unfortunately, instead of this,

their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead", "deceased", or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isaiah 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased", and verse 19, where it is rendered "the dead").
It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26:5. Psalm 88:10. Proverbs 2:18; 9:18; 21:16. Isaiah 14:8; 26:19).
It is rendered "deceased" in Isaiah 26:14.
It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Genesis 14:5; 15:20. Joshua 12:15 (margin). 2Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13. 1Chronicles 11:15; 14:9; 20:4 (margin). Isaiah 17:5.
In all other places it is rendered "giants", Genesis 6:4, Numbers 23:33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16:14, where it is gibbor (Appendix 14. iv).
By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings.
It is certain that the second irruption took place before Genesis 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrha, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Genesis 14:5).
Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak's father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Genesis 35:27. Joshua 15:13; 21:11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Arbahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, 21, 22, 23; 9:2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Numbers 13:33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deuteronomy 3:11).
Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" to-day; and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem.
Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Numbers 13:22.
If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day?
Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Genesis 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.
Thus the Babylonian "Creation Tablets", the Egyptian "Book of the dead", the Greek mythology, and heathen Cosmogonies, which by some are set on an equality with Scripture, or by others adduced in support of it, are all the corruption and perversion of primitive truths, distorded in proportion as their origin was forgotten, and their memories faded away.



Source:
List APPENDIXES
TO
THE COMPANION BIBLE
NUMERICAL INDEX OF APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

GENERAL INDEX
TO THE APPENDIXES
GENERAL INDEX TO THE APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

Actually I am aware of Dr. Bullinger. He was well know but had many teaching that I personally do not agree with.

The first one was that he placed as much emphasis on "Tradition" as he did the actual Word of God.

Then is you or anyone else will carefully read Dr. Bullinger's writings, you will see that he teaches that at death man ceases to exist. According to him not only does his body die, but his soul and spirit cease to exist. That is called "Annialationism" and it is totally Biblically false.

Now, will I accept his teachings that demons had sex with the "daughters of men"? NO!.

There were NO extraterrestrial relations, or demons/fallen angels that had sex with human beings and 1st Corinthians 15:39,40 proves it...

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

For those who actually want to know the Bible truth, this Scripture passage plainly states that men are men, animals are animals, fish are fish, birds are birds, and angels are angels. There is not one Scriptural reference which would even remotely lead us to believe that angels and humans ever had sex.

Jesus plainly stated in Mark 12:25 concerning the departed saints...
"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

I think this Scripture verse is self-explanatory.

Carefully notice that Genesis 6:2 states...
"and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Mark 12:25 says that angels cannot marry; but Genesis 6:2 says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Clearly there would be a serious contradiction in the Scriptures here IF the sons of God were angels.

The idea that angels had sexual relations with earthly women is preposterous. As one can imagine, such speculation in the Scriptures provides ample opportunity for the heathen world to exploit the Scriptures. Countless books, movies, documentaries, and false religions have exploited such misinterpretations of Genesis 6:1-6.


One such exploit, and it is being used right here in front of you is the alleged lost Biblical BOOK OF ENOCH, which teaches that fallen angels had physical intimacy with earthly women that produced offspring 450-feet tall?

I don't think so! Without a doubt, the primary claim of the Book of Enoch is that fallen angels had sex with human women and produced 450-feet tall giants upon the earth. This teaching is ridiculous, unscriptural, and has no solid evidence to support it , Biblically or scientifically. This is another good reason why the Book of Enoch should continue to be rejected. It is nonsense.

That then is my opinion of the subject and the good Dr. Bullinger.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually I am aware of Dr. Bullinger. He was well know but had many teaching that I personally do not agree with.

The first one was that he placed as much emphasis on "Tradition" as he did the actual Word of God.

Then is you or anyone else will carefully read Dr. Bullinger's writings, you will see that he teaches that at death man ceases to exist. According to him not only does his body die, but his soul and spirit cease to exist. That is called "Annialationism" and it is totally Biblically false.
I would like to see a real quote from Dr. Bullinger's writings saying that at death the soul and spirit cease to exist.

Now that we are on the SOUL subject can you tell us what you believe happen to the SOUL of a believer when a believer die ?
I believe that at death the SOUL of a believer goes to Heaven and is fully aware upon arrival in Heaven but placed by God in a state of rest (Sleep in Jesus)until the resurrection.



Now, will I accept his teachings that demons had sex with the "daughters of men"? NO!.

There were NO extraterrestrial relations, or demons/fallen angels that had sex with human beings and 1st Corinthians 15:39,40 proves it...

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

For those who actually want to know the Bible truth, this Scripture passage plainly states that men are men, animals are animals, fish are fish, birds are birds, and angels are angels. There is not one Scriptural reference which would even remotely lead us to believe that angels and humans ever had sex.

Jesus plainly stated in Mark 12:25 concerning the departed saints...
"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

I think this Scripture verse is self-explanatory.

Carefully notice that Genesis 6:2 states...
"and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Mark 12:25 says that angels cannot marry; but Genesis 6:2 says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Clearly there would be a serious contradiction in the Scriptures here IF the sons of God were angels.

The idea that angels had sexual relations with earthly women is preposterous. As one can imagine, such speculation in the Scriptures provides ample opportunity for the heathen world to exploit the Scriptures. Countless books, movies, documentaries, and false religions have exploited such misinterpretations of Genesis 6:1-6.
Based on the Bible these angels have LEFT their first estate-...

We know than Angels always appear as ordinary -men- when they are in our physical realm....angels can eat and digest or foods.Which suggest that when ANGELS are -in our physical realm- they are physically humans with the same capacity than humans....

One such exploit, and it is being used right here in front of you is the alleged lost non-Biblical BOOK OF ENOCH, which teaches that fallen angels had physical intimacy with earthly women that produced offspring 450-feet tall?

I don't think so! Without a doubt, the primary claim of the Book of Enoch is that fallen angels had sex with human women and produced 450-feet tall giants upon the earth.
The real size of the Giants is given in the Bible, which is about 9 feet to 15 feet.....see the description of the size of Goliath and also about the description of the King of Bashan
.Deuteronomy 3:11
11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Question: "How tall was Goliath?"
How tall was Goliath?

Answer: Goliath is a biblical character found in 1 Samuel 17. The Bible says he was a large man who fought as a champion for the Philistine army against God’s people, the Israelites.

How tall was Goliath in reality? Normally, we equate him with a giant, as most Bible translations state that he was over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4, NIV). The Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text that has long been accepted by the Jewish people, states that Goliath’s height was “six cubits and one span.” Taking a cubit to be approximately eighteen inches and a span to equal six, this figures to a height of approximately nine feet, six inches. It seems Goliath may have had some Anakim blood in him (see Deuteronomy 9:2).

There is, however, a variation found in some ancient texts on the matter of Goliath’s height. A Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, records Goliath’s height as four cubits and one span. Current measurements translate this to about six feet, six inches. While this would shorten Goliath some, he still would have been quite a bit taller than the average man’s height at that time—about five and a half feet. There are other sources that corroborate the shorter measurement, including one Hebrew text among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. The NET Bible goes with the shorter height, saying that Goliath was “close to seven feet tall” (1 Samuel 17:4).

When it comes to the deviation between these measurements, it is important to note a couple things. First, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The difference may be due to how the measurements were translated into Greek for the Septuagint. Second, the measurement of a cubit is not precise, since a cubit was based on the distance from a person’s elbow to the tip of a finger. Thus, the length of a cubit would vary somewhat, according to the one doing the measuring and the length of his arm.

Regardless of Goliath’s precise height, we know from God’s Word that he was a formidable opponent. He was not only tall—at least a foot taller than David, and possibly several feet taller—he was also strong. His bronze armor alone weighed 125 pounds (1 Samuel 17:5), and he carried a giant-sized spear (verse 7). There was a reason that Goliath was the “champion” of the Philistines (verse 4). In the end, however, a young man named David, armed with only a simple sling, a few rocks, and faith, defeated this enemy of Israel. David proved stronger than Goliath because he had the almighty God on his side.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,524
1,313
South
✟105,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
#1.
You are very welcome.

#2. You said.............
How do you tie that to Genesis 6, since all other references to “sons of God” in the Old Testament are obviously created beings (angels, in my opinion).

I am not tying it to anything at all. Just an observation.


The phrase "sons of God" is found 5 in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7).
It has 2 primary meanings in the Bible, only one of which is made in reference to angels.

An example of the first primary meaning is found in the Book of Job when it states that angels presented themselves before the Eternal (Job 1:6, see also 38:7).
Now consider the fact that Satan the devil was also with them. If we accept your opinion would that not mean he was considered a son as well. ?????????????

A second usage of this phrase occurs in the King James Bible translation of the Book of Genesis. In the sixth chapter it states that certain people married women and together produced children who became giants, "mighty men" and "men of renown."

Gen. 6:1-3 is then the subject we are discussing.............
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 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 which they chose. And the LORD (God) said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

This phrase CANNOT be a reference to angels, either to those who are righteous or evil. The Bible does not contain even a HINT that flesh and blood humans can somehow mate with spirit-composed beings! Although there are some parallels in pagan thought regarding this possibility, this concept is simply not taught in Scripture.


I would encourage you to consider CONTEXT and LOCATION!

In Gen. 6 the scene described is the EARTH hence the fact the reference in to HUMANS.
In Job the scene described is HEAVEN hence the "sons of God" would obviously be angels.


#3. You said..........
Disagree.

Perfectly OK. You can take a number and wait in line. Your number will be ....34.

#4. You said.........
Mathew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.


This verse does not say we or angels will be “ASEXUAL” that is your interpretation inserted here. The passage only says that we or angels of God in heaven will not marry. Fallen angels are no longer angels of God they are angels of satan Revelation 12:9. Using this verse to make the leap you have just made is not correct interpretation IMHO.

I have no interpretation whatsoever my brother. I only make comments on the things I have been taught over the years and then have shared with others. It is TEACHING and not interpretation of the Scriptures.

Jesus clearly states in the New Testament that angelic beings do not marry (Matthew 22:29 - 30).
Now as I said already, you are welcome to reject that and of course you will have to do that to make your theory work.
You see, only human beings are given, right when they are created, the gift of not only being able to marry but also to reproduce (see Genesis 1:28, 2:18, 21 - 24, 3:16).
There is not a HINT anywhere of that being the ability of spirits found in the Scriptures.

#5. You said............

We should not interpret the word of God based on our flawed logic we should simply by faith believe what is written. That is what we do to be saved nothing changes after that.

Absolutely correct. Which is why I am discussing this subject with you. Again, may I say to you that there is no Scripture which teaches us that spirits can reproduce much less have sexual relations with men.

Now of course YOU have to reject the literal words of Jesus so as to make your theology work. You actually have no choice but to do that so I expected you would say exactly what you said.

#6. You said..........
Yes, IMHO that was one of the reasons for the flood. “the earth also corrupt before God” Gen 6:11, Noah was perfect in his generations, scripture already said he was a just man, perfect in his generations was his DNA not his standing before God.

If you think about this a moment you would realize that Noah would have actually had the same DNA after the flood as he did before the flood. IF your theology is correct, he would have carried the blood of the fallen angels and the Lord Jesus came from the line traced by to Noah so your argument in this case is completely wrong.

#7. You said......
Not true, Noah was perfect in his generations, Verse 9 says these are the generations of Noah verse 10 lists his offspring his generations (DNA). So no, Mary could not have been corrupted.

No sir, you are in error here on this. See the above #6 comment. We all trace our roots back to Noah. He would have brought the same DNA to his children which were conceived BEFORE the flood my friend. The flood did not change his DNA.


I am sorry to have to correct you again, but your opinion of Noah being "Perfect" is erroneous my friend.

The crux of the matter, for your thinking to be correct is the word perfect.
In the Hebrew text, in Genesis 6:9 is tamiym (Strong's #8549), and its basic meaning is "complete" or "entire."

It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamiym better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.

Major1 Said

The phrase "sons of God" is found 5 in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7).

Agree.

It has 2 primary meanings in the Bible, only one of which is made in reference to angels.

I assume this is also your opinion.

An example of the first primary meaning is found in the Book of Job when it states that angels presented themselves before the Eternal (Job 1:6, see also 38:7).

I believe that is the only scripturally verifiable definition in the Bible.

Now consider the fact that Satan the devil was also with them. If we accept your opinion would that not mean he was considered a son as well. ?????????????

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.


Scripture doesn’t call him a son of God but God did create satan. Draw your own conclusion.


A second usage of this phrase occurs in the King James Bible translation of the Book of Genesis. In the sixth chapter it states that certain people married women and together produced children who became giants, "mighty men" and "men of renown."

Do you acknowledge there were actually giants (very tall people) with 6 fingers and toes in scripture?


It sounds as though you want to ignore the reality of giants in scripture. If I am incorrect I apologize.


Gen. 6:1-3 is then the subject we are discussing.............

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 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 which they chose. And the LORD (God) said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

This phrase CANNOT be a reference to angels, either to those who are righteous or evil. The Bible does not contain even a HINT that flesh and blood humans can somehow mate with spirit-composed beings! Although there are some parallels in pagan thought regarding this possibility, this concept is simply not taught in Scripture.

It sure does if we leave the definition of sons of God in Genesis 6 to be interpreted by other scripture and not our arbitrary reasons.

I would encourage you to consider CONTEXT and LOCATION!

In Gen. 6 the scene described is the EARTH hence the fact the reference in to HUMANS.

In Job the scene described is HEAVEN hence the "sons of God" would obviously be angels.

I guess I’ll be # 35 as well. I would just suggest to be consistent with the scriptures I would question the validity of assigning a different definition to sons of God in Genesis 6 simply because of location. It does help your position though, if you are comfortable with an arbitrary definition other that the one consistent with the other scriptures you referenced. Only created beings are conclusively referred to as sons of God from the Old Testament Adam was referred to as a son of God in Luke 3:38. IMHO you have determined the definition you cited for Genesis 6 because it fits the narrative you have chosen.


Angels can appear on earth as well so the location argument is weak at best, but you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to challenge it.


Major1 said:

I have no interpretation whatsoever my brother. I only make comments on the things I have been taught over the years and then have shared with others. It is TEACHING and not interpretation of the Scriptures.

Jesus clearly states in the New Testament that angelic beings do not marry (Matthew 22:29 - 30).

I am not interpreting either. I merely point out what scripture does or doesn’t say in this case and it says “angels of God in heaven” do not marry to say more than that is commentary.

Now as I said already, you are welcome to reject that and of course you will have to do that to make your theory work.

Just as you have to adjust the definition of sons of God to make a theory work?

You see, only human beings are given, right when they are created, the gift of not only being able to marry but also to reproduce (see Genesis 1:28, 2:18, 21 - 24, 3:16).

None of those verses say “only human beings are given the right”.

There is not a HINT anywhere of that being the ability of spirits found in the Scriptures.

Genesis 6:2

Major1 said:

Absolutely correct. Which is why I am discussing this subject with you. Again, may I say to you that there is no Scripture which teaches us that spirits can reproduce much less have sexual relations with men.

Now of course YOU have to reject the literal words of Jesus so as to make your theology work. You actually have no choice but to do that so I expected you would say exactly what you said.

I believe I pointed out what the literal words of Jesus were in Matthew 22, I did not reject them . I did reject an interpretation of Jesus’s words.

Major1 said:

If you think about this a moment you would realize that Noah would have actually had the same DNA after the flood as he did before the flood. IF your theology is correct, he would have carried the blood of the fallen angels and the Lord Jesus came from the line traced by to Noah so your argument in this case is completely wrong.

You have no basis for stating Noah would have carried the blood of fallen angels. See Riberra’ post #911 on this he covered it well. I pointed out Noah was perfect in his “generations” we just disagree on what that means. I believe I am on sound scriptural footing on that.

Major1 said:

I am sorry to have to correct you again, but your opinion of Noah being "Perfect" is erroneous my friend.

Actually I believe Riberra corrected you on that point.


Thanks for your willingness to debate this issue it is very controversial. Good people on both sides have strong views and back and forth such as this may resolve this for someone who is unsure.
 
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,524
1,313
South
✟105,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major1 said:

Honestly, the better question would be.....Why do you come to your conclusion that there is a difference between demons and fallen angels?

No problem.


Below are the terms used in connection with possession of individuals, not once is the word angel used in this context.


1. evil spirits Luke 7:21 Luke 8:2 Acts 19:12,13,15,16

2. unclean spirit Matthew 10:1, 12:43 Mark 1:23,26,27 Mark 3:11,30 Mark 5:2,8,13 Mark 6:7 Mark7:25

Luke4:33,36 Luke 6:18 Luke 8:29 Luke 9:42 Luke 11:24 Acts 5:16 Acts 8:7 Revelation 16:13

3. Foul spirit Mark 9:25 Revelation 18:2

4. Devils Matthew 4:24 Matthew 7:22 Matthew 8:16,28,33 Matthew 9:34 Matthew 10:8 Matthew 11:18

Matthew 12:24,27,28 Matthew 15:22 Matthew 17:18 Mark 1:32,34,39 Mark 3:15,22 Mark 5:12,15,16,18

Mark 6:13 Mark 7:26,29,30 Mark:9:38 Mark 16:9,17 Luke 4:35,41 Luke 7:33 Luke 8:2,27,30,33,35,36,38

Luke 9:1,42,49 Luke 10:17 Luke 11:14,15,18 John 6:70 John 7:20 John 8:48,49,52 John 10:20,21

5. Spirit of an unclean devil Luke 4:33

If Jesus or His disciples who cast out devils believed fallen angels that rebelled with satan were the same as evils spirits they never once referred to them as angels when casting them out.



Below are the passages that angel is used in connection with evil or satan. Not one of them is used in connection with possession of an individual.


Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Jude 1:6 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

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

Revelation 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels

It appears from all accounts evil spirits seek a body to inhabit angels fallen or not have their own bodies.


Proof angels have bodies.


1 Corinthians 15:39-40

Celestial bodies would be what? I believe it is angels or any other heavenly host and our new bodies after the resurrection. No indication anywhere in scripture evil spirits have a body, they seek one.


The verse below shows an unclean spirit seeks a body to inhabit and many unclean spirits can inhabit one individual


Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

The above passage show us the sphere of domain and influence of unclean spirits is terrestrial not in the heavens or confined to hell.

2 Peter 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Angels described as having great power. Obviously fallen or not based on Daniel 10.


The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood an angel of God for 21 days. Daniel 10:12-13. IMHO this can be none other than a fallen angel , no reference to an evil spirit that I am aware of shows evil spirits with that kind of power.


Michael helped this other angel of God defeat the prince of Persia (fallen angel).


I believe scripture shows us when satan rebelled he took 1/3 of the angels with him Revelation 12:3-4


This fall must have been at some unknown time in our distant past because the fall had already taken place by Genesis 3.


It is my belief because of Job 1:6 Job 2:1 satan and his angels while in their fallen state and rebellion against God still retain some freedom of movement in the heavens and on this earth.


I also believe Revelation 12:7-13 has not yet taken place as the text shows this is in the tribulation period.


Now to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, These are only a portion of the fallen angels that sinned. We can disagree on what that sin was, but it was not the rebellion because those angels that sinned are in chains right now and Revelation 12 makes it clear all fallen angels are not in chains at this time.

Ephesians 6: 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I believe some of these entities are fallen angles not just evils spirits.


IMHO the main reason many choose to believe unclean spirits and fallen angels are the same is that they have no other explanation for the origin of unclean spirits.

Major1 said:

I come by my conclusion from the Word of God.

There is no clear scriptural tie linking unclean spirits to fallen angels, if you disagree post how you arrived at that conclusion from scripture that is what I have done here.

Major1 said:

If you choose to call "fallen angels" demons....no problem with me.

I do not.

Major1 said:

I believe and accept the simple explanation that they are one in the same.

I don’t believe it is that simple or scriptural.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major1 Said

The phrase "sons of God" is found 5 in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7).

Agree.

It has 2 primary meanings in the Bible, only one of which is made in reference to angels.

I assume this is also your opinion.

An example of the first primary meaning is found in the Book of Job when it states that angels presented themselves before the Eternal (Job 1:6, see also 38:7).

I believe that is the only scripturally verifiable definition in the Bible.

Now consider the fact that Satan the devil was also with them. If we accept your opinion would that not mean he was considered a son as well. ?????????????

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.


Scripture doesn’t call him a son of God but God did create satan. Draw your own conclusion.


A second usage of this phrase occurs in the King James Bible translation of the Book of Genesis. In the sixth chapter it states that certain people married women and together produced children who became giants, "mighty men" and "men of renown."

Do you acknowledge there were actually giants (very tall people) with 6 fingers and toes in scripture?


It sounds as though you want to ignore the reality of giants in scripture. If I am incorrect I apologize.


Gen. 6:1-3 is then the subject we are discussing.............

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 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 which they chose. And the LORD (God) said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

This phrase CANNOT be a reference to angels, either to those who are righteous or evil. The Bible does not contain even a HINT that flesh and blood humans can somehow mate with spirit-composed beings! Although there are some parallels in pagan thought regarding this possibility, this concept is simply not taught in Scripture.

It sure does if we leave the definition of sons of God in Genesis 6 to be interpreted by other scripture and not our arbitrary reasons.

I would encourage you to consider CONTEXT and LOCATION!

In Gen. 6 the scene described is the EARTH hence the fact the reference in to HUMANS.

In Job the scene described is HEAVEN hence the "sons of God" would obviously be angels.

I guess I’ll be # 35 as well. I would just suggest to be consistent with the scriptures I would question the validity of assigning a different definition to sons of God in Genesis 6 simply because of location. It does help your position though, if you are comfortable with an arbitrary definition other that the one consistent with the other scriptures you referenced. Only created beings are conclusively referred to as sons of God from the Old Testament Adam was referred to as a son of God in Luke 3:38. IMHO you have determined the definition you cited for Genesis 6 because it fits the narrative you have chosen.


Angels can appear on earth as well so the location argument is weak at best, but you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to challenge it.


Major1 said:

I have no interpretation whatsoever my brother. I only make comments on the things I have been taught over the years and then have shared with others. It is TEACHING and not interpretation of the Scriptures.

Jesus clearly states in the New Testament that angelic beings do not marry (Matthew 22:29 - 30).

I am not interpreting either. I merely point out what scripture does or doesn’t say in this case and it says “angels of God in heaven” do not marry to say more than that is commentary.

Now as I said already, you are welcome to reject that and of course you will have to do that to make your theory work.

Just as you have to adjust the definition of sons of God to make a theory work?

You see, only human beings are given, right when they are created, the gift of not only being able to marry but also to reproduce (see Genesis 1:28, 2:18, 21 - 24, 3:16).

None of those verses say “only human beings are given the right”.

There is not a HINT anywhere of that being the ability of spirits found in the Scriptures.

Genesis 6:2

Major1 said:

Absolutely correct. Which is why I am discussing this subject with you. Again, may I say to you that there is no Scripture which teaches us that spirits can reproduce much less have sexual relations with men.

Now of course YOU have to reject the literal words of Jesus so as to make your theology work. You actually have no choice but to do that so I expected you would say exactly what you said.

I believe I pointed out what the literal words of Jesus were in Matthew 22, I did not reject them . I did reject an interpretation of Jesus’s words.

Major1 said:

If you think about this a moment you would realize that Noah would have actually had the same DNA after the flood as he did before the flood. IF your theology is correct, he would have carried the blood of the fallen angels and the Lord Jesus came from the line traced by to Noah so your argument in this case is completely wrong.

You have no basis for stating Noah would have carried the blood of fallen angels. See Riberra’ post #911 on this he covered it well. I pointed out Noah was perfect in his “generations” we just disagree on what that means. I believe I am on sound scriptural footing on that.

Major1 said:

I am sorry to have to correct you again, but your opinion of Noah being "Perfect" is erroneous my friend.

Actually I believe Riberra corrected you on that point.


Thanks for your willingness to debate this issue it is very controversial. Good people on both sides have strong views and back and forth such as this may resolve this for someone who is unsure.


You stated..............
"I assume this is also your opinion?"

That comment was based on the exegesis of the Old Test. Scriptures.


You stated...........
"I believe that is the only scripturally verifiable definition in the Bible."

I do not think that is the case.

Hosea 1:10 ......
"Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."

Matthew 5:9 ..........
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "

You said........
"IMHO you have determined the definition you cited for Genesis 6 because it fits the narrative you have chosen. "

We all have opinions. I believe my thinking is well founded in Scriptures. Do you believe that it was HUMANS who came before God in heaven in Job 1????

Now if that makes sense to you and fits your agenda then you are welcome to your opinion. I personally do not agree and I find that that thinking is not only not logical but totally unbiblical.
No where in Scripture is there a description of human beings standing in the presence of a holy God. But if it works for you, then go with it.

You said.............
"Angels can appear on earth as well so the location argument is weak at best, but you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to challenge it."


Now I did not say that did I my brother. I did not say that angels can not appear on earth and to say that would be to totally reject the Word of God wouldn't it??
I think that everyone understands that angels have appeared to men. But that is a long way from reproducing with humans.

I said that angels, either fallen or not, spiritual being can not have sexual relations with human beings.


You said..........
"I am not interpreting either. I merely point out what scripture does or doesn’t say in this case and it says “angels of God in heaven” do not marry to say more than that is commentary."

Luke 24:39........
" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

Mat 22:30 ........
" For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

To ME, the words of Jesus say that angels are ASEXUAL. I do however understand your need to make those words say something that fits your thinking.

However, angels are created and do not reproduce. They evidently do not die. Also, since there is NO, NONE, ZERO females mentioned in the Bible, if they could reproduce, how would they do it since there are no female angels?????

You did not respond to 1st Corinthians 15:39,40 ...

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

You then stated............
You have no basis for stating Noah would have carried the blood of fallen angels. See Riberra’ post #911 on this he covered it well. I pointed out Noah was perfect in his “generations” we just disagree on what that means. I believe I am on sound scriptural footing on that.

NOPE!.....I said that "IF" what you suggest is the case then Noah would have the DNA of demons in his blood.


Riberra did not cover anything at all. He gave an opinion which I corrected for him.

Noah was not "PERFECT" in the way most people understand that word to mean.
As I stated from Stongs lexicon that words means right standing, moral, complete.
It does not mean that he was "SINLESS PERFECTION" as that can only be fitted to the Lord Jesus Christ.



You then said.............
"Thanks for your willingness to debate this issue it is very controversial. Good people on both sides have strong views and back and forth such as this may resolve this for someone who is unsure."

No problem at all. Thank you for being civil and Christian in your comments.
You are absolutely correct in that good people can differ on this subject. This is something I have spoken on more times than I can remember.

When we get right down to the bottom line, we have no biblical support of fallen angels ever appearing as men or of having physical DNA. Without the physical DNA there can not be any reproduction possible.

Again......."IF" your theology is right and again many, many people agree with you, Noah who was born before the flood and survived the flood would have had demonic DNA in his blood.
Yes.....the flood would have killed the Nephilin, IF THERE was such a thing but Noah survived.
Since all genealogy ends with Noah, that would mean that demonic DNA would have been in the physical line of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you are comfortable with that then may God bless you my friend. I for one can never ever accept such a theology.

Now, there is just no way possible to explain that fact away. You can try, you can consult with all the web sites that promote this agenda but you can not explain this simple fact away.

Now, I have lived a long time and I have seen what men and women can do. One of the things that ALL people do is exaggerate.

Do I believe that there were giants in those days. YES. There are giants today. Many men have grown to be 8 feet tall or more. Some are as much as 600 pounds. Some men have had 6 fingers.

But the point I am making or trying to is that men thousands of years ago would have said anything to stay in power. Please do yourself the favor and dig deeper into this historically.

Where do you think that "MYTHS" came from???? What was their purpose???
Thus, divine kingship did not evolve. It was fabricated— deliberately formulated— usually by a group of priest-nobles who supported one man in power.

Having said that, does it not follow that the purpose of myths, epics and literature on clay tablets, papyrii, parchments, and monuments, have the fundamental purpose of establishing and maintaining the right-to-rule a certain area and people.

Clever men (priest-nobles) manipulated the populace’s religious instincts to cause them to follow and obey the local god’s “son.” He owned the people and land, in theory at least. And he acted either as god (in Egypt), or as his representative (in Mesopotamia and other cultures). When all the literature and monuments were used to glorify and exalt this man as the son, or representative, of god, religion became the opiate (binder and blinder) of the people!

Manipulation of religion for political purposes began in Sumer, was picked up in Akkad (Old Babylon), revised with the same themes in Assyria and Neo-Babylonia, was enjoyed by Persian monarchs, captivated Alexander and his successors (Antiochus “Epiphanus” means “the revelation of god”), and was copied by Rome. (It is even found in Africa, the Far East, and the Americas.)

Do not believe what I am telling you. YOU do the work. Dig in with an open mind my brother.


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major1 said:

Honestly, the better question would be.....Why do you come to your conclusion that there is a difference between demons and fallen angels?

No problem.


Below are the terms used in connection with possession of individuals, not once is the word angel used in this context.


1. evil spirits Luke 7:21 Luke 8:2 Acts 19:12,13,15,16

2. unclean spirit Matthew 10:1, 12:43 Mark 1:23,26,27 Mark 3:11,30 Mark 5:2,8,13 Mark 6:7 Mark7:25

Luke4:33,36 Luke 6:18 Luke 8:29 Luke 9:42 Luke 11:24 Acts 5:16 Acts 8:7 Revelation 16:13

3. Foul spirit Mark 9:25 Revelation 18:2

4. Devils Matthew 4:24 Matthew 7:22 Matthew 8:16,28,33 Matthew 9:34 Matthew 10:8 Matthew 11:18

Matthew 12:24,27,28 Matthew 15:22 Matthew 17:18 Mark 1:32,34,39 Mark 3:15,22 Mark 5:12,15,16,18

Mark 6:13 Mark 7:26,29,30 Mark:9:38 Mark 16:9,17 Luke 4:35,41 Luke 7:33 Luke 8:2,27,30,33,35,36,38

Luke 9:1,42,49 Luke 10:17 Luke 11:14,15,18 John 6:70 John 7:20 John 8:48,49,52 John 10:20,21

5. Spirit of an unclean devil Luke 4:33

If Jesus or His disciples who cast out devils believed fallen angels that rebelled with satan were the same as evils spirits they never once referred to them as angels when casting them out.



Below are the passages that angel is used in connection with evil or satan. Not one of them is used in connection with possession of an individual.


Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Jude 1:6 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

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

Revelation 9:15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels

It appears from all accounts evil spirits seek a body to inhabit angels fallen or not have their own bodies.


Proof angels have bodies.


1 Corinthians 15:39-40

Celestial bodies would be what? I believe it is angels or any other heavenly host and our new bodies after the resurrection. No indication anywhere in scripture evil spirits have a body, they seek one.


The verse below shows an unclean spirit seeks a body to inhabit and many unclean spirits can inhabit one individual


Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

The above passage show us the sphere of domain and influence of unclean spirits is terrestrial not in the heavens or confined to hell.

2 Peter 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Angels described as having great power. Obviously fallen or not based on Daniel 10.


The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood an angel of God for 21 days. Daniel 10:12-13. IMHO this can be none other than a fallen angel , no reference to an evil spirit that I am aware of shows evil spirits with that kind of power.


Michael helped this other angel of God defeat the prince of Persia (fallen angel).


I believe scripture shows us when satan rebelled he took 1/3 of the angels with him Revelation 12:3-4


This fall must have been at some unknown time in our distant past because the fall had already taken place by Genesis 3.


It is my belief because of Job 1:6 Job 2:1 satan and his angels while in their fallen state and rebellion against God still retain some freedom of movement in the heavens and on this earth.


I also believe Revelation 12:7-13 has not yet taken place as the text shows this is in the tribulation period.


Now to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, These are only a portion of the fallen angels that sinned. We can disagree on what that sin was, but it was not the rebellion because those angels that sinned are in chains right now and Revelation 12 makes it clear all fallen angels are not in chains at this time.

Ephesians 6: 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I believe some of these entities are fallen angles not just evils spirits.


IMHO the main reason many choose to believe unclean spirits and fallen angels are the same is that they have no other explanation for the origin of unclean spirits.

Major1 said:

I come by my conclusion from the Word of God.

There is no clear scriptural tie linking unclean spirits to fallen angels, if you disagree post how you arrived at that conclusion from scripture that is what I have done here.

Major1 said:

If you choose to call "fallen angels" demons....no problem with me.

I do not.

Major1 said:

I believe and accept the simple explanation that they are one in the same.

I don’t believe it is that simple or scriptural.

We know that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, according to Matthew 25:41.....
“Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Jesus, by using the possessive word his makes it clear that these angels belong to Satan. Revelation 12:7-9 describes an end-times angelic battle between Michael and "his angels" and the devil and "his angels." From these and similar verses, it is clear that demons and fallen angels are synonymous.

The most common alternate explanation for the origin of the demons, which you and your friend are espousing is that when the Nephilim of Genesis 6 were destroyed in the Flood, their disembodied souls became the demons. The problem with that is that the Bible does not specifically say what happened to the souls of the Nephilim when they were killed.
For your agenda to work, you must change the meaning of words and force the meaning instead of just accepting what is actually said.

To me, it is unlikely that God would destroy the Nephilim in the Flood only to allow their souls to cause even greater evil as the demons. The most biblically consistent explanation for the origin of the demons is that they are the fallen angels, the angels who rebelled against God with Satan.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.