I'm still wondering what changes if this is the case? I'm all for discussion & learning, I just don't understand why the distinction is so important?
Exactly what changes by the knowledge of them being demons rather than fallen angels? Are they fought with differently or what?
Also, I haven't seen any proof in the threads I read that they were demons rather than fallen angels; did someone have biblical proof of this? If so, can it be reposted?
If they aren't fallen angels, did God create these separately or what?
Hello.....
What one reason for the debate is that an extra Biblical writing called
the Book of Enoch, decribes the demons as being the spirits born of the reproduction between angels and men in Genesis 6.
The Book of Enoch appears to have been quoted from by the Apostles in certain passages. So, some here assume that the Book of Enoch passes the test of inerrancy.
Problem is. The reasons for passages that do appear to be quoting from the Book of Enoch were not credited to this writing. For all we know, the Book of Enoch could have been the result of a man compiling truths passed down by oral tradition from the time of the flood, and this writer simply added his own opinions in what was commonly accepted in the days of the Apostles. For, the Apostles make such statements as if it were common knowledge in their day.
As for your question concerning man? It was mentioned in an earlier post. God in Genesis 6, calls the hybrid offspring between angels and women,
"man."
Genesis 6:1-5 New American Standard Bible
"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
We are called "man" because we have a soul. Angels are called angels, because they have a spirit.
The body is not what determines one to be a man. Its the soul.
Take a man and put him on steroids, or graft in certain genes of an ape. Because he has a soul, he is still a man in his soul. Maybe a strange man. But, a man none the less.
It was the soul that was created in God's image. The body for that soul to live in, was produced for the soul
after the soul was already created, in Genesis 1:27.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. "
The Hebrew word used here for
'create' is 'BARA.' When used in the action of God, it is an unusual word which is often times is used to imply creating
'out from nothing.' This creation called
'man' was created (BARA) by God, and called "MAN."
In the next chapter we do not see 'BARA' being used for Adam's body. For the body for the soul to live in, was not created
'out from nothing.'
It was rather,
'formed and molded' (YATSAR) from the already existing elements of the earth. God then breathed the previously created soul into that body, and it became a soul living (in time and space).
In Genesis 6 angels and women may have produced a new type of body. But what lived in that body were souls, not spirits. For God refers to this hybrid offspring as "man." Man is soul. Angel is spirit.
That! Is the Scriptural clue, that some miss. Those who see the offspring as being spirits. later to be called demons. But, God would have not called them
'man' if that were the case.
A man and woman may sexually reproduce a body. But, its God who creates the soul for that body. That is why God is our true Father.
Now, if God had imputed spirits to those hybrid bodies in Genesis 6? He would have not called what was produced,
'MAN."
If those who propose that demons are the spirits of those who died in the flood? Then they would need to be called,
'unclean souls.' That is where they err.
We should no more take the Book of Enoch as being inerrant than we do the the Apocrypha. Its helpful in sections to gain insight of the thinking of its day it was written. But, it was commentary. Not direct revelation. In the past I have found errors in the book that contradicted Scripture, and posted it in this forum quite some time ago.
BOE was not a direct revelation from God. Yet, it is helpful. For it did record legitimate insights which were known in its day.