Genesis 6:1-4 and Jude 6&7 what do these passages mean? Why should we care?

Postvieww said:

Do I really have to explain this one?

I believe I was referring to the claim you were making that the line of Seth were the saved or represent the Godly line and that the line of Cain were the lost or represented the wicked line.

That specific concept is what I believe to be unbiblical and IMHO is just plain ole false doctrine.

I am very well aware there are saved and lost. I used to be one now I am the other, and I did go to Sunday School.

Come on Major you are better that that.

Click to expand...

Then what is your argument??????

I believe that my comment of Seth's line representing as the saved and Cains line represents the lost as Biblically correct and it seems to me that you are in fact agreeing with that comment.

What part of the statement is un-biblical???

You may or may not be aware of this, but there is a principle in Biblical interpretation called “first mention.” It’s not a big deal but when you go to the place where important ideas first appear and read the passage in context, you’ll often pick up additional understanding.

For example the first appearance of blood in Gen. 4:10 is in connection with Abel’s murder and introduces the idea that the blood is the life.

In Gen. 9:4-6 this is expanded into instruction on proper meat eating (another first mention) and capital punishment (still another). Placing the blood of the lamb on their door posts preserved life for the Israelites at the first Passover, and the ultimate importance of this idea lies in the phrase “saved by the Blood of the Lamb.” His life exchanged for ours.

The idea first mentioned in GENESIS 4:17 is that of building a city. Disregard the fact that Cain married his sister (who else could she be) and focus on the parallel lines of Cain and Seth because that’s where the real story is. The seventh man from Adam in Cain’s line was Lamech, whose name comes from a root meaning “despairing.” He had three sons; Jabal a livestock breeder, Jubal a musician, Tubal-cain a toolmaker, and a daughter Naamah. We’re not given Naamah’s vocation, but her name comes from a root meaning pleasure. Maybe she founded “the Oldest Profession.” From these children came animal husbandry, manufacturing, the arts and music, and entertainment. In just 7 generations we see a recognizable civilization; cities in which to live, leisure and entertainment, and industry.

From the line of Seth only Noah and his family were found faithful. They were preserved through the flood to begin again and the line of Seth ultimately fulfilled God’s promise and brought forth The Redeemer; the Son of God, born of Mary a descendant of Seth through Noah’s son Shem.
Cain and Seth – Grace thru faith

That is my story and I am sticking to it!

Postvieww said:

Wrong brother, we both have a theory and we both believe we have the right one. We both use scripture to arrive at that theory. Lots of Christians and others in this world believe they have the truth and err not. Well my friend I am here to tell you both you and I can miss something in scripture and be wrong about something . If you can’t agree with that I’ll be praying for you.

Click to expand...

I am sorry brother but I can not accept that. YOUR thesis is based in your understanding that in the fallen/angels actually had physical sexual relations with human women and produced hybrids or demonic/humans.

I do NOT accept that in any way I the reason I have engaged you is that that theory is not Biblical in my understanding. The bottom line is that we have no biblical support of fallen angels ever appearing as men or of having physical DNA, and based on that fact I say again that I have NO theory at all, I just have a different understanding.

And you are welcome to pray for me at any time and all the time.

Postvieww said:

Come on Major we both believe we are biblical.

Click to expand...

I know that you have invested a lot of time and energy in your opinion of this subject and I respect your efforts.

May I say that first and foremost, the notion that demons can “produce” real bodies and have real sex with real women would invalidate Jesus’ argument for the authenticity of his resurrection.

Jesus assured his disciples that “a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39 nkjv). If indeed a demon could produce flesh and bones Jesus’ argument would be not only flawed but also misleading. Is that what YOU think that God in the flesh should do????????

THINK for just a moment.......... it can then be logically argued that the disciples did not see the post resurrection appearances of Christ but rather a demon masquerading as the resurrected Christ.
Now again, Is that something that you are comfortable accepting???????
IF THAT IS TRUE my dear friend, then YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE else ARE NOT SAVED.

Furthermore, demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and as such are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring. To say that demons can create bodies with DNA and fertile sperm is to say that demons have creative power—which is an exclusively divine prerogative. AGAIN...........
that is not my opinion neither is it my theology. It is a proven scientific fact.

If demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we would have no assurance they could not do so in modern times. Nor would we have any guarantee that the people we encounter every day are fully human.

While a biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon-possessed person can produce offspring that are part-demon, part-human. Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of God’s living creations are designed to reproduce “according to their own kinds.”

Postvieww said:

This post is an example on why we are so far apart. We can’t even use the same terminology with the same definitions. We are always talking apples and oranges and unless we can agree on some basic terminology we will never get very far which is why we are still debating and both holding firm to our positions.

1. I agree demons do not produce real bodies. I have never said they did. Demons inhabit bodies because they do not have one and seek one.

2. You said “demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and as such are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring” I have never said demons are sexual or physical. I just disagree with you that fallen angels and demon are the same entities. We are using different language. I thought I have been clear on this point but you still talk to me like I agree with your understanding on this.

3. We just have a different view on what angels (of both types) are and what they are capable of.

4. You said: “While a biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon-possessed person can produce offspring that are part-demon, part-human. Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of God’s living creations are designed to reproduce “according to their own kinds.” “

Here is a question for you.

Based on the fact that scientist today are tampering with God’s plan for procreation and literally in the laboratory are producing creatures NOT after their own kind. Why should we believe a fallen angel is not smart enough to accomplish the same thing?



We are caught up in a circular maze. I respect you and your beliefs and as long as you feel the urge to respond to something I post on this thread I will engage you. But unless we can agree on some basic surrounding facts not much ground will be gained. I am sure it is some interesting reading for someone.

Click to expand...

I do not think your question has any merit as you said, apples and oranges.

I actually did a couple of searches and found this...........

"There are no results for scientist today are tampering with God’s plan for procreation and literally in the laboratory are producing creatures NOT after their own kind."

You see, there is that "Latitude" thing again.

I do not know of any scientific work in which dogs are being mated with eagles or rats with snakes or humans with bears. Would you like to post a link in which we can validate that statement?

I agree that no ground will be gained. YOU are posting a thesis for your opinon and I am posting anti-thesis to show that your opinions are Biblically rooted.

Did you not want to respond to the comments in #804?

Postvieww said:

This post is an example on why we are so far apart. We can’t even use the same terminology with the same definitions. We are always talking apples and oranges and unless we can agree on some basic terminology we will never get very far which is why we are still debating and both holding firm to our positions.

1. I agree demons do not produce real bodies. I have never said they did. Demons inhabit bodies because they do not have one and seek one.

2. You said “demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and as such are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring” I have never said demons are sexual or physical. I just disagree with you that fallen angels and demon are the same entities. We are using different language. I thought I have been clear on this point but you still talk to me like I agree with your understanding on this.

3. We just have a different view on what angels (of both types) are and what they are capable of.

4. You said: “While a biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon-possessed person can produce offspring that are part-demon, part-human. Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of God’s living creations are designed to reproduce “according to their own kinds.” “

Here is a question for you.

Based on the fact that scientist today are tampering with God’s plan for procreation and literally in the laboratory are producing creatures NOT after their own kind. Why should we believe a fallen angel is not smart enough to accomplish the same thing?



We are caught up in a circular maze. I respect you and your beliefs and as long as you feel the urge to respond to something I post on this thread I will engage you. But unless we can agree on some basic surrounding facts not much ground will be gained. I am sure it is some interesting reading for someone.

Click to expand...

I do not think your question has any merit as you said, apples and oranges.

I actually did a couple of searches and found this...........
"
There are no results for scientist today are tampering with God’s plan for procreation and literally in the laboratory are producing creatures NOT after their own kind."

You see, there is that "Latitude" thing again.

I do not know of any scientific work in which dog are being mated with eagles or rats with snakes. Would you like to post a link in which we can validate that statement?

Postvieww said:

Just the fact that Enoch came from the line of Cain, alone blows that idea out of the water.

Plus just common sense tells you that there can be and were both Godly and ungodly in both lines.

Plus there is no mention of Seth or Cain in Genesis 6 and this flimsy Sethite argument IMHO, being inserted forcibly (I might add) into the text of Genesis 6 to avoid the obvious would not be allowed by you were the shoe on the other foot. .

If you though I was agreeing with anything to do with this Sethite doctrine you are mistaken.

The Sethite view was rejected by many in the early church and it is now commonly taught by many seminaries mainly for the reasons you attempt to use it.

Click to expand...

This is where the real problem lies brother. You are making comments and propagating a teaching and you are not showing us that your Bible understanding is maybe where it should be so that we can accept your opinions.

Now you either did not know that or you purposely misspoke your comment to support your opinion which is why I have used the generic word of "Latitude".

You said.............

From..........Tony Mariot, Freelance Research Writer Biblical Antiquity at University of Oxford (2009-present)....................​

FIRST one was the son of Methushael and a descendant of Cain. (Ge 4:17, 18).
His lifetime and Adam’s overlapped. Lamech had two wives, Adah and Zillah, at the same time and is the first polygamist of Bible record. (Ge 4:19). By Adah he had sons named Jabal, “the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock,” and Jubal, “the founder of all those who handle the harp and the pipe.” (Ge 4:20, 21).
By Zillah, Lamech became the father of Tubal-cain, “the forger of every sort of tool of copper and iron,” and a daughter named Naamah.—Ge 4:22.

The SECOND was A descendant of Seth; son of Methuselah and father of Noah. (Ge 5:25, 28, 29; 1Ch 1:1-4) The lifetimes of this Lamech and Adam likewise overlapped. Lamech had faith in God, and after calling his son’s name Noah (probably meaning “Rest; Consolation”), he uttered the words: “This one will bring us comfort from our work and from the pain of our hands resulting from the ground which Jehovah has cursed.” (Ge 5:29) These words found fulfillment when the curse on the ground was lifted during Noah’s lifetime. (Ge 8:21) Lamech had other sons and daughters. He lived 777 years, dying about five years before the Flood. (Ge 5:30, 31) His name is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ at Luke 3:36.​

Major1 said:

"There are no results for scientist today are tampering with God’s plan for procreation and literally in the laboratory are producing creatures NOT after their own kind."
I do not know of any scientific work in which dogs are being mated with eagles or rats with snakes or humans with bears. Would you like to post a link in which we can validate that statement?

Click to expand...

The thing is that if a person does not want to find - they most likely won't , either by no attempt to find or a half-hearted attempt just to say they tried - it depends on if you really want to find - in 10 minutes I found these links - there are literally thousands of all variations as some are more focused on cloning and some are focused on breeding ,
Understand that scientists are not seeking to create hybrid monsters -that is they are not saying they want to clone a horse with human DNA to create a horse with a human head and brain , but rather they are seeking to experiment with animals to find what animals are compatible to clone with humans to create medical breakthroughs for medical science cures , but the experiments involve lots of strange cloning-breeding attempts to find out what results they will get
Human-Pig Hybrid Created in the Lab—Here Are the Facts

Embryos involving the genes of animals mixed with humans have been produced secretively for the past three years | Daily Mail Online

The birth of half-human, half-animal chimeras

Cloned human-animal hybrid embryos

Welcome to Human Genetics Alert

Scientists create animals that are part-human

Major1 said:

You see, if you do not get the foundational work right, everything else falls apart.​

Click to expand...

The demons that have the appearance of locusts with faces of men and tails that stings with great pain that are in the abyss that will be released to torment mankind - God did not create them - please explain how they were created ?

So why did Paul warn woman about the angels?

I Corinthians 11:10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

It is for this reason that the woman ought to have the power, which is the authority of that God gives to each of us, when we are in Christ. This again is written to the end generation, and our power and authority come from the Word of God. That knowledge and wisdom that is in the Word of God is where our power comes from, and we must have that wisdom in our mind or we will not stand in the day of the deception. This goes way back to Genesis 6, and it pertains to what the angels did when they came to earth. It was for this reason that the flood of Noah came to be, for Satan could not destroy the Seed, so he tried to destroy the coming of Christ through Eve's daughters.

"THE SONS OF GOD" IN GEN. 6:2, 4.

It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2Cor. 5:17. Eph. 2:10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1:13. Rom. 8:14, 15. 1John 3:1). (*1)

This is why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Ps. 29:1; 89:6. Dan. 3:25 (no art.). (*2) We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6:2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Gen. 6:2 the Sept. renders it "angels".

Angels are called "spirits" (Ps. 104:4. Heb. 1:7, 14), for spirits are created by God.

That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.

The nature of their fall is clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own oijkhthvrion (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2Cor. 5:2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.

The nature of their sin is stated to be "in like manner" to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.

The time of their fall is given as having taken place "in the days of Noah" (1Pet. 3:20. 2Pet. 2:7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of "the world that then was" (Gen. 1:1, 2. 2Pet. 3:6).

For this sin they are "reserved unto judgment", 2Pet. 2:4, and are "in prison", 1Pet. 3:19.

Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated "giants"), were monsters of iniquity; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood.

Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam (Gen. 6:9, see note). All the rest had become "corrupt" (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. the only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap. 25 on the Nephilim.

This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in gen. 3:15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.

As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6:4, "and also after that" (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12:6) "the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land."

In the same chapter (Gen. 12:10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that it should be in "Isaac". This attempt was repeated in 20:1-18.

This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which his servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Enemy stand out prominently :--

The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50:20.

The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1:10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2:5. Heb. 11:23.

The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Ex. 14.

After David's line was singled out (2Sam. 7), that was the next selected for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2Chron. 17:1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2Chron. 21:4).

The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2Chron. 21:17; 22:1).

When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed "all the seed royal" (2Chron. 22:10). the babe Joash alone was rescued; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2Chron. 23:3).

Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36:1; 38:1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136).

In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3:6, 12, 13. Cp. 6:1).

Joseph's fear was worked on (Matt. 1:18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was "a just man", and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24:1); hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened : "Fear not".

Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2).

At the Temptation, "Cast Thyself down" was Satan's temptation.

At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.

The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.

At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed; the watch set; and the stone sealed. But "God raised Him from the dead." And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10:12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high; and the members of "the one body" are hidden there "in Him" (Col. 3:1-3), like another Jehoshaba; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2Chron. 23:3).

The irruption of "the fallen angels" ("sons of God") was the first attempt; and was directed against the whole human race.

When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.

When David was enthroned, then the royal line were attacked.

And when "the Seed of the woman" Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.


(*1) The word "offspring" in Acts 17:28 is quite different. It is gevnos (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.
(*2) In Hos. 1:10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.

Postvieww said:

My statement:

“Based on the fact that scientist today are tampering with God’s plan for procreation and literally in the laboratory are producing creatures NOT after their own kind. Why should we believe a fallen angel is not smart enough to accomplish the same thing?”


Your statement:

“I do not know of any scientific work in which dog are being mated with eagles or rats with snakes. Would you like to post a link in which we can validate that statement?”



I did not say or imply dogs with eagles, or rats with snakes. Your examples make for great theater but poorly represented what I wrote.

The main points of my statement were:

1. “tampering with God’s plan for procreation” it is just a fact that much “tampering” is going on in the scientific community. Specifically animals not of their own species or even babies without the benefit of intercourse. Tampering is tampering. If you look at what is actually admitted to and consider what we are not told you might get your rat, snake but I didn’t claim one.

2. “creatures not after their own kind” Looks like you took latitude with your own definition as to what I said. Here is my support.

Liger - Wikipedia

Liger - Wikipedia


The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris). The liger has parents in the same genus but of different species. The liger is distinct from the similar hybrid tigon, and is the largest of all known extant felines. They enjoy swimming, which is a characteristic of tigers, and are ..

As far as I can tell God did not make any Ligers and I found no evidence of them in the wild. It is only through tampering that we have them.


PS if you can Google the “DNA make up of an angel” we can discuss this point further. Then we can scientifically determine if a relationship with a human is possible.

I believe the claims I have made in the past are that the hybrids of Genesis 6 were abnormally tall and had six fingers and toes. Not exactly a rat snake comparison when we consider angels have the ability to appear as men.

Click to expand...

You are having to work pretty hard to explain what you said when in fact what you said was easy to understand.

Postvieww said:

Major you might want to do a screen shot and save this. I did not do my due diligence on Enoch and I was in error on that point. As for the entire Seth issue it may be a little early for a victory lap for you.

I Stand firm on the Sethite issue.

1. There is no direct link to be found between the “sons of God “ in Genesis 6 and the line of Seth.

2. There are no examples of the phrase “sons of God” in the OT that can be tied human men, one has to search out verses with the words father and son to even attempt a real argument.

3. All other cases in the OT that use the phrase are absolutely non-human, there is no reason from scripture to think Genesis 6 is any different.

4. Trying to use a NT definition of “sons of God” is a non starter and has no relevance to Genesis 6.I have been accused of poor exegesis, it is my charge that acknowledging other examples in the OT of “sons of God” are non-human and then trying to force a NT definition on Genesis 6 is poor exegesis.

5. What evidence from scripture is there that would support any genealogical line believing or not believing in God based on who their Mother or Father were?

6. Why did God wipe out that so called Godly line in the flood?

If you presented what I have seen so far in a court of law at the very best would be considered circumstantial evidence and in no way be considered beyond a reasonable doubt.

My case does not stand or fall on “Enoch” but yours does stand or fall on the Godly line of Seth issue. I know of no other theory on this matter in the church. It is either angels or Seth.

I was wrong on Enoch, I have been wrong on other things in the past and probably will be wrong again in the future. The line of Seth is not “the sons of God” in Genesis 6.

I found this article this morning very interesting and detailed. Info on the origin of the Sethite view

Mischievous Angels or Sethites?: Textual Controversy: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House

Again Major I was wrong on Enoch. That’s three confessions am I absolved?

Click to expand...

My dear brother. PLEASE do not think this is a contest to see who knows more than the other. There is no absolution needed. You learned something that you did not know and that is always a good thing.

I am only trying to show you that your thesis of demons/fallen angels simply has a lot of holes in it. All I did was show you that if you miss a foundational teaching in the Scriptures it just might mean that you do not need to be teaching something that is so questionable and elusive for all of us.

I am not going to repost an response to the points you made as every one of them have been addressed before on this thread.