What does Genesis 6:4 Actually Say?

Arial-byGrace · Jan 5, 2026

Paleouss said:
Peace to you brother

I am a sister.

Arial-byGrace · Jan 5, 2026

Paleouss said:
But to your point, I do hold that the biblical text does give one sufficient evidence to stop and think...did some fallen angles come in physical form? (but there is no biblical evidence that angels can or did procreate with human women).

There is no biblical text or evidence that says fallen angels came in human form either. On the contrary, we are told to be kind to strangers for some have entertained angels unaware. The appearance of angels in Scripture is always a result of God sending them, and even though they appeared human to serve the purpose, they were not human. The argument that was given by another poster that they ate our food etc. is invalid. Jesus also ate our food in his glorified body after the resurrection.

Paleouss said:
(1) The book of Enoch as we know it was not written by Enoch.
(2) The evidence tells us that the book of Enoch was written during the Intertestamental period by multiple unknown authors.
(3) The book of Enoch is a written record of the oral history of the Hebrews mixed with corrupted cultural beliefs of surrounding people groups that made its way into the Hebrew culture.

Yes I know. That is why I said it was a quote from 1 Enoch that Jude's readers would have been familiar with. I have been in discussions on other forums where the poster claims that Moses, in Gen 6, got his information from Enoch the seventh from Adam, and therefore that authenticated it. The author(s) of the work are the ones that believed Gen 6 was speaking of fallen angels. I did a series of posts on the material found in the Quorum caves (and those writings of 1 Enoch and others, were copies, not the originals. I will let you take a wild guess as to whether or not providing the comprehensive historical background change the person's mind.

Paleouss said:
With that cursory overview above, there is no definitive evidence that I know of that would suggest that anyone knows to which source Jude was referring. It could have most certainly been (A) the book of Enoch that most every Hebrew knew in that time (I say in that time because it was put to paper during the Intertestamental period). But it could have just as likely been (B) the oral history and traditions that were orally handed down (common in Hebrew culture) every Hebrew knew. OR, it could have also simply been divine inspiration from God which the book of Enoch and the Oral tradition had correct (on the particular issue that Jude attests only). The main point here is Jude does not tell us of which source he draws his assertion.

One would have to look at 1 Enoch itself. It is uncertain whether v.. 6 is a direct quote but vs 14-15 are.
1 Enoch 1:91 Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.

Paleouss said:
In other words, Jude, when stating that the angels “kept not their first estate”, is telling the reader that these fallen angels abandoned their original responsibility of authority that had been assigned by God. However, the second offense is not the same as the first.

I agree and have also said the same.

Paleouss said:
In other words, in this second offense these angels left their own residence, habitation, or proper dwelling. This offense is not identical to the other offense found in Jude 1:6 of not keeping one’s post, or domain, or position of authority. The angels in this second offense have left where they normally live (there home). The normal home, dwelling, where angels live is in heaven (whether it be the 3rd heaven or 2nd or 1st). It is not "on earth". So Jude appears to be telling us that these angels left their heavenly state or home and came to earth (not their home).

See post #36

BelieveItOarKnot · Jan 6, 2026

Paleouss said:
Greetings to you BelieveItOarKnot. I hope your week has been a good one.

I agree here. Do you have an opinion on the OP which asks which subject group the ending phrase, "These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown", refers? Subject group #1 or #4? Or do you think #1 and #4 are the same group?

It refers to people. Something to always try to keep in mind though about people in the scriptures is that all have sin and sin is of the devil, so people in scripture (or reality) are never just people.

Paleouss said:
I agree that the ḇə-nê-hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm ("sons of God") in Genesis 6:4 are humans (based on context).

A reasonable conclusion. Technically there are only 3 parties disclosed in scripture. God, people and devils.

Beyond that is pretty well nonsense and unnecessary. It's complicated enough with the basics.

Paleouss said:
However, the idiom 'sons of...' denotes belonging, affiliation, favor, and representation in the Bible.

Adam was a son of God. Do the math from there on who the "sons of God" were and are. Luke 3:38

Paleouss said:
In other words, in this case the subject matter of the idiom is a representative of God; for they are "sons of God". This seems very clear in the Job verses.

Well, that's a nice add on. Since we all technically came from God some sort or portion of us were present prior to. Another interesting observation to add to the mix. And we did not exist as people.

Paleouss said:
So if it is the case that the Job verses should be our guide. Then the reference in Genesis 6 to ḇə-nê-hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm ("sons of God") is in reference to good humans, of God. In no instance do I think evil humans should be considered.

Don't know why excluding any people are necessary. We do have a bad actor and his own in the midst of people who is not a person or people to observe when it comes to evil and sin, and that is our adversary and his messengers.

Paleouss said:
Peace to you brother

Likewise. Pleasure.

Paleouss · Jan 6, 2026

Greetings again sister Arial. Peace and hope to you in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you for you pleasant posts and your reasonable approach.

Paleouss said:
In other words, Jude, when stating that the angels “kept not their first estate”, is telling the reader that these fallen angels abandoned their original responsibility of authority that had been assigned by God. However, the second offense is not the same as the first.

I am trying to make sure we both understand each others position before I make any presentations. My first point of confusion is that in your last post you copied my above quote that basically says that Jude gives two conditions for which these angels were put in everlasting chains. In response to this quote you wrote...

Arial-byGrace said:
I agree and have also said the same.

So I took this to mean that you agree that Jude gives two conditions for which these angels were chained.

But when I go back and refer to your post #36 to another poster (in which you referred me). I see you cleary, at least clear to me, start defining the second condition but then you don't seem to go into what this second conditions means in the practical sense. So let me present a very short definition of both conditions that we can agree or disagree on.

Jude Conditions
(1) ἀρχὴν = domain
(2) οἰκητήριον = dwelling (ESV), habitation (KJV)

The first, "domain", is in reference to the angels assigned position of authority. It is what the angel watches over or has jurisdiction over (if you will) assigned by God. The second, "dwelling", is in reference to the angels natural home, where they live, where they reside. Now each angel has varying assigned positions of authority, however, the natural home where all angels live is in heaven. Domain is a specific assignment of authority while dwelling is a general residence by its nature.

So Jude seems to be saying that these angels were chained because they (1) left their position of authority, AND (2) left where they live by their nature (they live in heaven by nature).

As a reminder so you know the position you are debating against, I want to restate that (1) I hold that the idiom ḇə-nê- hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is referencing humans in Genesis 6:2,4; (2) I hold that Jude is not referring to angels procreating when he writes "strange flesh"; (3) I hold that the book of Enoch has value as a secondary source, uninspired (but as Augustine correctly wrote, contains error); (4) I affirm that scripture teaches that species cannot cross procreate.

Arial-byGrace said:
There is no biblical text or evidence that says fallen angels came in human form either.

Now to your point that you think there is no biblical evidence, we will stick with biblical only, that fallen angels came in human form either. Let me present a start (remember, we agree that sons of God in Genesis 6:2,4 are humans and also agree that angels cannot procreate with human women).

Evidence to work through
(A) The Bible affirms that there is in fact "demons".

A very common position to hold is that "demons" in the Bible are in fact fallen angels (I agree with this). But the problem with this position is how are these "demons" fallen angels if the fallen angels are chained (per a particular reading of Jude and Peter)? The only two reasonable, and biblical, answers for this are these...

(1) The chaining is a "restriction" and not a "total confinement". Therefore the Jude verses are basically only expressing one condition of offense and all those fallen angels were restricted by chains but can still present as evil spirits or demons.

(2) The chaining was a "total confinement" but not all fallen angels were chained (this is my view). This means that some fallen angels were chained and others were not. The chained ones are totally confined, hence why demons don't want to go there. The ones that are not chained are the ones that present as evil spirits and demons.

The problem with option #1 is that there isn't much for one to be confident it is true. It assumes and speculates on to many things, imo. The second however, has more of a trail of clues that is convincing. The main question for #2 is why are there some chained and not others? The answer to that might be found in Jude 1:6. All the fallen angels violated condition #1 but only some of the fallen angels violated condition #2. Hence why some are chained and some not.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)

Arial-byGrace · Jan 6, 2026

Paleouss said:
So I took this to mean that you agree that Jude gives two conditions for which these angels were chained.

But when I go back and refer to your post #36 to another poster (in which you referred me). I see you cleary, at least clear to me, start defining the second condition but then you don't seem to go into what this second conditions means in the practical sense. So

Paleouss said:

A very common position to hold is that "demons" in the Bible are in fact fallen angels (I agree with this). But the problem with this position is how are these "demons" fallen angels if the fallen angels are chained (per a particular reading of Jude and Peter)? The only two reasonable, and biblical, answers for this are these...

(1) The chaining is a "restriction" and not a "total confinement". Therefore the Jude verses are basically only expressing one condition of offense and all those fallen angels were restricted by chains but can still present as evil spirits or demons.

(2) The chaining was a "total confinement" but not all fallen angels were chained (this is my view). This means that some fallen angels were chained and others were not. The chained ones are totally confined, hence why demons don't want to go there. The ones that are not chained are the ones that present as evil spirits and demons.

The problem with option #1 is that there isn't much for one to be confident it is true. It assumes and speculates on to many things, imo. The second however, has more of a trail of clues that is convincing. The main question for #2 is why are there some chained and not others? The answer to that might be found in Jude 1:6. All the fallen angels violated condition #1 but only some of the fallen angels violated condition #2. Hence why some are chained and some not.

Click to expand...

let me present a very short definition of both conditions that we can agree or disagree on.

I don't think it is two conditions. I don't think "domain" and "habitation/dwelling" is necessarily two conditions. They dwelt in their domain. Therefore, when I read you presentation of "domain" I was seeing it as presentation of "dwelling". Whcih is why I referred you back to post 36 when I realized you were distinguishing between the two. I was a bit rushed. Sorry.

Paleouss said:
So Jude seems to be saying that these angels were chained because they (1) left their position of authority, AND (2) left where they live by their nature (they live in heaven by nature).

It does not seem that way to me, though I see how it could. In any case, would it matter since they were locked up in chains? There are no scriptures saying they were ever on the earth in human form. Only obedient angels are show appearing in human form on earth. And really there is no scripture that I can think of that says angels' habitation is only heaven. They are invisible to the human eye because they are spirit beings, but they are there where needed.

Paleouss said:
Evidence to work through
(A) The Bible affirms that there is in fact "demons".

A very common position to hold is that "demons" in the Bible are in fact fallen angels (I agree with this). But the problem with this position is how are these "demons" fallen angels if the fallen angels are chained (per a particular reading of Jude and Peter)? The only two reasonable, and biblical, answers for this are these...

(1) The chaining is a "restriction" and not a "total confinement". Therefore the Jude verses are basically only expressing one condition of offense and all those fallen angels were restricted by chains but can still present as evil spirits or demons.

(2) The chaining was a "total confinement" but not all fallen angels were chained (this is my view). This means that some fallen angels were chained and others were not. The chained ones are totally confined, hence why demons don't want to go there. The ones that are not chained are the ones that present as evil spirits and demons.

The problem with option #1 is that there isn't much for one to be confident it is true. It assumes and speculates on to many things, imo. The second however, has more of a trail of clues that is convincing. The main question for #2 is why are there some chained and not others? The answer to that might be found in Jude 1:6. All the fallen angels violated condition #1 but only some of the fallen angels violated condition #2. Hence why some are chained and some not.

I used to just accept that demons were fallen angels. If they aren't it leaves open the question of, what are they then and where did they come from. But there is more about the spiritual realm that we are not given than there is of what we are given. The secret things belong to God, so I don't speculate where I cannot go. The Bible does not explicitly say demons are fallen angels and I don't think it says enough to blindly think it is implied or inferred. It explicitly says they exist.

You may be right in your evaluation of #2 but I can't say yay or nay. I do no this that in Rev when it speaks of Satan being bound it explicitly states his being bound from doing a certain thing. Deceiving the nations.

BelieveItOarKnot · Jan 7, 2026

JulieB67 said:
It specifically mentioned the angels. But I forgot, context doesn't matter to you.

I don't recall angels having physical intercourse anywhere in the Bible nor do any of your citings

JulieB67 said:
Meaning just as Sodom and Gomorrah, they gave them selves over to fornication going after strange flesh.

I know this is a very difficult matter for you to grasp, but you should be able to reconnoiter that devils inhabit the flesh of people by way of adverse spiritual influences and sinful/lawless thoughts. These actions do not and never have equated to "them" having sexual relationships and bearing half breed offspring.

JulieB67 said:
It's been noted more than a few times in the OT that the sons of God can be angels.

The term "angel" means "messenger." It can apply to holy messengers, wicked messengers, people and God.

None of that means holy or wicked spirits have sexual relations with people. I honestly don't know how people buy into these types of teachings myself. Without a stitch of evidence no less.

Arial-byGrace · Jan 7, 2026

BelieveItOarKnot said:
None of that means holy or wicked spirits have sexual relations with people. I honestly don't know how people buy into these types of teachings myself. Without a stitch of evidence no less.

Because it is dramatic and "interesting" and distracting from doing the real work of pursuing knowing God and the hard work of actual study of the Bible itself growth in Christ? It would make a great movie! full of action and intrigue. And in fact, that has been done in principle more than once.

Paleouss · Jan 7, 2026

Greetings Ariel on this wonderful day God has made. Peace and Truth to you and yours.

Arial-byGrace said:
I don't think it is two conditions.

There are some very respectable scholars that think the same. Maybe through a different path, but ultimately the same.

Arial-byGrace said:
I don't think "domain" and "habitation/dwelling" is necessarily two conditions. They dwelt in their domain. Therefore, when I read you presentation of "domain" I was seeing it as presentation of "dwelling". Whcih is why I referred you back to post 36 when I realized you were distinguishing between the two. I was a bit rushed. Sorry.

I would encourage you to study the use of the term "dominion" within the biblical text and how it is used as authority, rule or stewardship. As three quick examples, Genesis 1:26 "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,". This "dominion" in Gen 1:26 is used as having rule or power or authority over it.

Second example, Colossians 1:16 "whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers". Third example, Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."

The term "domain" focuses on the specific place or area that one rules over while the word "dominion" focuses on the power over that specific place. Both terms are interrelated.

Arial-byGrace said:
Only obedient angels are show appearing in human form on earth.

So you concede that angels can appear in human form on earth (per biblical text)? But you are saying that the biblical text only records obedient angels as doing such, i.e, messengers of God. I would agree....with the excepting of Jude 1:6.

Which would lead to the reasonable conclusion that any angel appearing in physical form on earth, if it were to be the case, without being directed by God would be in defiance of God.

Arial-byGrace said:
And really there is no scripture that I can think of that says angels' habitation is only heaven.

Consider Mark 12:25, "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

Mark here in 12:25 basically says that when we rise from the dead we will be "like angels in heaven". He associates angels and heaven as being together. Now it has to be conceded that it does not explicitly say "angels live in heaven". But it seems to me to be reasonable evidence that angels, who are spiritual beings, live in heaven.

There are a couple other verses but I'll stop there.

Arial-byGrace said:
They are invisible to the human eye because they are spirit beings, but they are there where needed.

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that they are invisible to the human eye. However, to you point. Angles are invisible to the human eye because they are in a spiritual realm, i.e., heaven. Consider this...

(Evidence #1) God created three heavens (Heb 4:14, 2Cor 12:2). One of those heavens, the first heaven, is typically known by biblical scholars to be the immediate atmosphere surrounding the earth, i.e., the air (Gen 6:7, Isa 55:10, Matt 6:26). The third heaven in this concept is known to be the “heaven of heavens” (Deu 10:14, 1King 8:27), the abode of God.

So God created the earth, 1st heaven, 2nd heaven, 3rd heaven.

(Evidence #2) Fallen angels were thrown to earth by Satan (Rev 12:4)

It seems reasonable from evidence #2 to think that one could then expect fallen angels to be on or around the earth, for they were thrown down to it.

(Evidece #3) Satan is described as having dominion or power over the earth (John 5:19). He is the "god of this world" (John 12:31) and "ruler of this world". HOWEVER, Satan is also called the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2).

This "prince of the power of the air" is another title of Satans dominion, rule, or power which is over the 1st heaven (which scholars denote as biblically referring to "the air"). In other words, Satan has dominion over the earth and the 1st heaven.

So using this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that fallen angels, in spiritual form and invisible to the eye, may be "on earth" because they are residing in the 1st heaven, or the "air", which Satan has dominion over (which btw is their proper dwelling, i.e., heaven). In other words, some fallen angels may have left their "domain" be were still able to keep their "own abode" by staying in the 1st heaven in which Satan has dominion...and thereby keep from being chained.

Arial-byGrace said:
I used to just accept that demons were fallen angels.

I think that they are. I could write an essay about this.

Consider this...

angels = spirits&demons (Heb 1:13-14,Matt 12:24-26,Eph 2:2,Psa 104:4,Num 27:16)
demons = spirits (Luke 10:17-20, Matt 8:16, Luke 9:39-42)

If the term angel is used synonymously with spirits and demons (it is)...and if the term demon is used synonymously with spirits (it is)...then angels are in fact the spirits and demons.

Arial-byGrace said:
If they aren't it leaves open the question of, what are they then and where did they come from. But there is more about the spiritual realm that we are not given than there is of what we are given. The secret things belong to God, so I don't speculate where I cannot go. The Bible does not explicitly say demons are fallen angels and I don't think it says enough to blindly think it is implied or inferred. It explicitly says they exist.

See above. I don't think one needs to speculate or wonder. God gives us sufficient clues to have a general idea of who these spirits and demons are (without looking to outside text). The Holy Scripture doesn't go into great detail, but why would one think God would give recognition to the fallen. In other words, the Bible doesn't go into a lot of detail for a reason, imo. But, again imo, it does give us clues so that we might be informed enough to deny any exaggerated claims.

Great conversation
Peace to you sister

JulieB67 · Jan 7, 2026

BelieveItOarKnot said:
I don't recall angels having physical intercourse anywhere in the Bible

The term sons of God is listed in the OT around 5 times whereas sons of men/son of man is listed many times to denote humanity. There is a difference.

Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"

Humans were not here when God first laid the foundation for this earth. These morning stars and sons of God are angels.

As I've already stated many times, verse 1 already states human men were already multiplying, so verse 2 is something altogether different.

Humans -verse 1
Angels verse 2.

BelieveItOarKnot said:
I know this is a very difficult matter for you to grasp, but you should be able to reconnoiter that devils inhabit the flesh of people by way of adverse spiritual influences and sinful/lawless thoughts.

I'm not going down this road again with you where no one is responsible for their own sin and everyone is ultimately saved but the devils. That's not biblical. I've read the back of the book. The devils are not standing in Judgement for us, we are. They are not written in the book of life. So that's not written about them. And you talk about no evidence? At least I base my beliefs on what's written.

Back to the angels, we are made to look like them not, vice versa. "Our image" Which is why the men of Sodom actually wanted to have their way with them. They are not just spirits that invade humans as you believe. And Satan and his angels will be back at some point. So that's what one has to be prepared for in the future if one is here.

And I know this isn't biblical proof for you and others but it is for me and many others as well-

Jude 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 day."

Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

"In like manner giving themselves over to fornication and strange flesh" Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was described as similar in like manner to the angels.

But believe what you will...

Arial-by Grace · Jan 7, 2026

Paleouss said:
The term "domain" focuses on the specific place or area that one rules over while the word "dominion" focuses on the power over that specific place. Both terms are interrelated.

I understand that. What I am saying is that they inhabit that domain and not another domain. They left the domain they were given to inhabit (dwell in). Scripture shows us that holy angels are often sent to earth. And only those God sends to do so. Now, I suppose a case could be made, at least in theory, that the fallen angels came to earth without God's permission and to take up residence. But that would presume that they are autonomous and can do as they please.

This trails off into a bit of a different topic but does relate to what I am saying. One of the key scriptures used to support Satan and a third if the angels being cast down to the earth is Rev 12:4-9. But that requires a rigidly literal interpretation of a book that is composed of apocalyptic symbolism.

And it would directly contradict the assertion that fallen angels came to earth of their own volition. However, both things are asserted by many with an incorrect view if Jude 6 and Gen 6, and a literal interpretation if Rev 12:4-9.

Paleouss said:
So you concede that angels can appear in human form on earth (per biblical text)? But you are saying that the biblical text only records obedient angels as doing such, i.e, messengers of God. I would agree....with the excepting of Jude 1:6.

That is only true if "dwelling" and "domain" are interpreted as two distinct things instead of their dwelling place is where they are given dominion. It is purely interpretive. Do you interpret Rev 12:9 literally? If so then you contradict your own interpretation of Jude 1:6.

Paleouss said:
Which would lead to the reasonable conclusion that any angel appearing in physical form on earth, if it were to be the case, without being directed by God would be in defiance of God.

Sure. But there is no evidence of that in Scripture. An interpretive view of Jude 1:6 does not suffice as evidence when no actual evidence is given.

Paleouss said:
Consider Mark 12:25, "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

Mark here in 12:25 basically says that when we rise from the dead we will be "like angels in heaven". He associates angels and heaven as being together. Now it has to be conceded that it does not explicitly say "angels live in heaven". But it seems to me to be reasonable evidence that angels, who are spiritual beings, live in heaven.

God created earth and all that is in it for humans, as our home, not the home of angels, that is true. Jesus' point was not where angels live however. The fact that earth is not their home, but is ours, does not mean they are not allowed to come to earth. Scripture shows us God sends them here frequently. And we really have no reason to believe they are not always here.

Paleouss said:
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that they are invisible to the human eye. However, to you point. Angles are invisible to the human eye because they are in a spiritual realm, i.e., heaven. Consider this...

Because I can't see them anymore than I can see God, who is also spirit. See 2 Kings 6:17. The reason I cannot see them is not because they are in a spiritual realm (although that too) but because they are spirit beings.

Paleouss said:
(Evidence #1) God created three heavens (Heb 4:14, 2Cor 12:2). One of those heavens, the first heaven, is typically known by biblical scholars to be the immediate atmosphere surrounding the earth, i.e., the air (Gen 6:7, Isa 55:10, Matt 6:26). The third heaven in this concept is known to be the “heaven of heavens” (Deu 10:14, 1King 8:27), the abode of God.

So God created the earth, 1st heaven, 2nd heaven, 3rd heaven.

As far as I am concerned, that is irrelevant to this conversation. Your statement on it will suffice and I don't think will altar my response to what follows.

Paleouss said:
(Evidence #2) Fallen angels were thrown to earth by Satan (Rev 12:4)

It seems reasonable from evidence #2 to think that one could then expect fallen angels to be on or around the earth, for they were thrown down to it.

But wait. I thought you said they were locked up in chains for leaving heaven and coming to earth.

Paleouss said:
(Evidece #3) Satan is described as having dominion or power over the earth (John 5:19). He is the "god of this world" (John 12:31) and "ruler of this world". HOWEVER, Satan is also called the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2).

This too becomes another discussion so I will deal with it separately in detail. I will just say here, that last I checked, Scripture declares the the earth belongs to God and all that is in it. That he is sovereign over it governs it. So the passages you present need to be exegetically dealt with so as not to be presenting a contradiction of this. Which I will do in a reply of its own.

Paleouss said:
So using this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that fallen angels, in spiritual form and invisible to the eye, may be "on earth" because they are residing in the 1st heaven, or the "air", which Satan has dominion over (which btw is their proper dwelling, i.e., heaven). In other words, some fallen angels may have left their "domain" be were still able to keep their "own abode" by staying in the 1st heaven in which Satan has dominion...and thereby keep from being chained.

I can't deal with what is utterly speculation. You yourself concede it is only a "reasonable" conclusion. And it rests on what various scholars and what they have said. What they have said and who they are is not presented but what I have read of it myself is speculation and though I don't recall names they are people I once simply believed because they had been Christians longer than me (this was back when I was new some forty plus years ago). Since that time I have heard the same sources promote much unscriptural teaching. And I have never done my own study on it as I have not found it germaine to understanding anything in Scripture.

Paleouss said:
The Holy Scripture doesn't go into great detail, but why would one think God would give recognition to the fallen. In other words, the Bible doesn't go into a lot of detail for a reason, imo. But, again imo, it does give us clues so that we might be informed enough to deny any exaggerated claims.

If God doesn't, why should we?

JulieB67 · Jan 7, 2026

Arial-byGrace said:
Because it is dramatic and "interesting" and distracting from doing the real work of pursuing knowing God and the hard work of actual study of the Bible itself growth in Christ?

No offense because I know we have different beliefs on this and that's fine -but since you responded to a post directed at me I just wanted to say I don't think it's fair to generalize people you know nothing about because of those different beliefs. And implying no hard work is being done in actual bible study.

I for one left my church over 20 years ago because I was tired of being fed milk sitting on a church pew listening to someone's personal written sermon once a week that had nothing to do with the word of God. And I was being fed false doctrines on top of that.
I left so I could put the hard work of actual study in. And more often than not, going to the Hebrew/Greek as well because much can get lost through translation. I claimed to even call myself a Christian and hadn't even read the bible in it's entirety for the first time until over 20 years ago. I like many others let my church do the teaching. Churches need to teach God's word chapter by chapter and verse by verse -not a few verses surrounded by a personal sermon.

Sorry for the ramble and but again, I don't think it's fair to generalize when you know nothing of a person's journey with the word and God.

Dramatic and interesting? I just want the truth. And I know you and I disagree on that in this matter but it doesn't mean I am seeking something ripe for Hollywood. That's not me at all.

And for the record Hollywood and the bible do not mix and most likely never will. Even the 10 commandments can't get it right without adding something to it.

I'll take my leave and let you guys continue with this.

Sorry OP for going off topic.....

BelieveItOarKnot · Jan 7, 2026

Arial-byGrace said:
Because it is dramatic and "interesting" and distracting from doing the real work of pursuing knowing God and the hard work of actual study of the Bible itself growth in Christ? It would make a great movie! full of action and intrigue. And in fact, that has been done in principle more than once.

Yes, dime store novel stuff for sure. Sensationalism around the coffee table.

Real Bible study though? Nope. No one listening closely.

BelieveItOarKnot · Jan 7, 2026

JulieB67 said:
The term sons of God is listed in the OT around 5 times whereas sons of men/son of man is listed many times to denote humanity. There is a difference.

People are God's children, blind as they are to the fact, church people included who think it's only them and no one else. Adam was God's son, Luke 3:38. Every son after, likewise has the same status. Matt. 23:9, Acts 17:28-29 and a generally accepted fact among orthodoxy in general.

JulieB67 said:
Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for Joy?"

Humans were not here when God first laid the foundation for this earth. These morning stars and sons of God are angels.

Another common misread. IF we are God's children (we are) then we existed in some form or fashion within God before our arrival here. Particulars notwithstanding. We don't have a lot of disclosure about it, other than we are God's children, placed under the elemental tutors of this present world until our appointed times arrive:

Gal. 4:1-3
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

That bondage is being "bound to" the spirit of disobedience in the flesh. That is NOT their natural habitat. They sit as USURPERS in the temple of man, claiming themselves to be GOD. They are liars within mankind. Deceivers, all.

There are your so called "giants." "Nephilim" The biggest nephelim is the Great Red Dragon. A real corker I hear. Running short of time at this point in the narratives. Oh, but if that giant can blame and accuse mankind, for his actions in them, that's where he really shines in his deceptions.

Don't see the need in trying to chase down other boogeymen when the real enemy is looking back at our own faces in the mirror, from his soon to be dust temples. I'm sure it's an unstable life for them to see their homes being constantly destroyed out from under them. But they're probably used to it by now. Always another body to latch on to in the hopper.

JulieB67 said:
where no one is responsible for their own sin

You are merely led to not see the obvious culprit is all. Common form of voided sight. You'd rather blame your fellow mankind and not see the devils in the pictures who would seem to be the most obvious culprits in the scheme of things. The spirits of disobedience that are NOT people, but are located IN people. How many times did Jesus show us this in the Gospels? Thousands of times. 12,000 of them in a single person in one instance.

When Jesus speaks to mankind He speaks to TWO agents. The person, the good things of God, and the enemies, the bad things. But BOTH statements being addressed to OUR FACES.

The devil is involved with all sin. The devil will be held to account for every sin ever committed in mankind and will end up in the LoF because of it.

Accusing the brethren is just a sign of who is in control, and it ain't God's children doing such things.

And fwiw, spiritual fornication is them inserting themselves into PEOPLE.

Paleouss · Jan 8, 2026

Greetings Ariel

Arial-by Grace said:
I understand that. What I am saying is that they inhabit that domain and not another domain. They left the domain they were given to inhabit (dwell in). Scripture shows us that holy angels are often sent to earth. And only those God sends to do so.

Understood

Arial-by Grace said:
Now, I suppose a case could be made, at least in theory, that the fallen angels came to earth without God's permission and to take up residence. But that would presume that they are autonomous and can do as they please.

Autonomous in the sense of God's permissive will, yes. It would seem to be the same reasoning applied to Adam's choice to disobey the law of 'you shall not eat'.

Arial-by Grace said:
This trails off into a bit of a different topic but does relate to what I am saying. One of the key scriptures used to support Satan and a third if the angels being cast down to the earth is Rev 12:4-9. But that requires a rigidly literal interpretation of a book that is composed of apocalyptic symbolism.

It is a verse I am suggesting is evidence of what kind of 'spirits' can be expected 'on earth' that are not their natural habitation. I do concede that the book of Revelation is composted of "apocalyptic symbolism". However, along with other pieces of biblical evidence like the Bible affirming the existence of demons and evil spirits, the possible Jude account, etc. It would seem reasonable to think that the Rev 12:4-9 account may also have some historical information in it as well.

Arial-by Grace said:
And it would directly contradict the assertion that fallen angels came to earth of their own volition

I suppose that would be true if we focus on the 'how they came'. Meaning, technically they were first thrown down by Satan (per Rev 12:4-9). Two points to this however... (A) the option of disobedience was theirs, first. It would seem. (B) After being "thrown down" to earth each angel may have had a choice to remain in their natural abode (the way I have defined it) by staying in the 1st heaven, which is the literal air around us, and manifested as evil spirits and demons (something God allows), or they could have been disobedient and manifested in/on earth (something God chained them for.

Arial-by Grace said:
However, both things are asserted by many with an incorrect view if Jude 6 and Gen 6, and a literal interpretation if Rev 12:4-9.

I agree with this. Here is my opinion...I think this is the enemy, the liar, twisting what actually happened to his benefit and trying to deceive mankind. Again my opinion, but I think the fallen envy mankind for being able to be a vessel of life. Something they were not created to do. I also have wondered about who actually benefits by all the demon names being named in the book of Enoch? God or the enemy? (that's rhetorical, clearly the enemy benefits and that's why the fallen are not named in the Holy Scriptures).

Arial-by Grace said:
That is only true if "dwelling" and "domain" are interpreted as two distinct things instead of their dwelling place is where they are given dominion. It is purely interpretive. Do you interpret Rev 12:9 literally? If so then you contradict your own interpretation of Jude 1:6.

I do interpret is literally, ish. But it is not clear to me that it is a contradiction. Assuming my interpretation of domain is correct, for a second. Some angels decided to disobey God and sided with Satan. To disobey they must leave their assigned domain (area of authority). By willfully leaving their domain and falling under the rule of Satan, they are then "thrown down" to earth (which is now under Satan's authority).

In other words, there are not any angels that were "thrown down" that didn't willfully want to commit the sin of leaving their domain (my definition). They technically had to be willing to leave their domain to be thrown down.

Arial-by Grace said:
Sure. But there is no evidence of that in Scripture. An interpretive view of Jude 1:6 does not suffice as evidence when no actual evidence is given.

Well, the Jude verse as I have interpreted it, is evidence. Just not convincing enough for you. Which is perfectly understandable. On its own, it shouldn't be sufficient for anyone. But I provided other evidence in my post that you don't address in this post.

Arial-by Grace said:
God created earth and all that is in it for humans, as our home, not the home of angels, that is true. Jesus' point was not where angels live however. The fact that earth is not their home, but is ours, does not mean they are not allowed to come to earth. Scripture shows us God sends them here frequently. And we really have no reason to believe they are not always here.

Humans on earth...will be like angels in heaven...when they die. Seems pretty straight forward. Humans are on earth, by natural residence and angels are in heaven, by natural residence.

I had then wrote...

Paleouss said:
So God created the earth, 1st heaven, 2nd heaven, 3rd heaven.

Arial-by Grace said:
As far as I am concerned, that is irrelevant to this conversation. Your statement on it will suffice and I don't think will altar my response to what follows.

Well, the relevant part is that being said to be "on earth" can in fact constitute "earth" and the "1st heaven" if the 1st heaven is in fact the "air" surrounding the earth. This understanding would then be congruent with the statement in Revelation 12:4-9 that angels were thrown down "to earth".

Arial-by Grace said:
But wait. I thought you said they were locked up in chains for leaving heaven and coming to earth.

Please refer to the rest of my post and post #44 to you. It will clear this up.

Arial-by Grace said:
If God doesn't, why should we?

Because God calls us to truth and some have made claims that must be evaluated, discerned, and spoken too. Simply stating that angels cannot procreate with human women may not be sufficient. But if the true story, as far as God will reveal, is pursued and articulated properly, one may be set free from deception. Truth dies in darkness.

Peace to you Arial, my sister in Christ

Arial-byGrace · Jan 8, 2026

JulieB67 said:
No offense because I know we have different beliefs on this and that's fine -but since you responded to a post directed at me I just wanted to say I don't think it's fair to generalize people you know nothing about because of those different beliefs. And implying no hard work is being done in actual bible study.

That is why there were question marks after each sentence when someone ask the question "why". It was not a generalization. Not even a supposition. Punctuation marks are important to pay attention to. They mean something.

JulieB67 said:
Churches need to teach God's word chapter by chapter and verse by verse -not a few verses surrounded by a personal sermon.

JulieB67 said:
I just want the truth.

I agree that pastors should be teaching God's word in context and not pulling a scripture as though it was from nowhere and teaching it as application only, never finding out the meaning first. A great many pastors today are not even qualified to do that or know that it should be done. And I too left the church I was attending to find one that was teaching about God. I had a thirst and a need, and I did not even know what I meant by my heart's cry, "I want to hear about God!" Whatever it was, I couldnt find it in any church I tried. Not because it is in no church, but because I didn't know where to look.

God in his providence and great love and mercy, brought it to me by way of my brother, who God gave to him by way of a fellow Christian who had breakfast every morning in the same coffee shop. It came in the form of a little book by Dr. James Kennedy titled "Truths That Transform". Three sentences in I paused in astonishment saying to myself, "This is about God!" And I knew what my heart and my mind were crying out for. And thus began an intense study into Reformed theology. That is the theology that established the doctrines of the Protestant church as it came to be known, breaking away from the corruption of scripture that had entered the RCC.

The work of many dedicated men used the whole of Scripture to keep everything consistent internally with itself. One stone upon the other, and typically the preaching is done the same way. They hermeneutically and exegetically find the meaning. You can check for yourself (and ChatGPT is a good place to go because I have found them to be mostly accurate in evaluating the Reformed hermeneutical method and you can ask them questions that you might have). Check out the sermons and teachings on You Tube of Voddie Baucham and R.C. Sproul to get an idea on how they teach and preach. Since you say that you just want the truth.

As to that quote above I would have to ask the question concerning our earlier exchanges in this thread. If it is the truth you are after, why did all your responses to me assume you were right and I was wrong, without even considering or engaging with what I put forth? And I don't ask that question assuming that I have the truth and you don't. I ask because you only kept repeating your position without considering mine.

Paleouss · Jan 8, 2026

JulieB67 said:
I for one left my church over 20 years ago because I was tired of being fed milk sitting on a church pew listening to someone's personal written sermon once a week that had nothing to do with the word of God. And I was being fed false doctrines on top of that.
I left so I could put the hard work of actual study in. And more often than not, going to the Hebrew/Greek as well because much can get lost through translation. I claimed to even call myself a Christian and hadn't even read the bible in it's entirety for the first time until over 20 years ago. I like many others let my church do the teaching. Churches need to teach God's word chapter by chapter and verse by verse -not a few verses surrounded by a personal sermon.

Thank you for your testimony, Julie.

Peace to you

JulieB67 · Jan 8, 2026

Arial-byGrace said:
If it is the truth you are after, why did all your responses to me assume you were right and I was wrong, without even considering or engaging with what I put forth?

If I came off that way I am sorry. I thought it was back and forth on both of our parts. Each of us providing what we believe is the context for our beliefs.

JulieB67 · Jan 8, 2026

Arial-byGrace said:
That is why there were question marks after each sentence when someone ask the question "why". It was not a generalization. Not even a supposition. Punctuation marks are important to pay attention to. They mean something.

I realize punctuation is important. But this is what you posted below that I was referring to and I only see one question mark. So no, there was not one after every sentence. So it did feel like you were generalizing but if you weren't then fine, my mistake.

Arial-byGrace said:
Because it is dramatic and "interesting" and distracting from doing the real work of pursuing knowing God and the hard work of actual study of the Bible itself growth in Christ? It would make a great movie! full of action and intrigue. And in fact, that has been done in principle more than once.

Arial-byGrace said:
Arial-byGrace said:

And thus began an intense study into Reformed theology. That is the theology that established the doctrines of the Protestant church as it came to be known, breaking away from the corruption of scripture that had entered the RCC.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you found your way.

Arial-byGrace said:
Check out the sermons and teachings on You Tube of Voddie Baucham and R.C. Sproul to get an idea on how they teach and preach. Since you say that you just want the truth.

Thank you for the suggestions. At this time, I'm very wary of man's word at this point but I'm always willing to check someone out.

Arial-byGrace · Jan 8, 2026

Paleouss said:
Autonomous in the sense of God's permissive will, yes. It would seem to be the same reasoning applied to Adam's choice to disobey the law of 'you shall not eat'.

That isn't autonomous in any sense of the word. That aside, Rev says God threw them to the earth as a punishment. You have indicated you interpret that literally as Satan and one third of the angels being thrown to earth. I don't so my argument here is according to your own stated view. So, which is it?

Paleouss said:
It is a verse I am suggesting is evidence of what kind of 'spirits' can be expected 'on earth' that are not their natural habitation. I do concede that the book of Revelation is composted of "apocalyptic symbolism". However, along with other pieces of biblical evidence like the Bible affirming the existence of demons and evil spirits, the possible Jude account, etc. It would seem reasonable to think that the Rev 12:4-9 account may also have some historical information in it as well.

That response side steps the issue of the contradiction with your interpretation of Jude 1:6. Which is the point I was making.

Paleouss said:
I suppose that would be true if we focus on the 'how they came'. Meaning, technically they were first thrown down by Satan (per Rev 12:4-9). Two points to this however... (A) the option of disobedience was theirs, first. It would seem. (B) After being "thrown down" to earth each angel may have had a choice to remain in their natural abode (the way I have defined it) by staying in the 1st heaven, which is the literal air around us, and manifested as evil spirits and demons (something God allows), or they could have been disobedient and manifested in/on earth (something God chained them for.

As I said the first time the attempt to impose speculation into Scripture in order to maintain the fixed opinion is something I don't deal with. Meaning, I am not going to deal with the speculation as it is futile. It is arguing against/for speculation on the grounds of speculation.

Paleouss said:
Well, the Jude verse as I have interpreted it, is evidence. Just not convincing enough for you. Which is perfectly understandable. On its own, it shouldn't be sufficient for anyone. But I provided other evidence in my post that you don't address in this post.

If your interpretation is wrong it isn't evidence. You can't prove your interpretation is right. You attempt to do so with more speculation of things you cannot prove. That is why I don't address those speculations. See above.

Paleouss said:
Humans on earth...will be like angels in heaven...when they die. Seems pretty straight forward. Humans are on earth, by natural residence and angels are in heaven, by natural residence.

So was Jesus also saying that when we die our natural residence is heaven? Is. 11 and Rev 21 say otherwise. Jesus wasn't talking about where we live or where angels live. He was talking about "Whose wife will she be?" I am sure you are familiar with the setting in which Jesus said that.

Paleouss said:
Well, the relevant part is that being said to be "on earth" can in fact constitute "earth" and the "1st heaven" if the 1st heaven is in fact the "air" surrounding the earth. This understanding would then be congruent with the statement in Revelation 12:4-9 that angels were thrown down "to earth".

Well, in the first place I don't think the Rev passages you refer to are literal. I think they are expressing something far deeper that is literal but this is not the place to rabbit trail off into that. And I am not trying to find a way to fit one scripture Jude1:6 into what I presume and to not be a contradiction to a literal Rev 12:4-9 at the same time.

The third heaven is explicitly mentioned in 2 Cor 12:2 but Paul does not elaborate on what he means by that. Scripture implicitly distinguishes three heavens. It is descriptive. The speculation comes about when one attempts to form a presuppositional interpretation of unrelated passages into an idea in which Scripture never places it.

Paleouss said:
Please refer to the rest of my post and post #44 to you. It will clear this up.

It didn't. Sorry. I know it does for you.

Paleouss said:
Because God calls us to truth and some have made claims that must be evaluated, discerned, and spoken too

Paleouss said:
See above. I don't think one needs to speculate or wonder. God gives us sufficient clues to have a general idea of who these spirits and demons are (without looking to outside text). The Holy Scripture doesn't go into great detail, but why would one think God would give recognition to the fallen. In other words, the Bible doesn't go into a lot of detail for a reason, imo. But, again imo, it does give us clues so that we might be informed enough to deny any exaggerated claims.

To which I replied, "If God doesn't why should we?" In reference to what I marked in red. So, your response in the quote above this one is not really dealing with what I was responding to.

However, all I have been doing is evaluating your claims and showing from Scripture where I find them wanting as to being scripturally confirmed or confirmable.

Arial-byGrace · Jan 8, 2026

JulieB67 said:
I realize punctuation is important. But this is what you posted below that I was referring to and I only see one question mark. So no, there was not one after every sentence. So it did feel like you were generalizing but if you weren't then fine, my mistake.

My oversight. there was only one question. The rest was commentary, obviously, and though it may not be true of you, it is of some. I have listened to them on other threads on this subject and their interaction is almost exclusively on this subject.

JulieB67 said:
Thank you for the suggestions. At this time, I'm very wary of man's word at this point but I'm always willing to check someone out.

Men wrote the Bible. And though there is no new inspired writing, that does not mean that everything that is being taught by men is wrong. That is for the hearer to check for themselves from the Scripture. You might be wrong too (not a personal you).

But I did not suggest those two particular preachers/teachers for you to listen to in order to sway you towards any particular teaching. I gave them to you to watch and hear to see if their approach to preaching and teaching is more in line with what you think pastors should handle the word of God. IOW not to what they teach (though I think is good because I aways check it against Scripture) but how they teach. But suit yourself.

One of my all-time favorites is by Voddie (may he rest in peace) Bachaum's, The Rescuer. It is an older one but really powerful.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

What does Genesis 6:4 Actually Say?

Active Member

Active Member

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Active Member

Active Member

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads