Where did demons come from?

[Paleouss]

That is convenient for your position. do you forget:

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.

I am totally convinced this passage supports the angelic incursion theory of Genesis 6. I am sure you disagree and would love to hear your explanation for this passage.

Greetings again Postvieww. You are providing some good stuff. Thank you for your time.

I will start with my conclusion and then work through how this is the correct exegesis of Jude. The conclusion is, (A) Jude attests to the fact that angels came in physical form, and (B) but does not attest that angels propagated with human women which gave birth to a new species.

Regarding Jude 6. Since you would agree with this first part, i.e., (A). I'll make this more like a summary of (A). Jude gives two conditions, according to the text. They are (1) not keeping “their first estate” (Jude 1:6a), and (2) leaving their “own habitation” (Jude 1:6b). These two conditions are not the same, as some would contend. #1 refers to the dominion that God assigned each angel. So #1 means that the angels left their assigned post. #2, "own habitation", refers to where angels live, i.e., in heaven (first, second, or third heaven). Of all the angels that 'fell', all left their "first estate" or "dominion" but a few also left their "own habitation". Since angels live in heaven, and they left that habitation (were thrown to the first heaven by the dragon., which is "to earth"). This reasonably means that those few, that also left their "own habitation" came in physical form. God was so displeased that He chained those that violated the second offense.


Jude 7 will take a little more context. Let’s take a look at what Jude is trying to say, and what he does actually say.


(Jude 1:5 NKJV)
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Let's look at what Jude wrote within full context. Jude starts out by saying that he wants to “remind you” (Jude 1:5), meaning he is going to remind his readers of something. In other words, what is coming up is something he wants to remind his readers of. And what is that something? Jude actually states, specifically, what he wants to remind the reader of and that is…“afterward destroyed those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5). In other words, Jude is telling the reader that God destroys those who do not believe, and he wants to remind the reader of this. After reminding his reader of this, with an example of saying “the people out of the land of Egypt” (Jude 1:5), he goes on to give more examples of God destroying those who did not believe.

So the first example of this reminder is when Moses guides the Jewish people out of Egypt and God destroys the Egyptian soldiers in the waters of the Red Sea. Jude then lists other examples of this ‘destroys those who do not believe’.

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

The second example, the first being those destroyed after God took the Jewish people out of Egypt, is the angels that did not keep their proper domain nor their own abode. These angels have been chained and thrown into darkness for judgement. Then there is a semicolon, denoting that another example is coming. The semicolon separates the examples, meaning a new example is coming but is related. How is it related? It is related through the purpose of reminding the readers that God destroys those who do not believe. This next example that is coming third, has one thing in common with the first two, and one thing only (which is what Jude is communicating). That is, it is about God destroying “those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5).

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The next example Jude uses of God destroying “those who did not believe” (Jude 1:5) is that of Sodom and Gomorrah and “the cities around them” which all gave themselves over to “sexual immorality” (Jude 1:7) and going “after strange flesh” (Jude 1:7). Then Jude affirms this specific example in Jude 1:6 as being, “as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7). Which is referring back and supporting his original statement in Jude 1:5 which is one of the many examples given to support the assertion that God destroys those who do not believe.

Now there are some who try to contend that going “after strange flesh” (Jude 1:7) is referring to angels going after strange flesh AND procreating. It is clear to me that if the Greek and references to homosexuality are properly researched within the Bible, “strange flesh” clearly refers to this sin of homosexuality. But let me be more accommodating to the angel view advocate and grant that “strange flesh” actually means deviant sexual activity with angels within the Jude text (which I actually don’t think it does). The angels in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah are angels of God, that is, they are not fallen and in no way are depicted as seeking to have sex with humans. The angel advocate usually tries some round about logic and asserts about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah…

(a) Since the humans wanted to have sex with the two angels
(b) Then humans can have sex with angels
(c) If humans can have sex with angels, then humans can procreate with angels.
(d) If humans can procreate with angels then Gen 6:1-4 is about angels coming down and procreating with human women.

In regard to (a), we all can agree, I think, that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah depicts that humans wanted to have sex with two angels. Even point (b) could be agreed upon by both parties, that is, humans can have sex with all sorts of things. Humans may have diviant sexual relations with anything; a tree, a dog, a doll (you get the point). That doesn’t mean that humans can procreate with a tree, a dog, or a doll. So it would seem that all could agree on the first two points.

But then the angel advocate wants to make a leap of logic within the Sodom and Gomorrah story and assert (c). That is, if humans can have sexual relations with angels, then humans can procreated with angels. This jump of logic is clearly not a reasonable one, for we have already established with examples that humans can have sex with things they cannot procreate with (additionally, the Bible tells us that "all flesh is not the same flesh" (1Cor 15:39). It would seem that any reasonable person can distinguish between sexual deviant behavior and procreation and realize that although (a) and (b) might be reasonably assumed from the Sodom and Gomorrah story, (c) and (d) most certainly cannot be reasonably assumed. Again, this is even if one is the most accommodating to the angel view advocate and concede that “strange flesh” means sex with angels and not homosexuality (which I don’t think it does).

Because it is the case that (c) and (d) cannot be reasonably assumed, the verses in Jude give little support to the notion that angels can procreate with human women. Let alone that it supports the fact that Genesis 6:1-4 suggests angels can procreate with human women. Therefore the verses in Jude end up falling significantly short in the attempt to give biblical warrant to the Book of Enoch’s assertion that angels can and did procreate with human women. If Jude is referencing the Book of Enoch at all, which there is significant doubt that He may not be, he clearly avoids the direct assertion that angels can and did procreate with human women.

Great conversation

Peace to you brother

 

[Paleouss]

Are you Catholic? And are you referring to Tertullian?

Here is one: This is not meant to imply what Justin wrote was on par with scripture, but it does show the understanding of these things in that day.

From “The Second Apology of Justin For the Christians”

Saint Justin Martyr: Second Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)

Saint Justin Martyr: Second Apology (Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

CHAPTER V -- HOW THE ANGELS TRANSGRESSED.

But if this idea take possession of some one that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. 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 the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them.
In regard to the book of Enoch, I do not hold that it is inspired (nor was it ever).
Not going to argue that point but I will point out it is in the Ethiopian cannon of scripture, and certain passages were quoted in the NT. It was used in earlier church history. Jude refers to .

We are getting into the weeds, lol. By that I mean, lots of rabbit holes to flush out.

In regard to early church fathers and the book of Enoch. I do not deny that some early church fathers, Tertullian specifically (which isn't any surprise if one knows anything about Tertullian), thought the book of Enoch should be Scripture. However, the commonly used assertion by the book of Enoch advocates that 'all early church fathers believed it was Scripture', is clearly false. I realize you didn't make this assertion, which I appreciate (but it is a common one).

Further, I also do not deny that much of the compromised Jewish culture at the time around Jesus believed in the Jewish myths about demons and evil spirits. One can find external sources (other than the Bible) to confirm this fact. As you have provided. However, the Jewish culture, as I said, was compromised. Within the biblical text, the ancient Hebrews had a problem with being susceptible to the surrounding people groups and their teachings about magic, gods, spirits and the teachings of demons. There are many instances recorded in the Bible where God chastises the Hebrew people for such practices. I won't say much more about that because that is a thread in and of itself.

Based on the fact that the Jewish culture had been compromised. It seems reasonable to give even more weight to only what the Bible establishes. Meaning, don't form doctrine from external sources.


Peace to you brother.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Here we can see that Holy Ones and sons of the mighty are not essentially or likely to be angels although they too are In Heaven and humble compared to God almighty.

Psalm 89:5-7, Psalm 89:19,20 YLT
5and the heavens confess Thy wonders, O Jehovah, Thy faithfulness also [is] in an assembly of holy ones.

6For who in the sky, Compareth himself to Jehovah? Is like to Jehovah among sons of the mighty?

7God is very terrible, In the secret counsel of His holy ones, And fearful over all surrounding Him.

19Then Thou hast spoken in vision, To Thy saint, yea, Thou sayest, I have placed help upon a mighty one, Exalted a chosen one out of the people,

20I have found David My servant, With My holy oil I have anointed him.

It is possible to think Michael the archangel is a holy one, but that is a name given to Jesus in the Gospel and here in this Psalm it refers to Him as the Holy One of Israel. There can be confusion here as to who they are. It goes against such as the Nicene Creed.
Verse 18
18For of Jehovah [is] our shield, And of the Holy One of Israel our king.

Holy ones can be human like and sons must have a father, angels don't. There is a difference between creations and sons and eunuchs.

The Genesis 6 sons of God are not owned by God but are rebels, or owned in prison.

I am sure angels cannot reproduce with women. Particularly looking at brain structure and functions, also DNA. There must be a matching 46 Chromosomes. And angels can travel through space fast, they are described as having wings and can change form to look like persons, and they can be disguised to be ordinary people. The Sodomites were men who used they bowel for intercourse. We don't know if angels have bowels or anything like them.

 

[Paleouss]

The Holy Spirit teaches the word best.

Greetings brother. Thank you for your reply

I do agree that the Holy Spirit teaches the word the best. Although, my agreement probably only lines up with yours when the Bible confirms it.

I use speculative theology.

This, imo, can be a problem sometimes. Although I do think all of us speculate to some degree. I think it wise that when one knows he is speculating that he leaves himself open to being wrong with his speculation. Thus always seeking more solid ground in scripture.

Peace to you brother
Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

The Catholic Church teaches that angels have no history, whereas I Corinthians 6:18-20 tells us our bodies have a history and we must take care of this matter as important. PJP2 on this basis devised, Theology of the Body, TOB. Angels may only appear to have bodies.

 

[johansen]

Carl Jung also had the notion of the autonomous complex: sometimes fragments of negative thought patterns can take on a life of their own, possibly even travelling into other people

i have experience with this, and my church found my wife a therapist who has also had experience with this sort of thing.

Basically, humans can do the things demons do too.

 

[Postvieww]

Greetings again Postvieww. You are providing some good stuff. Thank you for your time.

I will start with my conclusion and then work through how this is the correct exegesis of Jude. The conclusion is, (A) Jude attests to the fact that angels came in physical form, and (B) but does not attest that angels propagated with human women which gave birth to a new species.

Regarding Jude 6. Since you would agree with this first part, i.e., (A). I'll make this more like a summary of (A). Jude gives two conditions, according to the text. They are (1) not keeping “their first estate” (Jude 1:6a), and (2) leaving their “own habitation” (Jude 1:6b). These two conditions are not the same, as some would contend. #1 refers to the dominion that God assigned each angel. So #1 means that the angels left their assigned post. #2, "own habitation", refers to where angels live, i.e., in heaven (first, second, or third heaven). Of all the angels that 'fell', all left their "first estate" or "dominion" but a few also left their "own habitation". Since angels live in heaven, and they left that habitation (were thrown to the first heaven by the dragon., which is "to earth"). This reasonably means that those few, that also left their "own habitation" came in physical form. God was so displeased that He chained those that violated the second offense.

My problem with this theory is that all fallen angels, those that rebelled against God are not in chains, as I understand you to suggest. Only a select group are in chains, which raised the question why just a few of those fallen are chained and what did they commit to receive a more severe punishment?

​

Daniel 10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

I understand this passage to say God sent an angel (heavenly being) to answer Daniels prayer but was withstood 21 days by a fallen angel. Which situation required the help of the angel Michael. The prince of the kingdom in this context cannot refer to a human prince because no human can hold up a messenger (angel) from God for 21 days and needed to be tag teamed to get him out of the way.


2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

It is the angels that sinned that are in chains, and since all fallen angels are not in chains , what was the sin that got some of them chained.?

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Tell me who or what are these principalities, powers and rulers of darkness? They are not flesh and blood! They are not in chains!

My friend I believe you are going to great lengths to try and explain away an inconvenient truth from scripture. Tell me do you hold to the Sethite view of Genesis 6? If so we may just have some very interesting conversation because I believe the Sethite view is complete error with no scriptural support. Just conjecture.

About 20 years a ago I had this same type discussion with a pastor friend of mine. At the end he told me " I cannot with scripture disprove anything you have said , but I choose not to believe it."

I believe that is where many are today they don't want to believe it and go all out to try and disprove what I see is clearly stated.

Thank you for your time as well. I am under no illusion either of us will change the others mind on this but we can provide insight for those who may read and are still forming their own beliefs on this. God Bless my friend.

 

[Postvieww]

We are getting into the weeds, lol. By that I mean, lots of rabbit holes to flush out.

In regard to early church fathers and the book of Enoch. I do not deny that some early church fathers, Tertullian specifically (which isn't any surprise if one knows anything about Tertullian), thought the book of Enoch should be Scripture. However, the commonly used assertion by the book of Enoch advocates that 'all early church fathers believed it was Scripture', is clearly false. I realize you didn't make this assertion, which I appreciate (but it is a common one).

Further, I also do not deny that much of the compromised Jewish culture at the time around Jesus believed in the Jewish myths about demons and evil spirits. One can find external sources (other than the Bible) to confirm this fact. As you have provided. However, the Jewish culture, as I said, was compromised. Within the biblical text, the ancient Hebrews had a problem with being susceptible to the surrounding people groups and their teachings about magic, gods, spirits and the teachings of demons. There are many instances recorded in the Bible where God chastises the Hebrew people for such practices. I won't say much more about that because that is a thread in and of itself.

Based on the fact that the Jewish culture had been compromised. It seems reasonable to give even more weight to only what the Bible establishes. Meaning, don't form doctrine from external sources.


Peace to you brother.

My only point was that this is not a new fringe belief. It is and has been a view held by many throughout church history.

 

[Postvieww]

Good morning Postvieww. Thank God for His grace and His risen Son.


If you would go back and read my post #37 to you. You will discover that my exegesis, which is a correct one and consistent, is that the Hebrew phrase "sons of..." is a common expression within the biblical text that denotes ownership. It is an expression of 'whose you are' throughout the entire Bible. One could write a dissertation on this fact, due to the plethora of examples found within the Bible. If you deny this fact of the common use of "sons of..." within the biblical text. Please provide evidence that it is wrong.

bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm does not translate to "angel" nor "human". It translates to "sons of God". Hence, proper exegesis would be to consintetly apply the commonly used expression of ownership, i.e., "sons of..." to every instance. Bad exegesis would be to assume that bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm simply means 'angel' in every instance (or human).

Properly applying the commonly used expression of ownership of "sons of..." to the Proverb verses ( Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) One would seem to be compelled to say that the Proverb verses that contain bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm are referring to angels in the membership, ethical standard, and favor of God (translated: Good angel). This is proper exegesis.

Using this same standard, one then must apply this common expression of "sons of..." to the Genesis 6:1-4. Since "sons of..." is an expression of ownership, and the phrase sons of God indicates that that ownership is God's. Then it follows that the expression bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm in Genesis 6:1-4 is of something that is in the ethical standard and favor of God. Since our options are angels and humans, then proper exegesis would demand that our options are these: (1) Good angels (2) Good humans. Good angels makes no sense. And since nobody advocates for that, I won't go into why it makes no sense. So the only other option is 'good humans'. Which makes total sense considering the context starting from Genesis 4 (particularly Gen 4:26) to the end of Genesis 6.

I see no problem with my exegesis.

Great conversation

Your brother in Christ

I am still not in agreement that this is proper exegesis, I will try to explain. Your standard of “ownership “ allows you separate like Hebrew phrases and arbitrarily assign different definition to to Genesis 6 than those in Job. Context is important. You have agreed that the Job references are angels and have even said the one in dispute does not count. I disagree it does count. It seems you are mixing NT definitions with OT definitions to get to where you want to go. In the NT “sons of God” refers to those born again in the family of God. There is no such comparison in the OT use of the phrase. To me it appears you have applied that standard because it gets your theory to where it needs to be. “Son of God” is used once in a genealogy in Luke in reference to Adam only. Why? Was he the only one in the list who was in God’s favor? He was not born again by NT standards. No , but he was the only one in the list created by the hand of God which I contend is the proper interpretation of sons of God in the OT. The four references 3 in Job and 1 in Genesis are beings created by the hand of God. I see NO reason from the text to apply a standard of ownership or in favor with, I contend that applies only in the NT except for the example in Luke I explained. The examples in the OT do not denote standing with God as you claim they are identified as created beings only. Their actions identify their standing before God. Tell me how would a union between a righteous man (son of Seth) and an unrighteous daughter of man (daughter in the line of Cain) produce nephilim ? Now to get away from that problem one would have to start humanizing nephilim which IMHO is impossible to scripturally do.

 

[Paleouss]

My problem with this theory is that all fallen angels, those that rebelled against God are not in chains, as I understand you to suggest. Only a select group are in chains,

Good morning again Postvieww. Thank God that we can sharpen each other in the name of Christ our Lord.

I apologize for not being clear enough. What I was suggesting in post #61, in summery, is that there are those angels that fell (A). Of those that fell, there are two groups (A1) and (A2). This is seen in Jude when he writes (A1) not keeping “their first estate” (Jude 1:6a), and (A2) leaving their “own habitation” (Jude 1:6b). I explain briefly in post #61 that all the fallen angels violated A1. However, only some of the fallen angels violated A2. Those that violated A2 are those that came in physical form, as I expressed in post #61. Those fallen angels, the ones that violated A1 AND A2 are those that are in chains (2Pet 2:4). The fallen angels that only violated A1 (and not A2) are still here in the first heaven (i.e., on earth).

This link to my draft essay on Academia (.edu) will explain this further.
Demons & Evil Spirits On Earth: A Biblical Account Of Satan And Demonology

So again, I think we would agree that (1) some are chained and some not (Jude reveals why some are chained). We would also agree, I think, that (2) some fallen angels came in physical form (not all the fallen). This also is revealed in Jude. But this is were I depart from the angel advocate and the book of Enoch. In no way does Jude state that angels procreated with human women to produce a hybrid race.

I hope I cleared that up.

Peace to you brother.

 

[Paleouss]

My friend I believe you are going to great lengths to try and explain away an inconvenient truth from scripture. Tell me do you hold to the Sethite view of Genesis 6? If so we may just have some very interesting conversation because I believe the Sethite view is complete error with no scriptural support. Just conjecture.

Greetings again postvieww. Lots of branches to this vine we are discussing. Isn't there?

In regard to what you wrote above about me trying to explain away "inconvenient truth from scripture". In my post #70 I think I cleared up how I was not communicating my view well enough (because what you had written in post #69 was not my view). So that being cleared up...I think your claim of me "avoiding" is not warranted. I have however, attempted to explain in great length the topic you have presented in which you think are hurdles. And I think I have explained away those hurdles in a very reasonable way with verse support.

Your suggested topic on the Sethite view and me explaining it is another in-depth topic. It would take another in-depth inquiry within this post to address it properly. So I will only address it briefly and leave you or others to read the below link to my draft essay on the subject at Academia (.edu).

An Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-2 Within Context: The Lineage of “Thy Seed” and “Her seed”

Before I start, I would like to be transparent and say that I think that the angel view is a legitimate view to explore. In the end, I think it is in error. However, it is a legitimate view held by some respectable brothers and sisters. I will never claim, however, that it has no scripture in which to refer. But I will claim that those verses are not sufficient to hold such a view. I say all this to point out your claim that Sethite view has "no scriptural support". This seems to be to me, no offense, academic dishonesty. To claim a view that provides verses (many) and exegesis of verses, has no scriptural support. Well, that's just academic dishonesty or debate bluster. You will never hear me claim that your position "has no scriptural support" as long as you provide verses and explain them (which you have).

The human view, you call it the Sethite view, is simply a view that context matters. It basically says that after the prophesy of Genesis 3:15 of "thy seed" and "her seed" (her Seed (big S) being Jesus Christ). The 'context' goes directly into two 'families' in Genesis chapter 4. The reference of "thy seed" and "her seed" in Gen 3:15 correlate with the very next chapter (Gen 4) of Cain and Able and then Seth. What the lineage of Cain and Seth represent are two families with two different fathers. One is the family of "thy seed" (the devil) and the other is the family of "her seed" (God). As an aside, no, not all of those within the lineage of "her seed" are godly (which is what Genesis 6 is teaching).

That brief summary being said (above), the last verse in Genesis 4 regarding those that represent "her seed" reads...

(Gen 4:26 NKJV) 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then [men] began to call on the name of the LORD.

So if one is reading through the Bible and comes to Genesis 4:26. One reasonably thinks, oh good. There are those (men) that are now calling upon the name of the Lord. Awesome! The number of Godly men calling upon the name of the Lord is increasing.

However, the very next verse of the storyline is Genesis 6:1. One might say, wait! You skipped chapter 5. But I didn't really. Because Chapter 5 is an intermission of the storyline to throw in the genealogy of Adam through Seth. The Bible, keeping with context, is directing our gave at the line of Seth in Chapter 5. It is saying, when following the storyline from Genesis 4:26 to Genesis 6:1, set your gave on the line of Seth (which is chpt 5). Context is important.

So to make this more brief, Genesis chpt 6 is a story of how all mankind have become evil minded but one (Noah). So the question that should be asked from the storyline (which is the context) is...Why aren’t these increasingly Godly men in Genesis 4:26 producing and populating the earth with Godly offspring, contrary to Genesis 6:5,8? What happened? And the answer starts in Genesis 6:1-2. Because "sons of God" is a Hebrew phrase of 'whose you are'. And within context, the "sons of God" are those in favor of God, which is represented by the line of Seth, which is a representation of "her seed", i.e., godly men. This exegesis of "sons of God" here in Genesis is the same exegesis used in Job. Which I explained in another post.


Peace to you brother.

 

[Paleouss]

I am still not in agreement that this is proper exegesis, I will try to explain. Your standard of “ownership “ allows you separate like Hebrew phrases and arbitrarily assign different definition to to Genesis 6 than those in Job.

Greetings Postvieww.

I'm running out of time so I'll have to be brief.

I'm not "assigning different definitions". My exegesis of bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is consistently translated "sons of God". Further, I constantly recognize that within the OT. Notice I say OT and not NT? The phrase 'sons of...' is an expression of ownership. It is a Hebrew phrase that denotes 'whose you are'. I consistently have said this and consistently apply this to every phrase bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm within the Bible.

If I have not done this anywhere in my posts to you. Please quote it directly.

The phrase bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm does not translate to angel but to "sons of God". It's like if we were talking about cats and I wrote, "that's Postvieww's". Due to context, you would presume I was speaking of a cat you owned. And then on some other day we were writing about dogs and I said "that's Postvieww's". Now, due to context you should think....He must be talking about my dog I own. It would be an error to conclude that I was referring to your cat just because the phrase I used was the one I used to refer to your cat on another day. This using context to assign ownership to what the writer is referring to is not changing definitions. One day it was referring to cats and the next to dogs.


Peace to you brother

 

[Postvieww]

Greetings Postvieww.

I'm running out of time so I'll have to be brief.

Greetings to you as well my friend.

I'm not "assigning different definitions". My exegesis of bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm is consistently translated "sons of God". Further, I constantly recognize that within the OT. Notice I say OT and not NT? The phrase 'sons of...' is an expression of ownership. It is a Hebrew phrase that denotes 'whose you are'. I consistently have said this and consistently apply this to every phrase bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm within the Bible.

Yes I am fully aware of that. We agree that it is translated "sons of God" but we disagree that it "is an expression of ownership". I have made a case that it a designation of creation in the OT context not "ownership". Please refute what I wrote concerning that point.

1. There are no clearly stated passages in the OT where believers are called "sons of God". AS you said Genesis 6 does not count because it is not clearly stated as such and is in dispute.

2. The term "sons of God in the NT refers to born again believers, with the exception of Jesus Christ and the passage in Luke 3.. I hope we can agree on that.

3. Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam was not Jesus Christ, Adam was not born again! so why does scripture call him the son of God? I submit it is because he was created directly by the hand of God and uniquely different from everyone else in the genealogy of Luke 3. Not because of "ownership". I also submit that is why the four references in the OT refer to angelic beings also created directly by the hand of God.

Please address these specific points which I also believe are sound exegesis.

If I have not done this anywhere in my posts to you. Please quote it directly.

The phrase bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm does not translate to angel but to "sons of God". It's like if we were talking about cats and I wrote, "that's Postvieww's". Due to context, you would presume I was speaking of a cat you owned. And then on some other day we were writing about dogs and I said "that's Postvieww's". Now, due to context you should think....He must be talking about my dog I own. It would be an error to conclude that I was referring to your cat just because the phrase I used was the one I used to refer to your cat on another day. This using context to assign ownership to what the writer is referring to is not changing definitions. One day it was referring to cats and the next to dogs.

It is never my intent to misquote you , I just believe sometimes one of us is talking apples and the other oranges.

Peace to you brother

I do enjoy conversation where we can disagree without being disagreeable, thank you for that. God Bless you my friend.

 

[ByGraceandLoveDivine]

My problem with this theory is that all fallen angels, those that rebelled against God are not in chains, as I understand you to suggest. Only a select group are in chains, which raised the question why just a few of those fallen are chained and what did they commit to receive a more severe punishment?

​

Daniel 10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

I understand this passage to say God sent an angel (heavenly being) to answer Daniels prayer but was withstood 21 days by a fallen angel. Which situation required the help of the angel Michael. The prince of the kingdom in this context cannot refer to a human prince because no human can hold up a messenger (angel) from God for 21 days and needed to be tag teamed to get him out of the way.


2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

It is the angels that sinned that are in chains, and since all fallen angels are not in chains , what was the sin that got some of them chained.?

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Tell me who or what are these principalities, powers and rulers of darkness? They are not flesh and blood! They are not in chains!

My friend I believe you are going to great lengths to try and explain away an inconvenient truth from scripture. Tell me do you hold to the Sethite view of Genesis 6? If so we may just have some very interesting conversation because I believe the Sethite view is complete error with no scriptural support. Just conjecture.

About 20 years a ago I had this same type discussion with a pastor friend of mine. At the end he told me " I cannot with scripture disprove anything you have said , but I choose not to believe it."

I believe that is where many are today they don't want to believe it and go all out to try and disprove what I see is clearly stated.

Thank you for your time as well. I am under no illusion either of us will change the others mind on this but we can provide insight for those who may read and are still forming their own beliefs on this. God Bless my friend.

Postvieww,

"13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." bible verses like this show there's a hiechy between the demons just like how on our side. God the Father, and the trinity, archangels but also sometimes called princes, and angels who aren't mentioned by name in the Bible, as well as "and I will have my angels charge over thee," down to our own guardian angels. The devil, likewise, has the princes that rule over countries, states, towns, down to the many countless ones that monitor us on a daily basis. Cs.lewis even theorised that there were demons over certain sins.

 

[Postvieww]

Greetings again postvieww. Lots of branches to this vine we are discussing. Isn't there?

In regard to what you wrote above about me trying to explain away "inconvenient truth from scripture". In my post #70 I think I cleared up how I was not communicating my view well enough (because what you had written in post #69 was not my view). So that being cleared up...I think your claim of me "avoiding" is not warranted. I have however, attempted to explain in great length the topic you have presented in which you think are hurdles. And I think I have explained away those hurdles in a very reasonable way with verse support.

Your suggested topic on the Sethite view and me explaining it is another in-depth topic. It would take another in-depth inquiry within this post to address it properly. So I will only address it briefly and leave you or others to read the below link to my draft essay on the subject at Academia (.edu).

An Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-2 Within Context: The Lineage of “Thy Seed” and “Her seed”

Before I start, I would like to be transparent and say that I think that the angel view is a legitimate view to explore. In the end, I think it is in error. However, it is a legitimate view held by some respectable brothers and sisters. I will never claim, however, that it has no scripture in which to refer. But I will claim that those verses are not sufficient to hold such a view. I say all this to point out your claim that Sethite view has "no scriptural support". This seems to be to me, no offense, academic dishonesty. To claim a view that provides verses (many) and exegesis of verses, has no scriptural support. Well, that's just academic dishonesty or debate bluster. You will never hear me claim that your position "has no scriptural support" as long as you provide verses and explain them (which you have).

If I offended you I apologize it was not my intent. But I do believe the Sethite view is built mainly on assumptions and conjecture. I will try to point out why I believe that to be the case. I do recognize people can have honest disagreements on topics such as this. The way I look at our conversation is simply you telling me why you believe I am wrong and me telling you why I believe you are wrong.
It is never intended to be personal on my part.

The human view, you call it the Sethite view, is simply a view that context matters. It basically says that after the prophesy of Genesis 3:15 of "thy seed" and "her seed" (her Seed (big S) being Jesus Christ). The 'context' goes directly into two 'families' in Genesis chapter 4. The reference of "thy seed" and "her seed" in Gen 3:15 correlate with the very next chapter (Gen 4) of Cain and Able and then Seth. What the lineage of Cain and Seth represent are two families with two different fathers. One is the family of "thy seed" (the devil) and the other is the family of "her seed" (God). As an aside, no, not all of those within the lineage of "her seed" are godly (which is what Genesis 6 is teaching).

That brief summary being said (above), the last verse in Genesis 4 regarding those that represent "her seed" reads...

So if one is reading through the Bible and comes to Genesis 4:26. One reasonably thinks, oh good. There are those (men) that are now calling upon the name of the Lord. Awesome! The number of Godly men calling upon the name of the Lord is increasing.

However, the very next verse of the storyline is Genesis 6:1. One might say, wait! You skipped chapter 5. But I didn't really. Because Chapter 5 is an intermission of the storyline to throw in the genealogy of Adam through Seth. The Bible, keeping with context, is directing our gave at the line of Seth in Chapter 5. It is saying, when following the storyline from Genesis 4:26 to Genesis 6:1, set your gave on the line of Seth (which is chpt 5). Context is important.

So to make this more brief, Genesis chpt 6 is a story of how all mankind have become evil minded but one (Noah). So the question that should be asked from the storyline (which is the context) is...Why aren’t these increasingly Godly men in Genesis 4:26 producing and populating the earth with Godly offspring, contrary to Genesis 6:5,8? What happened? And the answer starts in Genesis 6:1-2. Because "sons of God" is a Hebrew phrase of 'whose you are'. And within context, the "sons of God" are those in favor of God, which is represented by the line of Seth, which is a representation of "her seed", i.e., godly men. This exegesis of "sons of God" here in Genesis is the same exegesis used in Job. Which I explained in another post.

Genesis 4:26 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.

I see no contextual link to Genesis 6 here. Part of what I see to be an assumption.

Gen 4:26
And to Seth, H8352 to him H1931 also H1571 there was born H3205a son; H1121 and he called H7121 his name H8034 Enos: H583 then H227began men H2490 to call H7121 upon the name H8034of the LORD. H3068

The KJV translates Strong's H2490 in the following manner: begin (52x), profane (36x), pollute (23x), defile (9x), break (4x), wounded (3x), eat (2x), slay (2x), first (1x), gather grapes (1x), inheritance (1x), began men (1x), piped (1x), players (1x), prostitute (1x), sorrow (1x), stain (1x), eat as common things (1x).

I'll refrain from commenting on this right now I will let you parse this out for yourself.

ISV
Genesis 4:26 Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the Lord began.

I'll just say this translation is interesting to say the least.


Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Why just refer to the men and daughters here and suddenly switch to "sons of God" in verse 2

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

What scriptural link ties "sons of Seth" to the "sons of God"? Genesis 4:26 does not do it. What scriptural link ties the "daughters of men" to the line of Cain? Just one more reason I believe it is based on and assumption and conjecture. There is no mention of Seth or Cain in this passage , that is reason I use the words assumptions and conjecture.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

God is displeased with man in this passage. What happened to the Godly line of Seth?

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

How does a Godly line of men and a ungodly line of women produce Nephilium? If you ignore the rest of this post please answer this question?

5 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.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Where did all of those Godly Sethites go? God was displeased with all of mankind save Noah and his own.

Peace to you brother.

Peace to you as well! I know this is a hot topic and I do not take it lightly. But I do believe it is profoundly important and does help to answer many questions about scripture that are tough to explain with any other view.

 

[Postvieww]

I apologize for not being clear enough. What I was suggesting in post #61, in summery, is that there are those angels that fell (A). Of those that fell, there are two groups (A1) and (A2). This is seen in Jude when he writes (A1) not keeping “their first estate” (Jude 1:6a), and (A2) leaving their “own habitation” (Jude 1:6b). I explain briefly in post #61 that all the fallen angels violated A1. However, only some of the fallen angels violated A2. Those that violated A2 are those that came in physical form, as I expressed in post #61. Those fallen angels, the ones that violated A1 AND A2 are those that are in chains (2Pet 2:4). The fallen angels that only violated A1 (and not A2) are still here in the first heaven (i.e., on earth).

I disagree with this analysis.
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. I believe the text is clear and does not show 2 groups of angels. The same angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation.

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. “Evan as” designates that the sin the angels committed was comparable to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, “ going after strange flesh “. Yes, there are two groups of fallen angels and only one group is currently bound in chains, but Jude only deals with the one group that committed a sin that got them locked up.
2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; The sin referred to here is not the rebellion because it is clear not all fallen angels are in chains. That sin is outlined in Jude and Genesis 6.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I disagree with this analysis.
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. I believe the text is clear and does not show 2 groups of angels. The same angels that kept not their first estate left their own habitation.

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. “Evan as” designates that the sin the angels committed was comparable to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, “ going after strange flesh “. Yes, there are two groups of fallen angels and only one group is currently bound in chains, but Jude only deals with the one group that committed a sin that got them locked up.
2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; The sin referred to here is not the rebellion because it is clear not all fallen angels are in chains. That sin is outlined in Jude and Genesis 6.

It seems fallen angels could escape the bounds of Hell.

 

[Postvieww]

It seems fallen angels could escape the bounds of Hell.

I don’t think so. Some are operating in the earth and those chained cannot escape what God has in store for them.