The 24 elders in heaven, in Revelation 4:4

[Timtofly]

The phrase "In like manner" indicates the sins of Sodom and Gommorah ALSO involved illicit and abnormal sexual relations abominable to God.

I am not the one building a false case to prove my point.

The NT already defines the sons of God as humans. Jude does not state the angels procreated with humans. "The same manner" could also define the cities surrounding Sodom and Gommorah.

I know all the arguments. I was taught how you see things. I was taught a gap theory. I have heard all the arguments of angels and a different creation that took place prior to this creation. I have heard the arguments that even creation week itself covered billions of years. I used to argue atheist with the views you hold. Some atheist like to talk about stuff the Bible does not come out and say.

When the NT presents clear views that can explain OT passages, there is no longer a need to present points that people believe that actually contradict God's Word. Jesus straightened out all the speculation, that the book of Enoch raises, by clearly stating angels cannot procreate with each other and certainly not with humans. Not even if they rebelled and even came to earth.

If you are going to present it as angels attempting to defile the human race, that is bordering on science fiction. The only being who corrupted mankind was a man by the name of Adam who disobeyed God.

We know that strange flesh just means homosexual relations.

If you say the angels in Jude should mean sons of God, because in Genesis 6 it says sons of God that should mean angels, are you not adding your point to both text to make a point? Genesis 6 does not mention angels leaving their first estate. Jude 1 does not say the angels had sex.

My point was that Jesus said angels do not procreate period. That should immediately rule out the sons of God were angels, because these sons of God certainly did procreate many times and many generations. Paul stated Adam brought sin into the world, and defiled the human race. No one needs to claim angels did that, and especially by means that is totally impossible for them to do.

I also gave plausible arguments, I guess, to any objections raised, or questions asked. As far as I know no one else seems to even care about this objection to historical Christian theology obviously around even in the first century as many were aware, including Christ of this alleged book about Enoch.

Yes when angels appear they appear as men. Yes the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with these men. Did they know they were angels? Who knows? They became blind, and died within hours. There is no need to jump to the conclusion that at some point angels came to earth and had sex, thus these Sodomites were looking for history to repeat itself. It was always an abomination for same sex relations. Of course it is easier to say angels can have sex, even if it is a blatant contradiction to the Word of God from Jesus the Word of God. The Sodomites seem to expect it, but they were reprobate way before the angels arrived. The angels were there to remove Lot so they all could be killed in judgment. To compare that incident to prove sons of God are the angels is a leap in logic and jumping to the wrong conclusion.

 

[oikonomia]

I am not the one building a false case to prove my point.

The NT already defines the sons of God as humans.

That is true. The sons of God in the New Testament are regenerated sinners.
For example: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:26,27)

But in Genesis and Job "the sons of God" are angels. You don't agree.
Back to the 24 elders, the main theme of this thread, they too are the eldest beings God created - angels.

Jude does not state the angels procreated with humans. "The same manner" could also define the cities surrounding Sodom and Gommorah.

I agree with and teach as follows - (essentailly derived from the footnote in the Recovery Version on verse 7).

I.e., in the same manner (v.7) as the fallen angels mentioned in the preceding verse 6.
The angels in the preceding verse were the sons of God (Gen. 6:2).
These angels putting on human bodies, took human wives and committed fornication with different flesh.
Human beings are different from angels.
The males of Sodom, Gammorah, and the surrounding cities indulged their lust with males (Rom. 21:27; Lev. 18:22).
These were abominable acts with flesh that was different from what God had ordained, according to the nature of His creation, for human marriage (Genesis 2:18-24).

By committing fornication with different flesh in this way, the people of Sodom, Gamorrah, and surrounding cities acted in like manner as the angels in the preceding verse, and, consequently underwent the penalty of eternal fire.

I know all the arguments. I was taught how you see things. I was taught a gap theory.

But have you [edited] not taken the gap and moved it somewhere else? Ie. "1,000 years from Day #6 to the Garden."

I have heard all the arguments of angels and a different creation that took place prior to this creation. I have heard the arguments that even creation week itself covered billions of years. I used to argue atheist with the views you hold. Some atheist like to talk about stuff the Bible does not come out and say.

When I first committed to be a serious student of the Bible having received the Lord Jesus, one of the first things I needed to settle in my heart was how to take Genesis. I started with "The Flood of Noah and the Ice Epic" (?) and other similar Bible / science disucussions. They didn't do much for me. The first exposition which made me think "Now this makes sense and feeds my spirit too" was "Earth's Earliest Ages" by G.H. Pember. And that is not a wholesale endorsement for everything in the book. But the treatment of Genesis 1 - 6 I found very edifying, sensible, and well supported.

I don't know what you studied. Some writings which influenced my thinking were "Earth's Earliest Ages" by G.H. Pember,
"The Invisibe War" by Donald Barnhouse, "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee, the "Life Study of Genesis" by Witness Lee, (the best study on Genesis I have ever read), and "Without Form and Void" by Arthur Custance.

When I wanted to read a critique of a Gap Theory from the mouth of a critic I read "The Early Earth" by Donald Whitcomb.
Since then I have heard many YEC pushbacks on a pre-adamic world judged by God. And I have read some Day Age treatments too from Hugh Ross. I would say most bring up points to be considered. You know I am still more persuaded by what I have written here.

When the NT presents clear views that can explain OT passages, there is no longer a need to present points that people believe that actually contradict God's Word. Jesus straightened out all the speculation, that the book of Enoch raises, by clearly stating angels cannot procreate with each other and certainly not with humans. Not even if they rebelled and even came to earth.

You do quite a bit of speculation though yourself.
These creatures created on Day #6 way prior to Adam - did they make clothes for themselves?
Did they commit sins? Why were they sinners?
Did their consciences convict them of right and wrong?

If you are going to present it as angels attempting to defile the human race, that is bordering on science fiction. The only being who corrupted mankind was a man by the name of Adam who disobeyed God.

And I believe the Bible teaches that Adam was created on the 6th Day. He and his wife "the mother of all living."
You say, no. God created multitudes of other pseudo humans and was satisfied with the situation and ordained Sabbath Rest.
These "humanoid" or human like "sons of God" for you populated asexually for a millenium before God made Adam and Eve.

That you don't see the imaginative speculation of this is ironic.

We know that strange flesh just means homosexual relations.

If you say the angels in Jude should mean sons of God, because in Genesis 6 it says sons of God that should mean angels, are you not adding your point to both text to make a point? Genesis 6 does not mention angels leaving their first estate. Jude 1 does not say the angels had sex.

I do not expect every verse on a subject to mention EVERY detail all the time.
I do not expect to read "leaving their first estate" in Genesis nor reading "angels had sex" in Jude or First Peter.
I expect we put 2 and 2 together.

The thread started about who are the 24 elders around the throne of the Creator in Revelation 4.
They are the most ancient of God's creatures which are angels.
The contraversy since the Anointed Cherub rebelled is about the governing of the universe.

If they are church elders John should be one of them. He was of the original twelve disciples.
And then we got off on what some of the evil angels have done in following their leader.
Which crimes include deranging the human race by any means these wicked angels could devize.
Their total defeat is inevitable whatEVER God's providence allowed them to try.

My point was that Jesus said angels do not procreate period. That should immediately rule out the sons of God were angels, because these sons of God certainly did procreate many times and many generations.

What they OUGHT not do and what some DID may not be the same.
It is a good point that Jesus said in the restoration the saved will be like angels who do not marry.
But what angels were not suppose to do and what some did in abject revolt to God's ordination is what Genesis Nephilim are about.

Paul stated Adam brought sin into the world, and defiled the human race. No one needs to claim angels did that, and especially by means that is totally impossible for them to do.

Adam's sin brought sin into the world. The sinning Satan who had a previous history of sinning enticed him to allow sin and death into the world. After sin and death entered into the world getting worse and worse, in addition evil angels worked to totally corrupt the human race with their fornication with different flesh. This is all repetition now.

Do you think that if "the sons of God" means pseudo humans created on Day#6 was what they did in Genesis 6 pleasing to God or cause for judgment to come FROM God? It reads as if it was sinful. But you say sin came to humans only after Adam and Eve.

If these humanoid "sons of God" had no ancestry in Adam through whom sin came into the world, why did they sin ?
If they were not from Adam, where did their capacity to do this evil thing come from?

And if they repoduced asexually why did they seek human wives?
If they could produce Nephilim asexually, why would they do so by means of intercourse with human women?

Matthew 22:30 - "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

I think "angels in heaven" speaks of the normal obedient and good angels, the ones who remain in heaven.
"Angels in heaven" would not mean the devil and his angels whose sins culminate in their eternal punshment. (Matt. 25:41)
Those angels did what they OUGHT NOT to have done - abnormal, against God's ordination.

 

[oikonomia]

I also gave plausible arguments, I guess, to any objections raised, or questions asked. As far as I know no one else seems to even care about this objection to historical Christian theology obviously around even in the first century as many were aware, including Christ of this alleged book about Enoch.

This cycle of exhanges has probably run its course on the source of the Nephilim.

Moving to another aspect of the sixth and seventh Day, what does the Sabbath rest really mean to you?
What I get from you is a 1,000 year Sabbath Day.

You said no one remembers a Sabbath Day so it must refer to a millennium following Day #6.

Sabbath resting I would say reveals God is satisfied with a situation for His plan is in place.
To go along with you I have to imagine non-human "sons of God" asexually reproducing and filling the earth is God's plan.
So He rests.

The resting of God following the pinnacle of creation being acheived - Human beings, this is His resting of arrival.
This is also man's rest. When God's will is in place both God and man can rest.

Sabbath also is a sign for man to not be anxious but trust in God.
He labors for six days. But that is all. On a consecrated day man trusts, rests, relies of God's faithfulness.
When man bears God's image and exercises God's dominion (Gen. 1:26,27) satisfaction for God and trust of man are signified by God instituting a seventh day REST.

Your sense of Sabbath Rest seems to be about something else. Am I right?

 

[Timtofly]

That is true. The sons of God in the New Testament are regenerated sinners.
For example: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:26,27)

But in Genesis and Job "the sons of God" are angels. You don't agree.
Back to the 24 elders, the main theme of this thread, they too are the eldest beings God created - angels.

I agree with and teach as follows - (essentailly derived from the footnote in the Recovery Version on verse 7).

I.e., in the same manner (v.7) as the fallen angels mentioned in the preceding verse 6.
The angels in the preceding verse were the sons of God (Gen. 6:2).
These angels putting on human bodies, took human wives and committed fornication with different flesh.
Human beings are different from angels.
The males of Sodom, Gammorah, and the surrounding cities indulged their lust with males (Rom. 21:27; Lev. 18:22).
These were abominable acts with flesh that was different from what God had ordained, according to the nature of His creation, for human marriage (Genesis 2:18-24).

By committing fornication with different flesh in this way, the people of Sodom, Gamorrah, and surrounding cities acted in like manner as the angels in the preceding verse, and, consequently underwent the penalty of eternal fire.


But have you [edited] not taken the gap and moved it somewhere else. Ie. "1,000 years from Day #6 to the Garden."


When I first committed to be a serious student of the Bible having received the Lord Jesus, one of the first things I needed to settle in my heart was how to take Genesis. I started with "The Flood of Noah and the Ice Epic" (?) and other similar Bible / science disucussions. They didn't do much for me. The first exposition which made me think "Now this makes sense and feeds my spirit too" was "Earth's Earliest Ages" by G.H. Pember. And that is not a wholesale endorsement for everything in the book. But the treatment of Genesis 1 - 6 I found very edifying, sensible, and well supported.

I don't know what you studied. Some writings which influenced my thinking were "Earth's Earliest Ages" by G.H. Pember,
"The Invisibe War" by Donald Barnhouse, "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee, the "Life Study of Genesis" by Witness Lee, (the best study on Genesis I have ever read), and "Without Form and Void" by Arthur Custance.

When I wanted to read a critique of a Gap Theory from the mouth of a critic I read "The Early Earth" by Donald Whitcomb.
Since then I have heard many YEC pushbacks on a pre-adamic world judged by God. And I have read some Day Age treatments too from Hugh Ross. I would say most bring up points to be considered. You know I am still more persuaded by what I have written here.

You do quite a bit of speculation though yourself.
These creatures created on Day #6 way prior to Adam - did they make clothes for themselves?
Did they commit sins? Why were they sinners?
Did their consciences convict them of right and wrong?

And I believe the Bible teaches that Adam was created on the 6th Day. He and his wife "the mother of all living."
You say, no. God created multitudes of other pseudo humans and was satisfied with the situation and ordained Sabbath Rest.
These "humanoid" or human like "sons of God" for you populated asexually for a millenium before God made Adam and Eve.

That you don't see the imaginative speculation of this is ironic.



I do not expect every verse on a subject to mention EVERY detail all the time.
I do not expect to read "leaving their first estate" in Genesis nor reading "angels had sex" in Jude or First Peter.
I expect we put 2 and 2 together.

The thread started about who are the 24 elders around the throne of the Creator in Revelation 4.
They are the most ancient of God's creatures which are angels.
The contraversy since the Anointed Cherub rebelled is about the governing of the universe.

If they are church elders John should be one of them. He was of the original twelve disciples.
And then we got off on what some of the evil angels have done in following their leader.
Which crimes include deranging the human race by any means these wicked angels could devize.
Their total defeat is inevitable whatEVER God's providence allowed them to try.

What they OUGHT not do and what some DID may not be the same.
It is a good point that Jesus said in the restoration the saved will be like angels who do not marry.
But what angels were not suppose to do and what some did in abject revolt to God's ordination is what Genesis Nephilim are about.

Adam's sin brought sin into the world. The sinning Satan who had a previous history of sinning enticed him to allow sin and death into the world. After sin and death entered into the world getting worse and worse, in addition evil angels worked to totally corrupt the human race with their fornication with different flesh. This is all repetition now.

Do you think that if "the sons of God" means pseudo humans created on Day#6 was what they did in Genesis 6 pleasing to God or cause for judgment to come FROM God? It reads as if it was sinful. But you say sin came to humans only after Adam and Eve.

If these humanoid "sons of God" had no ancestry in Adam through whom sin came into the world, why did they sin ?
If they were not from Adam, where did their capacity to do this evil thing come from?

And if they repoduced asexually why did they seek human wives?
If they could produce Nephilim asexually, why would they do so by means of intercourse with human women?

Matthew 22:30 - "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

I think "angels in heaven" speaks of the normal obedient and good angels, the ones who remain in heaven.
"Angels in heaven" would not mean the devil and his angels whose sins culminate in their eternal punshment. (Matt. 25:41)
Those angels did what they OUGHT NOT to have done - abnormal, against God's ordination.

You complained I did not understand your point.


Then you paint your point as an observation of common sense, and Scripture to you is just speculation.


You rely on human interpretation passed down for many generations.

Obviously you cannot see my points as God's Word, but only my personal speculation. Then you start asking many questions which are strawman points, regarding Scripture to avoid the reason why this theological consensus is contradictory to Scripture.

Common sense points out 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples. Thus 12 + 12 is 24. 24 elders is mentioned. You claim these elders are angels because angels were created 48 hours before humans, thus more ancient than humans.

You then change the NT point that the redeemed are restored sons of God to being restored angels as only angels are the sons of God. You then call the sons of God pseudo humans instead of sons of God, because to you sons of God are not humans but angels who became humans.


So technically redeemed humans are sons of God. Fallen angels are restored as sons of God thus corrupting human flesh, because Adam and Eve sinned on the 6th day 48 hours after angels were created.

That is your basic argument, so now when Job mentions sons of God, they are immediately angels who became sons of God when they left the firmament and corrupted Adam's flesh that was already corrupted any ways. Then they did it again in Sodom and Gomorrah. Because we don't know when exactly they were chained up.

I would explain again and answer your questions, but the disagreement won't change any at this point.

 

[oikonomia]

You complained I did not understand your point.
Then you paint your point as an observation of common sense, and Scripture to you is just speculation.
You rely on human interpretation passed down for many generations.

There are a number of interpretations of these matters, as you well know.
"Been there, done that" just means something may have you thought you changed in thinking.
People are allowed to change thier position.

It is possible I could change.
And I read over again some posts to others, to understand you.

Obviously you cannot see my points as God's Word, but only my personal speculation. Then you start asking many questions which are strawman points, regarding Scripture to avoid the reason why this theological consensus is contradictory to Scripture.

I didn't follow this comment of your annoyance.
I am not trying to avoid something, whatever you imagine I am trying to avoid.

I did not belittle you're exposition there, I think.
I think I have considered some of your explanations for serious consideration in light of the Scripture.

I think we both presented some thoughts which would not be considered mainstream everywhere.

Common sense points out 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples. Thus 12 + 12 is 24. 24 elders is mentioned. You claim these elders are angels because angels were created 48 hours before humans, thus more ancient than humans.

There you go again.
First, I did not say all the angels were created 48 hours earlier.
I said, way back, I would not insist I know that NO angels were created in that week of Genesis chapter one.

By the way, the word for created is not used for the stars on the fourth day.
Only those who assume to make and to create are always synonomous terms in Hebrew argue stars were created on Day #4.
That God MADE them could well mean they appeared to the seer on that day - like the dry land appeared out from under the waters.

And I admit I did not fully understand your equation of stars with angels in a couple of your posts.

I do know that no human being existed until God created man.
God had to reveal by revelation where he and everything else came from.
In the meantime "sons of God" in Job 38 WERE there to witness and rejoice from the beginning.
That they were angels, I take as the best explanation - "morning stars" in the dawn of creation - eldest of sentient beings to appreciate God's creating.

Now to the 12 tribes / 12 disciples matter = 24 elders.
Twenty-four is formed by multiplying twelve by two.
Twelve indicates the completion of God's administration as in Matthew 19:28.

David divided both the priests and the Levites into twenty-four groups to carry out God's administrative service.
So before the good angels are replaced in this administration by the church, twenty four angelic elders are the ones who carry out God's administration. The renegade power grab of Satan's evil angels is illegal. The ruling of the ancient good angels is according to God's administrative arrangement until the saints of the church reign and administrate for God.

Twelve multiplies by two signifies strengthening by doubling. The meaning is the administrating of the angelic elders is very strong.

You then change the NT point that the redeemed are restored sons of God to being restored angels as only angels are the sons of God. You then call the sons of God pseudo humans instead of sons of God, because to you sons of God are not humans but angels who became humans.

I don't follow your objection.
The evil angels will not be restored. The eternal punishment has been prepared for the devil and all of his angels.
If you want to be fair to what I have been saying - in the OT "the sons of God" are the angels in Job and in Genesis.
In the New Testament the redeemed and regenerated men and women are all sons of God in Christ Jesus.

It should be no shock that the term could be used over 1,600 years in different senses by the prophetic writers.

In the resurrection sons of God (regenerated and saved humans) need not marry or be given in marriage.
They will be like the angels in heaven.
So your objection seems too convoluted and I don't follow you.

So technically redeemed humans are sons of God. Fallen angels are restored as sons of God thus corrupting human flesh, because Adam and Eve sinned on the 6th day 48 hours after angels were created.

Maybe, just maybe I follow your thoughts here.
I THINK you are saying that fallen angels who took on human bodies are human sons of God . . . or something like that.
They HAD to be human "sons of God" in order to have relations with human women THERFORE (you say) I am teaching that angels are restored as sons of God.

With my limited understanding of this, I see angels can come as humans. They should not STAY in that state.
Gabriel a mighty angel did not, though the Scripture does say "the man Gabriel" of an angel.
The "angel Gabriel" (Luke 1:28) is also called "the man Gabriel" (Dan. 9:21).

Obedient angels of God DO what they are instructed to, do it quickly, dutifully, and RETURN to their legal realm.
God appeared as a man with TWO men in Genesis 18. The two men were angels.
After they do what God assigns to them, the good angels quickly get out of the story and return to thier position and place.

The EVIL angels who followed Satan are different. They follow SATAN and not God.
And if you argue that angels simply CANNOT do what I believe they did, I would say - "You have a good point. But how do we know? The magicians of Egypt, by their dark arts, imitated what God did in turning a stick into a serpent. (Exodus 7:8-11). HOW do I have the assurance that we know what these beings are and are not capable of ?"

Eventually, the Egyptian sorcerors admitted that the hand of God was doing things they could not do.
You know Antichrist will come with lying WONDERS and Satanic miracles. (Second Thess. 2:9) - "The coming of whom is according to Satan's operations in all power and signs and wonders of a lie."

So I am not so sure we know what these evil angels can and cannot do.
We know their power has a limit. Where that limit IS, we are not that sure.

The exceedingly wicked ones abandoned something of thier God ordained realm and did so to corrupt humanity.
They are the spirits now kept for judgment in a particularly more severe confinement.

That is your basic argument, so now when Job mentions sons of God, they are immediately angels who became sons of God when they left the firmament and corrupted Adam's flesh that was already corrupted any ways. Then they did it again in Sodom and Gomorrah. Because we don't know when exactly they were chained up.

I would explain again and answer your questions, but the disagreement won't change any at this point.

I'm sorry Timtofly, but your analysis I don't think is representative of how I understand the Bible on this.

1.) The "sons of God" in Job 38 are in existence WHILE no human being is yet created.
They are witnessing God's laying the foundation of the earth. They are very ancient - VERY elder to other beings.

2.) There are good "sons of God" - angels.
And there are evil "sons of God" - angels.
Both are very ancient. Both existed before any man or whatever you imagine was created on the 6th day of Genesis 1.

3.) SOME of the "sons of God" - the BAD ones - the very ancient bad ones - produced [edited] the Nephilim by having illegal unions with descendents of Adam - human beings who were by then on the planet.

4.) These awful "sons of God" - angels of the BAD kind of the Old Testament identification, were especially punished and kept in eternal bonds until their final judgment.

5.) In the New Testament and in the new covenant age the descendents of Adam who are redeemed and regenerated are called the sons of God in Christ Jesus. They will reign forever and ever with Christ (Rev. 21:7 22:5)

"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (21:7)
" . . . for the Lord God will shine upon them and they shall reign forever and ever." (22:5)

Your attempts to portray this general outline appear crackpot are not nearly as overwhealming as you wish.

 

[Timtofly]

There are a number of interpretations of these matters, as you well know.
"Been there, done that" just means something may have you thought you changed in thinking.
People are allowed to change thier position.

It is possible I could change.
And I read over again some posts to others, to understand you.


I didn't follow this comment of your annoyance.
I am not trying to avoid something, whatever you imagine I am trying to avoid.

I did not belittle you're exposition there, I think.
I think I have considered some of your explanations for serious consideration in light of the Scripture.

I think we both presented some thoughts which would not be considered mainstream everywhere.


There you go again.
First, I did not say all the angels were created 48 hours earlier.
I said, way back, I would not insist I know that NO angels were created in that week of Genesis chapter one.

By the way, the word for created is not used for the stars on the fourth day.
Only those who assume to make and to create are always synonomous terms in Hebrew argue stars were created on Day #4.
That God MADE them could well mean they appeared to the seer on that day - like the dry land appeared out from under the waters.

And I admit I did not fully understand your equation of stars with angels in a couple of your posts.

I do know that no human being existed until God created man.
God had to reveal by revelation where he and everything else came from.
In the meantime "sons of God" in Job 38 WERE there to witness and rejoice from the beginning.
That they were angels, I take as the best explanation - "morning stars" in the dawn of creation - eldest of sentient beings to appreciate God's creating.

Now to the 12 tribles / 12 disciples matter = 24 elders.
Twenty-four us formed by multiplying twelve by two.
Twelve indicates the completion of God's administration as in Matthew 19:28.

David divided both the priests and the Levites into twenty-four groups to carry out God's administrative service.
So before the good angels are replaced in this administration by the church, twenty four angelic elders are the one who carry out god's administration. The renegade power grab of Satan's evil angels is illegal. The ruling of the ancient good angels is according to God's administrative arrangement until the saints of the church reign and administrate for God.

Twelve multiplies by two signifies strengthening by doubling. The meaning is the administrating of the angelic elders is very strong.



I don't follow your objection.
The evil angels will not be restored. The eternal punishment has been prepared for the devil and all of his angels.
If you want to be fair to what I have been saying - in the OT "the sons of God" are the angels in Job and in Genesis.
In the New Testament the redeemed and regenerated men and women are all sons of God in Christ Jesus.

It should be no shock that the term could be used over 1,600 years in different senses by the prophetic writers.

In the resurrection sons of God (regenerated and saved humans) need not marry or be given in marriage.
They will be like the angels in heaven.
So your objection seems too convoluted and I don't follow you.



Maybe, just maybe I follow your thoughts here.
I THINK you are saying that fallen angels who took on human bodies are human sons of God . . . or something like that.
They HAD to be human "sons of God" in order to have relations with human women THERFORE (you say) I am angels are restored as sons of God.

With my limited understanding of this, I see angels can come as humans. They should not STAY in that state.
Gabriel a mighty angel did not, though the Scripture does say "the man Gabriel" of an angel.
The "angel Gabriel" (Luke 1:28) is also called "the man Gabriel" (Dan. 9:21).

Obedient angels of God DO what they are instructed to, do it quickly, ditifully, and RETURN to their legal realm.
God appeared as a man with TWO men in Genesis 18. The two men were angels.
After they do what God assigns to them, the good angels quickly get out of the story and return to thier position and place.

The EVIL angels who followed Satan are different. They follow SATAN and not God.
And if you argue that angels simply CANNOT do what I believe they did, I would say - "You have a good point. But how do we know? The magicians of Egypt, by their dark arts, imitated what God did in turning a stick into a serpent. (Exodus 7:8-11). HOW do I have the assurance that we know what these beings are and are not capable of ?"

Eventually, the Egyptian sorcerors admitted that the hand of God was doing things they could not do.
You know Antichrist will come with lying WONDERS and Satanic miracles. (Second Thess. 2:9) - "The coming of whom is according to Satan's operations in all power and signs and wonders of a lie."

So I am not so sure we know what these evil angels can and cannot do.
We know their power has a limit. Where that limit IS, we are not that sure.

The exceedingly wicked ones abandoned something of thier God ordained realm and did so to corrupt humanity.
They are the spirits now kept for judgment in a particularly more severe confinement.



I'm sorry Timtofly, but your analysis I don't think is representative of how I understand the Bible on this.

1.) The "sons of God" in Job 38 are in existence WHILE no human being is yet created.
They are witnessing God's laying the foundation of the earth. They are very ancient - VERY elder to other beings.

2.) There are good "sons of God" - angels.
And there are evil "sons of God" - angels.
Both are very ancient. Both existed before any man or whatever you imagine was created on the 6th day of Genesis 1.

3.) SOME of the "sons of God" - the BAD ones - the very ancient bad ones - produce the Nephilim by having illegal unions with descendents of Adam - human beings who were by then on the planet.

4.) These awful "sons of God" - angels of the BAD kind of the Old Testament identification, were especially punished and kept in eternal bonds until their final judgment.

5.) In the New Testament and in the new covenant age the descendents of Adam who are redeemed and regenerated are called the sons of God in Christ Jesus. They will reign forever and ever with Christ (Rev. 21:7 22:5)

"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (21:7)
" . . . for the Lord God will shine upon them and; and they shall reign forever and ever." (22:5)

Your attempts to portray this general outline appear crackpot are not nearly as overwhealming as you wish.

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

This does not say make nor create.

The English "let there be" is still "something out of nothing". Yes different than humans made out of dust.

These lights are the stars put there on the 4th day.

 

[oikonomia]

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

This does not say make nor create.

The English "let there be" is still "something out of nothing". Yes different than humans made out of dust.

These lights are the stars put there on the 4th day.

I am refering to verse 16.
"And God made the two great lights-bearers, the greater to rule the day . . . etc. and the stars."

Now I have an idea. Let's talk about something here we agree on for several exchanges?
How about . . . umm . . . Jesus is the second man - the last Adam ?

Let's build each other up for a few cycles for a change of pace?

 

[Timtofly]

I am refering to verse 16.
"And God made the two great lights-bearers, the greater to rule the day . . . etc."

Now I have an idea. Let's talk about something here we agree on for several exhanges?
How about . . . umm . . . Jesus is the second man - the last Adam ?

Let's build each other up for a few cycles for a change of pace?

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."

 

[oikonomia]

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."

Amen.

Jesus concludes the old nature as the last Adam.
And He initiates the new man as He became a life imparting Spirit to live in man.

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
No problem there, is there?

I was impressed in previous years to read that God saw two men - Adam and Jesus Christ.
We are born in one - Adam.
We can be reborn in the other - Christ.

What a wonderful Savior is Jesus our Savior.

 

[oikonomia]

By the way Timofly,
Its my belief after a long time studying the Scriptures, that the Bible alludes 100% systemization.

Though man would really like to totally systematize it often, I think the Bible alludes systemization into a logical flowchart like roadmap absolutely 100%.

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; But when that which is complete comes, that which is in part will be rendered useless." (1 Cor. 13:9,10)

(Is that self defeating?)

 

[oikonomia]

Genesis 4:26 (KJV) And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Actually the Jews say that should read Men began to profane the name of the Lord. Men had always called on the name of the Lord.

I don't believe Genesis 4:26 should be taken in that negative sense.
As people realized their drifting way from God they realized they could not live without God.
They (some of them) realized humans needed His presence.

Enosh means something like frail mortal man. When (some) men began to realize their fraility they began to call on the name of God.

Ie. "Oh Lord. We DO need You. O Lord, we are frail, weak,. Come to us Lord."

 

[oikonomia]

I do appreciate some previous points of posters on this thread. I re-read many of them.

I'm running with the 24 elders being creation's elders - the most ancient beings and authorities God created - the angels.

Revelation chapters four and five John seeing in signs what occurred just before and when Jesus ascended into Heaven following His accomplishing His redemptive work on earth.

John, like a Daniel or and Ezekiel, certainly Jesus the Son of God, had the heavens open to him to view the things of God's eternal purpose.
When God has a man on earth who is one with Him, He will open the heavens to such a one.

In symblic form, in signs, the inauguration of Christ as He arrives in heaven, is what is in Revelation 4,5.

 

[oikonomia]

I believe the number 24 symbolically represents all those who are now seated on thrones are called (Re 5:10) kings and priests. They are the representatives of Christ's Church and people, of those whom Christ calls His friends, and who are admitted to know what their Lord doeth (Joh 15:15). Various reasons have been suggested why they should be described as twenty-four in number; they are the twelve tribes doubled, to signify the union of the Gentile with the Jewish Church; they are the two sets of twelve, to represent the two Testaments; they are the twelve Patriarchs cojoined with the twelve Apostles. It will be seen that these were all different forms of the same thought, that the twenty-four elders represent the complete Church of God in the past and in the future, in the Jewish and Gentile worlds; and as such the true spiritual successors, as priests to God, of those twenty-four courses (1Ch 24:1-19) arranged by David, and which some have thought gave rise to the use of the number twenty-four in this passage. It is the great united Church. The same thought is touched upon in the double song of Moses and the Lamb (Re 15:3), and in the gates and foundations of the New Jerusalem (Re 21:12,14).

Quoted from: Ellicott's Bible Commentary for English Readers

Thanks for locating that portion of the Scripture where the adminitrations are arranged in twenty-four courses ( 1 Chronicale 24:1-19).
I mentioned that the twenty-four elders resembled how David established the priests and Levites offices.
Which concept I derived from a footnote in the Recovery Version.

How about the 24 throned and crowned elders stand for a doubly strong angelic administration of the creation until the church of redeemed descendents of Adam is perfected to co-reign with Christ? Adam's descendents not being as ancient or elder as any angel in heaven.

And this is stages - first the overcomers as a remnant are rewarded to do so for 1,000 years (Rev. 2,3). While the majority who are not rewarded have to attend something like a remdedial "summer school" during the 1,000 years, Latter they TOO join in the common co-reigning of ALL the saints in the new heaven and new earth in eternity future.

It seems lots of posters here think they are better understood as elder human beings of one type or another "OT Jews" + "NT church" elders.
John has to be told by one of the elders some things. Being one of the original twelve disciples it is curious WHY he would not be "elder" enough to be among them and not needing their explanation? John needs thier help. And he was one of the Lord's twelve. And he also was one of the closest in the three close group of Peter, James, and John.

"And one of the elders answered, saying to me, These who are clothed in white robes, who are they, and where did they come from?
And I said to him, My lord, you know, . . . " (Revelation 7:13,14a)

By the way, did you well understand Timofly about people (?) being created 1,000 years before Adam was formed and placed in Eden's garden? Did you understand why he teaches that Eve as "the mother of all living" excludes living people (?) created on the sixth day of Genesis one BEFORE Adam and Eve were in existence? Did you understand him on that well?