-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sons Of God
- Thread starter gheetam
- Start date
- Status
Ebed-Yahweh
YAHWEH's Witness
MbiaJc said:
That could be true, but on what do you base this belief?
KJV Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
KJV Mark 12:25 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.
KJV Luke 20:35-36
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
According to Yahshua, "the angels in heaven" do not marry, but this does not necessarily imply they are without gender. Even so, those "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 1:6) may have received or chosen a gender when they were manifested in physical bodies. Although angels may be without gender in their pure and spiritual forms, they may very well possess the power to shapeshift into the semblance of men or women in the corporeal world.
Upvote
0
D
Deep_MindQuest
Guest
[font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]Sons of God, Daughters of Men[/font]
[font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif][/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.
When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of size and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to their superhuman prowess. When Joshua's spies reported back from Canaan, they called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants." "And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
Some commentators have speculated that the Nephilim of Numbers 13 belonged to a second eruption of fallen angels, since the earlier Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood. And they see an allusion to this in Genesis 6:4, where it states that "there were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Could it be that the "after that" was a reference to the Nephilim found in Canaan during the Israelite entry into the land? If so, it could explain why the Lord commanded the total extermination of the Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near annihilation of the human race.
NEPHILIM -- NO RESURRECTION
The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29).
We have already seen that the Greek Version of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) translated "Nephilim" as "gegenes;" we shall now inquire how it translates "sons of God." In some of the manuscripts it is left as "sons of God," but in the others-- including the Alexandrian text--it is rendered by the word "angelos." This text was in existence in the time of Christ, but there is no indication that He ever corrected or queried it. Can we not assume from His silence that He agreed with the translation!
RAPE OF THE TEXT
Having studied all the arguments in favor of "sons of Seth," one concludes that the only argument that is valid among them is that of rationality. "Sons of Seth" is an interpretation that is more palatable to human reason. Reason can never subscribe to the incredible notion that fallen angels could have seex relations with women of Earth. Angels have no physical bodies! They do not marry! They belong to an entirely different species of being! The mind revolts against such absurdity. So, what does one do? Settle, of course, for an easy, rational interpretation--sons of Seth and daughters of Cain. But what if the meaning of Scripture is clearly otherwise? There is the rub! Scripture is clearly otherwise! To impose a human interpretation at the expense of the obvious meaning of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text. Furthermore, when one deals with the world of the supernatural, rationality is never an argument.
JEWISH AND PATRISTIC FATHERS
The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:
"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)
Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)
Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)
The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)
Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)
Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the seeexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated.
THE ULTIMATE SIN
God made man in His own image, the highest of all His earthly creations. While God said that everything He made was good, He considered man very good. Man had been made for fellowship with God Himself, but he soon turned his back upon his Maker and worshipped the creature more than the Creator. Before many generations, the human race was being polluted by this abominable union with demons. It seemed that Hell and Earth were in league together against the God of Heaven. God's righteous anger was such that He regretted having made man.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man. ..."(Genesis 6:5-6)
It was specifically because of this ultimate sin that God brought about a deluge of such magnitude that man and beast were drowned from the face of the Earth. In the words of old Joseph Hall:
"The world was so grown foul with sin, that God saw it was time to wash it with a flood: and so close did wickedness cleave to the authors of it, that when they were washed to nothing, yet it would not wash off, yea, so deep did it stick in the very grain of the earth, that God saw it meet to let it soak long under the waters." (14)
WAS NOAH IMMUNE?
Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from this great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man." He stood out as an example of righteousness and godliness in a perverse age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with God." But there was another reason why Noah was spared, one that seems to have escaped most commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was "perfect in his generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual perfection? Hardly. Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection. What, then, does the Bible mean by calling him "perfect"? The Hebrew word is "tamiym" and comes from the root word "taman." This means "without blemish" as in Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as the sacrificial lamb had to be without any physical blemish, so Noah's perfection. In its primary meaning, it refers not to any moral or spiritual quality, but to physical purity. Noah was uncontaminated by the alien invaders.
He alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. (15)
And again:
Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)
This implies, of course, that all the other families on Earth had been contaminated by the Nephilim. It also proves that the assault of Satan on the human race had been far more extensive than realized. It is no wonder that God pronounced such a universal fiat of judgment.
As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God put them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted as Tartarus or the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also explain why some fallen angels are in custody and why others are free to roam the heavens and torment mankind.
Such a drastic punishment, both for men and angels, presupposed a drastic sin, something infinitely more evil and more sinister than mixed marriages. It was nothing less than the demonic realm attempting to pervert the human world. By genetic control and the production of hybrids, Satan was out to rob God of the people He had made for Himself.
If Satan had succeeded in corrupting the human race, he would have hindered the coming of the perfect Son of God, the promised "seed of the woman," who would defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Genesis 3:15). If Satan had by any means prevented that birth, he would obviously have averted his own doom. Satan did succeed to a large extent. It was for this reason that God drowned mankind in the Deluge.
ARE ANGELS SeeEXLESS?
Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.
Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in seeexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even seeexual activity and fathering children.
The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are seeexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair." (18)
Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be seeexless. The Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be unseeexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.
DEMONS AT LARGE
One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus with "everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have been operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active during the ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day. Following this reasoning, some share the conclusion of Kent Philpott:
However one might wish to interpret Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage with the verses in 2 Peter and Jude seems to post far more problems than it would solve. But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the rebellious angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons are described as functioning in the New Testament. (19)
But Philpott failed to see that there are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer, and who are still free to torment mankind; and those who fell the second time by committing carnal acts with the daughters of men. The spirits in this second category are those chained in the nether regions.
It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than fallen angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after the "daughters of men," many were imprisoned by God. Both the near annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed. By such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity worse than the physical death originally imposed upon them.[/font]
[font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif][/font][font=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.
When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of size and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to their superhuman prowess. When Joshua's spies reported back from Canaan, they called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants." "And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
Some commentators have speculated that the Nephilim of Numbers 13 belonged to a second eruption of fallen angels, since the earlier Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood. And they see an allusion to this in Genesis 6:4, where it states that "there were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Could it be that the "after that" was a reference to the Nephilim found in Canaan during the Israelite entry into the land? If so, it could explain why the Lord commanded the total extermination of the Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near annihilation of the human race.
NEPHILIM -- NO RESURRECTION
The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29).
We have already seen that the Greek Version of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) translated "Nephilim" as "gegenes;" we shall now inquire how it translates "sons of God." In some of the manuscripts it is left as "sons of God," but in the others-- including the Alexandrian text--it is rendered by the word "angelos." This text was in existence in the time of Christ, but there is no indication that He ever corrected or queried it. Can we not assume from His silence that He agreed with the translation!
RAPE OF THE TEXT
Having studied all the arguments in favor of "sons of Seth," one concludes that the only argument that is valid among them is that of rationality. "Sons of Seth" is an interpretation that is more palatable to human reason. Reason can never subscribe to the incredible notion that fallen angels could have seex relations with women of Earth. Angels have no physical bodies! They do not marry! They belong to an entirely different species of being! The mind revolts against such absurdity. So, what does one do? Settle, of course, for an easy, rational interpretation--sons of Seth and daughters of Cain. But what if the meaning of Scripture is clearly otherwise? There is the rub! Scripture is clearly otherwise! To impose a human interpretation at the expense of the obvious meaning of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text. Furthermore, when one deals with the world of the supernatural, rationality is never an argument.
JEWISH AND PATRISTIC FATHERS
The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:
"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)
Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)
Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)
The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)
Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)
Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the seeexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated.
THE ULTIMATE SIN
God made man in His own image, the highest of all His earthly creations. While God said that everything He made was good, He considered man very good. Man had been made for fellowship with God Himself, but he soon turned his back upon his Maker and worshipped the creature more than the Creator. Before many generations, the human race was being polluted by this abominable union with demons. It seemed that Hell and Earth were in league together against the God of Heaven. God's righteous anger was such that He regretted having made man.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man. ..."(Genesis 6:5-6)
It was specifically because of this ultimate sin that God brought about a deluge of such magnitude that man and beast were drowned from the face of the Earth. In the words of old Joseph Hall:
"The world was so grown foul with sin, that God saw it was time to wash it with a flood: and so close did wickedness cleave to the authors of it, that when they were washed to nothing, yet it would not wash off, yea, so deep did it stick in the very grain of the earth, that God saw it meet to let it soak long under the waters." (14)
WAS NOAH IMMUNE?
Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from this great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man." He stood out as an example of righteousness and godliness in a perverse age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with God." But there was another reason why Noah was spared, one that seems to have escaped most commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was "perfect in his generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual perfection? Hardly. Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection. What, then, does the Bible mean by calling him "perfect"? The Hebrew word is "tamiym" and comes from the root word "taman." This means "without blemish" as in Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as the sacrificial lamb had to be without any physical blemish, so Noah's perfection. In its primary meaning, it refers not to any moral or spiritual quality, but to physical purity. Noah was uncontaminated by the alien invaders.
He alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. (15)
And again:
Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)
This implies, of course, that all the other families on Earth had been contaminated by the Nephilim. It also proves that the assault of Satan on the human race had been far more extensive than realized. It is no wonder that God pronounced such a universal fiat of judgment.
As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God put them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted as Tartarus or the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also explain why some fallen angels are in custody and why others are free to roam the heavens and torment mankind.
Such a drastic punishment, both for men and angels, presupposed a drastic sin, something infinitely more evil and more sinister than mixed marriages. It was nothing less than the demonic realm attempting to pervert the human world. By genetic control and the production of hybrids, Satan was out to rob God of the people He had made for Himself.
If Satan had succeeded in corrupting the human race, he would have hindered the coming of the perfect Son of God, the promised "seed of the woman," who would defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Genesis 3:15). If Satan had by any means prevented that birth, he would obviously have averted his own doom. Satan did succeed to a large extent. It was for this reason that God drowned mankind in the Deluge.
ARE ANGELS SeeEXLESS?
Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.
Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in seeexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even seeexual activity and fathering children.
The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are seeexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair." (18)
Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be seeexless. The Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be unseeexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.
DEMONS AT LARGE
One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus with "everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have been operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active during the ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day. Following this reasoning, some share the conclusion of Kent Philpott:
However one might wish to interpret Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage with the verses in 2 Peter and Jude seems to post far more problems than it would solve. But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the rebellious angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons are described as functioning in the New Testament. (19)
But Philpott failed to see that there are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer, and who are still free to torment mankind; and those who fell the second time by committing carnal acts with the daughters of men. The spirits in this second category are those chained in the nether regions.
It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than fallen angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after the "daughters of men," many were imprisoned by God. Both the near annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed. By such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity worse than the physical death originally imposed upon them.[/font]
Upvote
0
I actually believe the passage to be a narrative commentary on a later practice of the canaanites, namely, the fertility cult. You remember the concept of a "cult prostitute," I presume. Women would be at these shrines, men would have sex with them, and the idea was that it was actually the god having sex with the woman, bribing him to keep the ground fertile with her own fertility. Similar phenomena are known from temple wall-reliefs in Egypt.
Now, the narrative in genesis seems to be just that idea, taken, transformed into a narrative framework, and assigned as the reason for the flood.
Consult Gordon Wenham's Genesis 1-15 [word biblical commentary] Waco:WBC, 19**.
Now, the narrative in genesis seems to be just that idea, taken, transformed into a narrative framework, and assigned as the reason for the flood.
Consult Gordon Wenham's Genesis 1-15 [word biblical commentary] Waco:WBC, 19**.
Upvote
0
D
Deep_MindQuest
Guest
GENESIS 6 - WHO WERE "THE SONS OF GOD"?
[size=+1]There has been much speculation about who these "sons of God" mentioned in the sixth chapter of Genesis were. Three basic interpretations of this passage have been advanced.
The first, and oldest, belief is that "the sons of God" were fallen angels who consorted with human women, producing giant offspring called nephilim (Heb. נפלים
. This view was widely held in the world of the first century, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus.
The second view is one which was first suggested by Julius Africanus and later advocated by Saint Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. Augustine rejected the concept of the fallen host having committed fornication with women. In his early fifth century book The City of God, he promoted the theory that "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God," and the female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men." He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, intermingling the bloodlines and corrupting the pure religion. This view has become the dominant one among most modern biblical scholars.
The third view is that "the sons of God" were the sons of pre-Flood rulers or magistrates. This belief became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism after Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai pronounced a curse in the second century C.E. upon those Jews who believed the common teaching that the angels were responsible for the nephilim. This interpretation was advocated by two of the most respected Jewish rabbis of the Middle Ages, Rashi and Nachmanides, and became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism. However, it is not widely accepted by modern scholars.
To determine who these "sons of God" were, we'll first examine what various outside sources have to say about this topic. Then we'll examine the ultimate authority, the Bible, to see its position.
Let's start with a quotation and footnote from William Whitson's translation of the respected first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' history of the Jewish people:
[size=+1]As you can see, Josephus believed and recorded that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. As Whitson's footnote acknowledges, this belief was standard in the ancient world.
Another well-known first century Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria, shared Josephus' views on this topic. In his work "On the Giants," Philo wrote:
The Book of Enoch (also called I Enoch) is a collection of pseudepigraphic writings by various authors which dates to the first or second century B.C. This book was well-known by the early church; in fact, Jude, the brother of Jesus, quoted Enoch 1:9 in verses 14 and 15 of his epistle. Obviously Jude felt that the Book of Enoch he had access to in the first century was trustworthy. This work, which survived to our day against great odds, deals extensively with the fall of the angels. It was viewed favorably by some early "Christian" writers also (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others). However, it was never universally accepted as inspired Scripture. Below is a selection from the Book of Enoch which records the sin of the angelic "watchers":
[size=+1]A similar passage is also found in the pseudepigraphic Book of Jubilees:[/size]
[size=+1]The Genesis Apocryphon, one of the texts uncovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, also contains references to the angels interbreeding with human women. In this text, a conversation between Lamech, the father of Noah, and his wife Bathenosh is detailed. Lamech questions his wife because he thinks that the conception of Noah was due to either an angel or one of their offspring, a nephilim. The Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon all clearly show that the common understanding at the time of Christ was that the fallen host had committed fornication with women in the period before the flood.
As stated previously, many early Christian writers accepted the story told in Enoch as fact. Let's examine the writings of two of them, beginning with Justin Martyr, who lived from 110 C.E. to 165 C.E. Here is what he had to say in chapter 5 of his Second Apology, entitled ""How the Angels Transgressed":
Now let's examine chapter 3, "The Worship of Demons," from The Instructions of Commodianus, a North-African bishop who lived about 240 C.E.:
The idea that the nephilim or giants were the offspring of the fallen host and human females was not unique to Judaism. This understanding was likely behind the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythologies, as well as those of India and the near east. All these beliefs resulted not as mere inventions of fertile human imagination, but as a corruption of antediluvian truths which were distorted as their origin was forgotten over time.
Take, for example, the legend of the Titans. In Greek mythology, the Titans were a family of giant gods who were the offspring of Uranus (heaven) and Gaea (earth). The most famous of the Titans was Cronus, who killed his father. Cronus later led the Titans in their losing war against Zeus and the Olympian gods. After their defeat, the Titans were imprisoned in a section of the underworld called Tartarus.
In his second epistle, the apostle Peter uses part of this Greek myth to explain the fate of some of the fallen angels. He states that for their sins, these angels had been tartarosas, which The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament translates literally as "confining them to Tartarus" (also known in the Bible as "the Abyss").
[size=+1]This is the same Tartarus where Greek mythology says the Titans were imprisoned. It's highly unlikely that Peter would have used such an analogy if this pagan legend wasn't based on at least some grain of truth which his readers would have knowledge of. The idea that evil angels mated with human women and had offspring (the nephilim) appears far-fetched to us in this modern era, but it seems to have been widely accepted as fact in the ancient world.
As we've seen above, the word translated "giants" in Genesis 6:4 is nephilim. Let's look at what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has to say about the possible origins of this Hebrew word:
[size=+1]The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew term nephilim as gigantes, which literally means "earth-born." This is often misunderstood to mean "giants" - which the nephilim apparently were also. From the sources we've just examined, it's readily apparent that the general understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 at the time of Christ was that the angels had sinned by committing fornication with human women. But does the Bible support this theory? part 2 ~~>
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=+1]GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants 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.[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]There has been much speculation about who these "sons of God" mentioned in the sixth chapter of Genesis were. Three basic interpretations of this passage have been advanced.
The first, and oldest, belief is that "the sons of God" were fallen angels who consorted with human women, producing giant offspring called nephilim (Heb. נפלים
. This view was widely held in the world of the first century, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus. The second view is one which was first suggested by Julius Africanus and later advocated by Saint Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. Augustine rejected the concept of the fallen host having committed fornication with women. In his early fifth century book The City of God, he promoted the theory that "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God," and the female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men." He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, intermingling the bloodlines and corrupting the pure religion. This view has become the dominant one among most modern biblical scholars.
The third view is that "the sons of God" were the sons of pre-Flood rulers or magistrates. This belief became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism after Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai pronounced a curse in the second century C.E. upon those Jews who believed the common teaching that the angels were responsible for the nephilim. This interpretation was advocated by two of the most respected Jewish rabbis of the Middle Ages, Rashi and Nachmanides, and became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism. However, it is not widely accepted by modern scholars.
To determine who these "sons of God" were, we'll first examine what various outside sources have to say about this topic. Then we'll examine the ultimate authority, the Bible, to see its position.
Let's start with a quotation and footnote from William Whitson's translation of the respected first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' history of the Jewish people:
[size=+1]Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed to them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, for many angels* of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and, being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better; but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.[/size] (p. 32, bk. 1, ch. 3, §§72-74, The Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whitson) * This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.
[size=+1]As you can see, Josephus believed and recorded that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. As Whitson's footnote acknowledges, this belief was standard in the ancient world.
Another well-known first century Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria, shared Josephus' views on this topic. In his work "On the Giants," Philo wrote:
[size=+1]"And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all them whom they chose." Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels . . . [/size](p. 152, The Works of Philo, "On the Giants," translated by C.D. Yonge)
The Book of Enoch (also called I Enoch) is a collection of pseudepigraphic writings by various authors which dates to the first or second century B.C. This book was well-known by the early church; in fact, Jude, the brother of Jesus, quoted Enoch 1:9 in verses 14 and 15 of his epistle. Obviously Jude felt that the Book of Enoch he had access to in the first century was trustworthy. This work, which survived to our day against great odds, deals extensively with the fall of the angels. It was viewed favorably by some early "Christian" writers also (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others). However, it was never universally accepted as inspired Scripture. Below is a selection from the Book of Enoch which records the sin of the angelic "watchers":
[size=+1]ENOCH 6:1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon . . .[/size] (From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, translated by R.H. Charles)
[size=+1]A similar passage is also found in the pseudepigraphic Book of Jubilees:[/size]
[size=+1]JUBILEES 5:1 And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they 2 chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth - all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men 3 (was) thus evil continually . . .[/size] (From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, translated by R.H. Charles)
[size=+1]The Genesis Apocryphon, one of the texts uncovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, also contains references to the angels interbreeding with human women. In this text, a conversation between Lamech, the father of Noah, and his wife Bathenosh is detailed. Lamech questions his wife because he thinks that the conception of Noah was due to either an angel or one of their offspring, a nephilim. The Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon all clearly show that the common understanding at the time of Christ was that the fallen host had committed fornication with women in the period before the flood.
As stated previously, many early Christian writers accepted the story told in Enoch as fact. Let's examine the writings of two of them, beginning with Justin Martyr, who lived from 110 C.E. to 165 C.E. Here is what he had to say in chapter 5 of his Second Apology, entitled ""How the Angels Transgressed":
[size=+1]God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law - for these things also He evidently made for man - committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . .[/size] (p. 363, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Now let's examine chapter 3, "The Worship of Demons," from The Instructions of Commodianus, a North-African bishop who lived about 240 C.E.:
[size=+1]When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods.[/size] (p. 435, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
The idea that the nephilim or giants were the offspring of the fallen host and human females was not unique to Judaism. This understanding was likely behind the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythologies, as well as those of India and the near east. All these beliefs resulted not as mere inventions of fertile human imagination, but as a corruption of antediluvian truths which were distorted as their origin was forgotten over time.
Take, for example, the legend of the Titans. In Greek mythology, the Titans were a family of giant gods who were the offspring of Uranus (heaven) and Gaea (earth). The most famous of the Titans was Cronus, who killed his father. Cronus later led the Titans in their losing war against Zeus and the Olympian gods. After their defeat, the Titans were imprisoned in a section of the underworld called Tartarus.
In his second epistle, the apostle Peter uses part of this Greek myth to explain the fate of some of the fallen angels. He states that for their sins, these angels had been tartarosas, which The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament translates literally as "confining them to Tartarus" (also known in the Bible as "the Abyss").
[size=+1]II PETER 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell [tartarosas] and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]This is the same Tartarus where Greek mythology says the Titans were imprisoned. It's highly unlikely that Peter would have used such an analogy if this pagan legend wasn't based on at least some grain of truth which his readers would have knowledge of. The idea that evil angels mated with human women and had offspring (the nephilim) appears far-fetched to us in this modern era, but it seems to have been widely accepted as fact in the ancient world.
As we've seen above, the word translated "giants" in Genesis 6:4 is nephilim. Let's look at what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has to say about the possible origins of this Hebrew word:
[size=+1]The etymology of nepîlîm is uncertain, the following explanations have been advanced with mixed reception. First, it may derive from the niphal of the verb pala, meaning "be extraordinary," i.e., "extraordinary men." Second, it may be derived from the verb napal, "fall," in one of the following senses: (1) the "fallen ones" - from heaven, i.e., supernatural beings; (2) morally "fallen men"; (3) "those who fall upon," in the sense of invaders or hostile, violent men; (4) "those who fell by" the sword (cf. Ezk. 32:20f.); (5) "unnaturally begotten men" or *******s (from cf. nepel, "abortion" or miscarriage").[/size] (pp. 518-519, vol. 3)
[size=+1]The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew term nephilim as gigantes, which literally means "earth-born." This is often misunderstood to mean "giants" - which the nephilim apparently were also. From the sources we've just examined, it's readily apparent that the general understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 at the time of Christ was that the angels had sinned by committing fornication with human women. But does the Bible support this theory? part 2 ~~>
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]
Upvote
0
D
Deep_MindQuest
Guest
First, let's look at all of the Old Testament references to "sons of God." This phrase is translated from the Hebrew beney 'elohim [ בני אלהים ], beney ha'elohim [ בני האלהים ], and beney 'elim [ בני אלים ]:
[size=+1]Now let's examine what Jude said about the fallen angels in the New Testament:[/size]
Because of the punctuation of verse 7, this Scripture appears to say that Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the cities around them, gave themselves over to sexual immorality. However, the underlying Greek text does not support this interpretation. Kenneth Wuest writes of verse 7:
[size=+1]The underlying Greek text indicates that the fallen angels left their own domain and indulged in sexual immorality, going after "strange," or "other" flesh. The KJV obscures this fact, probably because the view that the fallen angels were "the sons of God" spoken of in Genesis 6:2, 4 was not accepted when it was translated in 1611. However, some translations do more clearly show the meaning of this passage. The New English Bible better presents what Jude was saying:
[size=+1]It's clear that Jude wrote of the fornication of the angels as a fact. In verse 7 of his epistle, he compares the sexual wickedness in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities to the sin of the angels.
The nature of the angels' fall is also clearly stated in Jude 6, where it is said that they left their own "abode" (Gr. oiketerion). This word occurs in the New Testament only here and in II Corinthians 5:2, where it is used of the spiritual body of a resurrected saint.[/size]
[/size][/size]
[size=+1]GENESIS 6:1 When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the divine beings [beney ha'elohim] saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. 3 The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years." 4 It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth when the divine beings [beney ha'elohim] cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.[/size] (Tanakh, the new Jewish Publication Society translation according to the traditional Hebrew text)
[size=+1]DEUTERONOMY 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [beney 'elohim].[/size] (RSV)
[size=+1]JOB 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them.[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]JOB 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]JOB 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [beney 'elohim] shouted for joy?[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]PSALM 29:1 O give the Lord you sons of God [beney 'elim], give the Lord glory and power; 2 give the Lord the glory of his name. Adore the Lord in his holy court.[/size] (The Psalms: A New Translation)
[size=+1]PSALM 89:5 The heavens proclaim your wonders, O Lord; the assembly of your holy ones proclaims your truth. 6 For who in the skies can compare with the Lord or who is like the Lord among the sons of God [beney 'elim]?[/size] (The Psalms: A New Translation)
[size=+1]As you can see, each reference above is to angels. There are no instances in the Old Testament where the phrase "sons of God" refers to men. Let's see what E.W. Bullinger has to say about these "sons of God" in Appendix 23 to The Companion Bible:[/size] [size=+1]"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 (2 Cor. 5.17; Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1.13; Rom. 8.14, 15; 1 John 3.1). 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.). We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.4 in any other sense. Moreover in Gen. 6.2 the Sept. renders it "angels".[/size] (pp. 26, 27, Companion Bible Appendixes)
[size=+1]Now let's look at Genesis 6:9, which discusses Noah's genealogy. This Scripture is further proof that fallen angels had interbred with humans. [/size]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 (2 Cor. 5.17; Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1.13; Rom. 8.14, 15; 1 John 3.1). 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.). We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.4 in any other sense. Moreover in Gen. 6.2 the Sept. renders it "angels".[/size] (pp. 26, 27, Companion Bible Appendixes)
[size=+1]GENESIS 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect [tamim] in his generations. Noah walked with God.[/size] (NKJV)
In Genesis 6:9, the Hebrew word tamim, here translated "perfect," means "physically without blemish." As the first sentence makes clear, it's referring to the genealogy of Noah; it does not refer to moral perfection. Below is what Appendix 26 of The Companion Bible has to say about this word as used in verse 9 of Genesis 6: [size=+1]The Heb. 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 Ex. 12.5; 29.1; Lev. 1.3, 10; 3.1, 6; 4.3, 23, 28, 32; 5.12, 18; 6.6; 9.2, 3; 14.10; 22.19; 23.12, 18; Num. 6.14; 28.19, 31; 29.2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36; Ezek. 43.22, 23, 25; 45.18, 23; 46.4, 6, 13.
Without spot: Num. 19.2; 28.3, 9, 11; 29.17, 26.
Undefiled: Ps. 119.1. This shows that Gen. 6.9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection . . .[/size] (p. 28, Companion Bible Appendixes)
Without spot: Num. 19.2; 28.3, 9, 11; 29.17, 26.
Undefiled: Ps. 119.1. This shows that Gen. 6.9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection . . .[/size] (p. 28, Companion Bible Appendixes)
[size=+1]Now let's examine what Jude said about the fallen angels in the New Testament:[/size]
[size=+1]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. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.[/size] (KJV)
Because of the punctuation of verse 7, this Scripture appears to say that Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the cities around them, gave themselves over to sexual immorality. However, the underlying Greek text does not support this interpretation. Kenneth Wuest writes of verse 7:
[size=+1]This verse begins with hos, an adverb of comparison having meanings of "in the same manner as, after the fashion of, as, just as." Here it introduces a comparison showing a likeness between the angels of verse 6 and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha of this verse. But the likeness between them lies deeper than the fact that both were guilty of committing sin. It extends to the fact that both were guilty of the same identical sin. The punctuation of the A.V. [KJV] is misleading, as an examination of Greek text discloses. The A.V. punctuation gives the reader the impression that Sodom and Gomorrha committed fornication and that the cities about them committed fornication in like manner to the two cities named. . . . The words "in like manner" are related to the verbal forms, "giving themselves over to fornication" and "going after strange flesh." In addition to all this, the Greek text has toutois, "to these." Thus, the translation should read, "just as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them, in like manner to these, having given themselves over to fornication and having gone after strange flesh." The sense of the entire passage (vv.6, 7) is that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them, in like manner to these (the angels), have given themselves over to fornication and have gone after strange flesh. That means that the sin of the fallen angels was fornication.[/size] (pp. 241-242, vol. II, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament)
[size=+1]The underlying Greek text indicates that the fallen angels left their own domain and indulged in sexual immorality, going after "strange," or "other" flesh. The KJV obscures this fact, probably because the view that the fallen angels were "the sons of God" spoken of in Genesis 6:2, 4 was not accepted when it was translated in 1611. However, some translations do more clearly show the meaning of this passage. The New English Bible better presents what Jude was saying:
[size=+1]JUDE 6 Remember too the angels, how some of them were not content to keep the dominion given to them but abandoned their proper home; and God has reserved them for judgement on the great Day, bound beneath the darkness in everlasting chains. 7 Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and followed unnatural lusts; and they paid the penalty in eternal fire, an example for all to see.[/size] (NEB)
[size=+1]It's clear that Jude wrote of the fornication of the angels as a fact. In verse 7 of his epistle, he compares the sexual wickedness in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities to the sin of the angels.
The nature of the angels' fall is also clearly stated in Jude 6, where it is said that they left their own "abode" (Gr. oiketerion). This word occurs in the New Testament only here and in II Corinthians 5:2, where it is used of the spiritual body of a resurrected saint.[/size]
[size=+1]II CORINTHIANS 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation [oiketerion] which is from heaven,[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]There is a great deal revealed in the Bible about angels. Angels could and did assume human form and even eat men's food (Gen. 18-19). Although the Bible doesn't tell us how, Jude 6 shows that some angels left their proper abode (their spiritual bodies) and took on fleshly bodies so as to marry and produce offspring by the daughters of men. [/size][/size]
Upvote
0
D
Deep_MindQuest
Guest
Although the angels committed sexual sins and corrupted the human lineage to some extent, they did something else that threatened to foil God's plan for humanity. Let's go back to 1 Enoch to see what these fallen angels did that affected the human race enormously:
[size=+1]As the text above shows, the angels brought with them knowledge which humanity did not have beforehand. This information led to a rapid advance in the knowledge base of the antediluvian society, including the invention of advanced methods of waging warfare. In the NKJV translation of Genesis 6:4, the nephilim are called "mighty men who were of old, men of renown;" however, the NRSV translates that same phrase as "heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."
Genesis 6:11 shows that the earth was filled with violence; this is very likely the direct result of the nephilim, who apparently were mighty warriors. If the ancient legends are indeed based in fact, as they appear to be, these angelic offspring were superhuman in size and great in strength. There is also an indication from the ancient text known as the Book of Jasher that this corruption of bloodlines extended to the animals also.
The Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in the Bible (Jos. 10:13; II Sam. 1:18). While it's evident the copy of this book that has survived to our time has been corrupted to some extent, the Scriptures seem to confirm the information contained in this section of Jasher:
It appears likely that the objectives of the Flood were the destruction of the polluted human and animal bloodlines and the eradication of the forbidden knowledge that humanity had learned from the fallen host.
There is one other New Testament passage which hints at the sin of the angels before the flood. It is an enigmatic scripture found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church.
[size=+1]In I Corinthians 11, Paul states the position of women in relation to men and says that the symbol of authority on a woman's head is needed "because of the angels." Without an understanding of what took place anciently between the fallen host and women, this verse is cryptic at best.
There is opposition to the view that the fallen angels are the "sons of God" referred to in Genesis 6. Some cite Matthew 22:29-30 and Mark 12:24-25 as objections, saying that these Scriptures clearly teach that angels do not marry.
[size=+1]Christ's primary purpose in his answer was to affirm the reality of the resurrection to these questioning Sadducees, who did not believe that there would be a resurrection. As you can clearly see from Luke's account of this confrontation, Christ is making two points about the age to come: (1) Resurrected humans will not marry, and (2) resurrected humans will be given eternal life, which the holy angels now have. Interpreting these Scriptures to mean that angels have never been able to marry or procreate reads more into them than was intended by Jesus.
Some also object by saying that Genesis 6:4 shows that there were nephilim on the earth before "the sons of God" came in to "the daughters of men" and also afterward; therefore, these giants cannot be the offspring of this union. Does the phrase "in those days, and also afterward" mean that the nephilim were present before the the sons of God cohabited with the daughters of men?
"In those days" plainly means the time after the "sons of God" had come down to earth; the fact that they had taken wives is disclosed in Genesis 6:2. In time sequence, chapter six of Genesis should follow chapter four; the fifth chapter is an inset into the story flow. "Afterward" specifies after the flood, when we see another instance of giants appearing, this time in the land of Canaan which the Israelites were to inherit (Num. 13:33). Satan once again tried to thwart God's plan by using these savage hybrids to occupy the land of Canaan and keep Abraham's offspring out. Obviously none of the nephilim survived the Flood.
These giants are often mentioned in the early books of the Old Testament until the last of them were finally killed off. The word nephilim only appears twice in the Old Testament (Gen 6:4; Num. 13:33), but these giants are also referred to as gibbor (Gen 6:4; Num. 13:33; Job 16:14) and rephaim when they reappear in a more limited fashion after the flood (Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deu. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Jos. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16; II Sam. 5:18, 22; 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 23:13; I Chr. 11:15; 14:9; 20:4, 6, 8; Isa. 17:5; 26:14). They were known by the proper names of Rephaim, Emim, Anakim, and Zamzummim. [/size]CONCLUSION
[size=+1]As shown above, the evidence that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 are fallen angels is substantial. By their sexual immorality, these angels produced offspring which were strong and violent. The concept of a race of giants which resulted from the union of gods and humans is virtually universal in the world's early civilizations. The original intent of the angels may have only been to satisfy their forbidden lust. Yet the knowledge they brought with them and taught mankind caused society to develop at a more rapid technological pace than God had intended. This societal development was not positive, and it gave rise to a very violent society, one in which the nephilim apparently played a large role. God was forced to restrain in the Abyss the wicked angels that produced the nephilim, and cleanse the earth of them and the violence they brought with the great Flood.[/size]
[/size][/size]
[size=+1]1 ENOCH 8:1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root- cuttings, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . . [/size](From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, translated by R.H. Charles)
[size=+1]As the text above shows, the angels brought with them knowledge which humanity did not have beforehand. This information led to a rapid advance in the knowledge base of the antediluvian society, including the invention of advanced methods of waging warfare. In the NKJV translation of Genesis 6:4, the nephilim are called "mighty men who were of old, men of renown;" however, the NRSV translates that same phrase as "heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."
Genesis 6:11 shows that the earth was filled with violence; this is very likely the direct result of the nephilim, who apparently were mighty warriors. If the ancient legends are indeed based in fact, as they appear to be, these angelic offspring were superhuman in size and great in strength. There is also an indication from the ancient text known as the Book of Jasher that this corruption of bloodlines extended to the animals also.
[size=+1]JASHER 4:18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals. 19 And the Lord said, I will blot out man that I created from the face of the earth, yea from man to the birds of the air, together with cattle and beasts that are in the field . . .[/size](From The Book of Jasher, published by J.H. Parry & Company, 1887)
The Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in the Bible (Jos. 10:13; II Sam. 1:18). While it's evident the copy of this book that has survived to our time has been corrupted to some extent, the Scriptures seem to confirm the information contained in this section of Jasher:
[size=+1]GENESIS 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."[/size] (NKJV)
It appears likely that the objectives of the Flood were the destruction of the polluted human and animal bloodlines and the eradication of the forbidden knowledge that humanity had learned from the fallen host.
There is one other New Testament passage which hints at the sin of the angels before the flood. It is an enigmatic scripture found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church.
[size=+1]I CORINTHIANS 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]In I Corinthians 11, Paul states the position of women in relation to men and says that the symbol of authority on a woman's head is needed "because of the angels." Without an understanding of what took place anciently between the fallen host and women, this verse is cryptic at best.
There is opposition to the view that the fallen angels are the "sons of God" referred to in Genesis 6. Some cite Matthew 22:29-30 and Mark 12:24-25 as objections, saying that these Scriptures clearly teach that angels do not marry.
[size=+1]MATTHEW 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them [the Sadducees], "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."[/size] (NKJV) [size=+1]MARK 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."[/size] (NKJV)
First, these verses do not state whether angels can marry or procreate. Here Christ was referring only to the way things will be after the first resurrection of the dead. Additionally, the angels in heaven who did not sin are the example cited, not the angels confined to Tartarus because they sinned by marrying humans and producing offspring. To get a better perspective of what Christ was saying, let's look at the parallel account of this conversation in Luke's Gospel.
[size=+1]LUKE 20:34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."[/size] (NKJV)
[size=+1]Christ's primary purpose in his answer was to affirm the reality of the resurrection to these questioning Sadducees, who did not believe that there would be a resurrection. As you can clearly see from Luke's account of this confrontation, Christ is making two points about the age to come: (1) Resurrected humans will not marry, and (2) resurrected humans will be given eternal life, which the holy angels now have. Interpreting these Scriptures to mean that angels have never been able to marry or procreate reads more into them than was intended by Jesus.
Some also object by saying that Genesis 6:4 shows that there were nephilim on the earth before "the sons of God" came in to "the daughters of men" and also afterward; therefore, these giants cannot be the offspring of this union. Does the phrase "in those days, and also afterward" mean that the nephilim were present before the the sons of God cohabited with the daughters of men?
"In those days" plainly means the time after the "sons of God" had come down to earth; the fact that they had taken wives is disclosed in Genesis 6:2. In time sequence, chapter six of Genesis should follow chapter four; the fifth chapter is an inset into the story flow. "Afterward" specifies after the flood, when we see another instance of giants appearing, this time in the land of Canaan which the Israelites were to inherit (Num. 13:33). Satan once again tried to thwart God's plan by using these savage hybrids to occupy the land of Canaan and keep Abraham's offspring out. Obviously none of the nephilim survived the Flood.
These giants are often mentioned in the early books of the Old Testament until the last of them were finally killed off. The word nephilim only appears twice in the Old Testament (Gen 6:4; Num. 13:33), but these giants are also referred to as gibbor (Gen 6:4; Num. 13:33; Job 16:14) and rephaim when they reappear in a more limited fashion after the flood (Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deu. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Jos. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16; II Sam. 5:18, 22; 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 23:13; I Chr. 11:15; 14:9; 20:4, 6, 8; Isa. 17:5; 26:14). They were known by the proper names of Rephaim, Emim, Anakim, and Zamzummim. [/size]CONCLUSION
[size=+1]As shown above, the evidence that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 are fallen angels is substantial. By their sexual immorality, these angels produced offspring which were strong and violent. The concept of a race of giants which resulted from the union of gods and humans is virtually universal in the world's early civilizations. The original intent of the angels may have only been to satisfy their forbidden lust. Yet the knowledge they brought with them and taught mankind caused society to develop at a more rapid technological pace than God had intended. This societal development was not positive, and it gave rise to a very violent society, one in which the nephilim apparently played a large role. God was forced to restrain in the Abyss the wicked angels that produced the nephilim, and cleanse the earth of them and the violence they brought with the great Flood.[/size]
[/size][/size]
Upvote
0
Evidence in Other Ancient Jewish Sources
Further evidence that angels mated with human women, is found in a variety of ancient accounts. An ancient Jewish commentary states:
"From them were born the giants who walked about haughtily, and indulged themselves in all manner of theft and corruption and bloodshed" (Pirqei deR. Eliezer 22).
In another book of the Apocrypha, the Wisdom of Sirach, we also read of the offspring of the angels and women:
"He did not forgive the giants of old, who rebelled in their strength" (Sirach 16:7).
The same message is found in the book known as 3 Maccabees, where we read:
"You destroyed men for their wicked deeds in the past, among them giants relying on their own strength and self-confidence, upon whom you brought an immeasurable flood of water" (3 Maccabees 2:4).
Similarly, in the apocryphal book of Baruch, we read the following:
"There were born the giants, famous of old, tall in stature, expert in war, God did not choose them or give them the way of knowledge. So they perished, because they had no understanding; they perished through their own folly" (Baruch 3:26-28).
Another ancient Jewish source declares:
"The interpretation [pesher] concerning Azazel and the angels who went in to the daughters of men and bore them giants, and concerning Azazel [who turned them astray to deceit, to the love of] evil and to pass along wickedness . . ." (Pesher of the Periods 7-9, from 4Q180, quoted in The Bible As It Was, by James L. Kugel, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997, p.111).
http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm
Further evidence that angels mated with human women, is found in a variety of ancient accounts. An ancient Jewish commentary states:
"From them were born the giants who walked about haughtily, and indulged themselves in all manner of theft and corruption and bloodshed" (Pirqei deR. Eliezer 22).
In another book of the Apocrypha, the Wisdom of Sirach, we also read of the offspring of the angels and women:
"He did not forgive the giants of old, who rebelled in their strength" (Sirach 16:7).
The same message is found in the book known as 3 Maccabees, where we read:
"You destroyed men for their wicked deeds in the past, among them giants relying on their own strength and self-confidence, upon whom you brought an immeasurable flood of water" (3 Maccabees 2:4).
Similarly, in the apocryphal book of Baruch, we read the following:
"There were born the giants, famous of old, tall in stature, expert in war, God did not choose them or give them the way of knowledge. So they perished, because they had no understanding; they perished through their own folly" (Baruch 3:26-28).
Another ancient Jewish source declares:
"The interpretation [pesher] concerning Azazel and the angels who went in to the daughters of men and bore them giants, and concerning Azazel [who turned them astray to deceit, to the love of] evil and to pass along wickedness . . ." (Pesher of the Periods 7-9, from 4Q180, quoted in The Bible As It Was, by James L. Kugel, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997, p.111).
http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm
Upvote
0
right now the computer is all funky... while I type it in normal for me... it comes out large for you.justified said:
Upvote
0
D
Deep_MindQuest
Guest
By the 2nd century A.D., what was once considered a bible truth, had now become rank"heresy" and the "highest of blasphemies", thus being denounced by the clergy of the Church. The Church at this time assumed this position after agreeing with the "interpretation" of one Christian writer, Julius Africanus (A.D. 200-245). Julius would "formulate" an interpretation of a very controversial scripture verse, thereby setting the course for what would be a defection away from what the early Church first believed. This is centered on a couple of KEY scripture verses that "unlocks" much of end-time bible prophecy. Julius Africanus "interpretation" of the term "son's of God" in the Old Testament, was upheld by the Jews at the time also, when Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the 2nd century A.D., "cursed " all those who believed in the LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, concerning the meaning of the term "sons of God". That's right, it was considered to be "blasphemous" to believe in what the bible said!. The"bible" at that time, consisted of the Septuagint (which was around when Christ walked the earth), Latin Vulgate, and various Hebrew versions of the Old Testament (Torah etc.). The first "complete" bible was in the form of the Latin Vulgate. The fact is, there is NO room for mis-translation here, which shall prove that the Church willfully chose to become APOSTATE on the meaning of "sons of God", and still remains today. This, even though all bibles translated after the Septuagint LXX, were translated in part from the Codex Alexandrinus. The Codex translates the term "sons of God" as "ANGELS of God". Every single modern day translation, was translated from the Codex Alexandrinus to some degree. The Latin vulgate would be the first translation to "cover over" INTENTIONALLY, the meaning of this term. By the late 4th century A.D., the Syrian church had managed to make the interpretation of Julius Africanus, known as the "good son's of Seth view", as official church "doctrine". Subsequently, it became policy of Papal theologians at that time, to eradicate firmly from the teachings of the Church, any doctrine or dogma contrary to the "son's of Seth view". The fact of the matter is, this interpretation and its apparent doctrine is a flat-out, heretical LIE, and completely apostate to the Word of God. This interpretation has and still does hide the KEY behind Satan's end-time "master plan" for these last day's, and completely undermines much end-time prophecy interpretation, keeping the entire body of Christ in utter DARKNESS! FALLEN ANGELS This controversy, surrounds the interpretation of the term "son's of God" used in the books of Genesis and Job. The term is properly rendered bene ha elohim in the Hebrew. The predicament here is that both the Septuagint and the torah translates this term as meaning that of ANGELS, and thereby creating one of the most disturbing doctrinal dilemmas the Church has ever had to face. The reality is, this rendering is the TRUTH. There is NO way to get around this one. As a matter of fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the stark truth of this meaning, yet the false prophets and teachers have managed to perpetuate the "good sons of Seth" heresy for 1900 years via false theology. Those proponents that would say that the Holy Spirit would clarify over time the now accepted "son's of Seth" interpretation, are HERETICS!. God doesn't play games with his Word, if that's what it says, that's what it says!, and God MEANS what he says. Why must we try to fit Gods Word around our own idealology of what REALITY should or should not be. "And it came to pass, when men began to MULTIPLYon the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the s o n s o f G o d saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they TOOK them wives of all which they chose". It's not enough that the bible clearly translates "sons of God' as "angels", but the propitiators of the real "lie" will not give you an answer as to why the supposed "good" sons of Seth would instigate an action which denigrates down to nothing more then the RAPE of women it would seem on a mass scale, when you study the text. These angels TOOK them "wives" of ALL THAT THEY CHOSE. What do you think, there was a "marriage", and a little white house with picket fence, and they lived happily ever after? NOT! What God is saying here is very clear. This "union" was not "amicable". Also, if the sons of Seth were so "good", why were they not spared the flood instead of Noah's family? The sons of Seth interpretation would also seem to denote that the "daughters of Seth", weren't too "good looking"?, and if they weren't very good looking, how is it that there was any sons of Seth? Are you getting my drift?, no matter how you break down the sons of Seth view, it completely falls apart. The original scriptural text is quite plain, that they were "angels". But what must be understood is that these angel's are FALLEN angels. Ancient Hebrew tradition holds that they "came down" in the days of Jared. Interestingly enough, the word Jared in the Hebrew is Yaradh, meaning "descent", or "shall come down"[Strong's ref. 3382]. Just so you know, MOST of the early Church fathers and reputed Christian reformers believed in the "angelic" or the "ancient interpretation" view. Here's a few: Justyn Martyr pseudo-Clementine Martin Luther Athenagoras Clement of Alexandria Commondianus Josephus Flavius Tertullian Philo Judaeus John Wycliffe Iranaeus Lactantius The modern day bible scholars who support the "angel view" are also noteworthy here: G.H. Pember Merrill F. Unger F. Delitzch Chuck Smith C.H. Mcintosh Hal Lindsay Arthur W. Pink I.D.E. Thomas Arnold Fruchtenbaum Donald G. Barnhouse A.C. Gaebelin M.R. DeHaan Henry Morris ChuckMissler There is further confirmation of the "original truth" if one wants to go outside of the canon of the Holy Writ. The works of the Apocrypha and Pseudo-pigrapha, and the Syriac version of the Old Testament all confirm the bibles interpretation, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most notable is the pseudo-pigraphal book of Enoch, which WAS in the original canon amongst the works of the Apocrypha. St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) would claim that on account of the book of Enoch being too old (ob nimiam antiquitatem), it was not allowed to be part of the Canon of Scripture. Other apocryphal works such as the Book of Jubilees,Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, the Genesis Apocryphon (1947 Dead Sea Scrolls), and the Book of Noah, all refer to the fallen angels or "watchers" siring "nephillim" with woman. The Greek word for angels is "angelos" in the New Testament, but it comes from the word "Mal'ak" in the Hebrew which means "messenger". The word "watchers" means [Strong's ref. 5894 iyr (Chald.), eer; a watcher, i.e. an angel:- watcher]. But this comes from the primitive root [Strong's ref. 5782 uwr, oor; a prim. root; opening the eyes; awake, lift up, master, raise up, stir up]. These are very interesting adjectives of description indeed. The sudden change from the "angel view" from the 4th century on was so dramatic, that the Church that once upheld the "angel view", would now torture and murder millions of "heretics" over the next few century's under the INQUISITION, based in part upon the "angel heresy". Included amongst the heretics were the Yezidi's (devil worshipers), Cathar's, Arian's, Bogomils etc., whose heretical theology's all instituted to some degree, the belief that angels (or demon's) procreated with mankind.
Upvote
0
D
Deep_MindQuest
Guest
"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. 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." Jude 6,7.
"For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment." 2 Peter 2:4 "...Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly..."Job 4: 18 .............. Job 15 15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight
"For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment." 2 Peter 2:4 "...Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly..."Job 4: 18 .............. Job 15 15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
