Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Christianity Board Christian Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

The Fallen Angels/flood

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
The fallen angels Was Noah's flood a worldwide destruction, or a territorial flood for a specific group of transgressors, the fallen angels? It is written in ancient Chinese history, of a great flood that took place in the time of Noah, near mount Ararat. Many scholars through studies of the original transcripts believe that this was not a total destruction of earth, but a territorial flood destroying the ungodly of this period of time. The reason God brought forth this flood upon the land lies in (Genesis 6). And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:1,2) Beings from the spirit world (Nephilim) the fallen angels, looked upon the beautiful woman and took any they desired to be their wives. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the fallen sons of God (Nephilim) 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. (Genesis 6:4) In those days, when the fallen angels (Nephilim) were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, (Gibbor in the Hebrew language) of whom so many legends are told. 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. (Genesis 6:5) When God seen the perversion among the nephilim and among men, he was sorry he had made them. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:7) God would destroy man along with the gibbor, in order to preserve the human race that the fallen angels tried to pollute. 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; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. (II Peter 2:4,5) And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6) God bound the Nephilim in darkness until judgment day and Noah's family would carry on the line from Adam. It is believed that many of the ungodly survived the flood and settled in the land of Canaan among the Canaanite people: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21). Other names given to these tribes were Anakim, from one Anak, which came of the Nephilim, and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them. The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted Giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. (Deuteronomy 2:10,11) Both the Emim and the Anakim are often referred to as the Rephaim. Their strength is seen in the giant cities of Bashan, utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings. The explanation of Greek mythology is no invention of the human mind. But it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and the legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings, and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of (Genesis 6:4), the demi-gods of the Greeks.Note: (The Strong's Hebrew concordance will describe the Nephilim as the giants, but if you read on in Genesis 6:4, there was a second influx of the fallen angels. The Strong's then describes the "mighty men" of Genesis 6:4 as the Gibbor (giants) of the time, that were the children of the Nephilim. For the full story and a deeper study of this subject refer to appendix #25 of the King James companion Bible), A must read if you want the proper explanation on the subject.Flood Reference:Did Noah's flood cover the whole planet? To determine this, we might first look into the meaning of the word used for "earth" in the Genesis account of Noah's Flood. The word is #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) KJV translates it: common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world. That, in itself, may not tell us very much. So we must look to the context of the surrounding scripture. There is another word which is also translated "earth" in these same passages concerning Noah's flood... That word is: #127 'adamah (ad-aw-maw'); from 119; soil (from its general redness): KJV translates this -- country, earth, ground, husband [-man] (-ry), land. This word relates to Strongs #120 ADAMSo the scripture reads: Gen 6:20 of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the *earth* #127 (Adam's earth) after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. Here is a case where the TWO Hebrew words are used in the same passage! Gen 7:4 for yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the (erets) #776 *earth* forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the (Adam's earth) #127 *earth*. Would we be assuming too much to say that the usage of #127 "adamah" interdispersed with #776 "erets" would qualify that word? Would we be assuming too much to say that land affected was "Adam's" land, field, ground etc? (Opposed to Cain's or other tribes or nation's ground) Erets does not actually carry any connotation of a global spherical planet in its translation. Granted, it was translated "earth" many times, but it is also translated "country" 140 times, "land" 1,476 times and "ground" 96 times in the OT. In most cases, "erets" can be proven to be a limited land area... not the whole planet. We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (As does other LITERAL exegesis) These false interpretations are assumed and encouraged so that we can continue to support "tradition" or orthodoxy - never mind what Scripture is really saying. In so doing, we allow these misinterpretations to contradict other verses where the same word is used! We end up making a mockery of Scripture by trying to get it to fit ill-conceived theology. If we view the flood as global, then we must (if we are consistent) apply that same usage in other places were the same words and phrases are used.Let's look at some of these: Cain was cursed by God and driven from the "face of the earth" (Gen 4:14) We know Cain was not driven off the planet... but out of the land he knew as "home" ... God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth (erets) to come in unto us (Gen 19:31) we know not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction. What about when God told Abram (Gen 12:1) "get thee out of thy country and go unto a land I will show thee" Both "country" and "land" is # 776 "erets" -- We know, of course, God was not telling Abram to leave the planet and to another world or planet. Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt. So why would we assume Noah's flood where it states: "the rain was upon the earth" (erets) (Gen 7:10,12) would then be of global proportions? (Especially when the term ADAMAH #127 is also used in these passages?) Here's a good one too: In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts "covering the face of the earth" THAT ONE COULD NOT SEE THE EARTH! They covered the "face of the whole earth!" It should be pretty evident that this locust plague covered only a limited LAND of Egypt... it is the same wording in both places. Yet we never assume these locusts covered the entire globe... You may also remember when Joseph was in Egypt there existed a "famine all over the face of "erets"... Gen. 41:56 There is no evidence of a global famine at that time... the Bible states "all" countries (erets) came to Egypt" to buy corn (Gen 41:57) Surely it means the countries close to Egypt... Certainly not "all" countries -- unless we assume the Australians or the American Indians... were in Egypt buying corn. If we take "erets" to mean the entire planet, then we also have to interpret that OTHER PLANETS came to Egypt to buy corn. All this, so we can maintain the false teaching of a universal flood. After the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and settled in Canaan, the scripture says they "covered the face of the earth" (Num 22:5,11) Not even fundamentalists would say that Israelites covered every square foot of the planet...This is simply a way of stating that they occupied the land in which they were dwelling. There are many instances in the bible where it speaks of the "the earth" or the face of the earth... which clearly refers to a limited land, area, or country. We read about all the hills being covered... or all flesh destroyed. When God spoke of destroying all flesh; He said He "will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13) the planet earth was not destroyed, neither was all the flesh on the planet -- only that flesh and land where Noah lived was destroyed
  • 0

#2
jeffweeder

jeffweeder

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationAustralia
When God spoke of destroying all flesh; He said He "will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13) the planet earth was not destroyed, neither was all the flesh on the planet -- only that flesh and land where Noah lived was destroyed
These scriptures are interesting; "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. Some have proposed that it took 70 years or so to build the Ark.They could have moved far away from mesopatamia ,if it was a localised flood, but instead spent years building the ark .
35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
The second coming of Christ is not going to be a localised event, but will come upon all those who dwell on the whole earth.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

  • 0

#3
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
The second coming will be seen by the whole world you are correct the verse "as it was in the days of Noah" refers to the giving and taking of marriage to the fallen angels Who will come agin with Satan/ Antichrist in the End times when he opens the abyss he is given the key to the bottomless pit.
  • 0

#4
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
It is precisely for reasons like thes that Genesis 8:9 says the entire earth was covered so such silly ideas don't come upBut the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were coveredGen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.This clearly shows you how high the waters were. Covering up mountains pretty much shows you how deep and far reaching it was. From what i have seen along with many other scriptures there was a global flood also don't forget the eath wasn't like the way it is now also you have heard of floods on tv have you ever heard of one that lasted over a year? It was no doubt a global flood many experts have even concluded that unless you are saying God has no understanding of words.
It is believed that many of the ungodly survived the flood and settled in the land of Canaan among the Canaanite people: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21). Other names given to these tribes were Anakim, from one Anak, which came of the Nephilim, and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.
How could they have survived it when the entire purpose of the flood was to destroy them? Are you saying God did not accomplish what He set out to do and even said He would do? The Flood was global only eight people survived it. Gen 7:23 says all living things was destroyed not just people. You said it is believed back it up properly with scripture. Comparing God's own statement with Lot's daughter is just silly.
We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (As does other LITERAL exegesis
Why? Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible if anything he understood very well and could easily have taught the people considering he wrote this book which I believe God told him to write for all both peopleof that time and now and many of the prophets also had visions where they saw the entire universe
  • 0

#5
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
Here is a good place to find some information on this topics. Also I would hope I am not offending you in anyway. God bless.
  • 0

#6
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
No you are not offending me I happen to be of the thought that the the flood was world wide but I know many are not I was posting the above because the language in these verse's does lend itself to the idea it may not have been. I thought it good to provoke thought on this I do not buy your reasoning about Moses I do however think there are other verses that would be hard to see the flood as anything else but world wide, but I dont think we can use the Words of just covered the face of the earth to prove it. After the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and settled in Canaan, the scripture says they "covered the face of the earth" (Num 22:5,11) Not even fundamentalists would say that Israelites covered every square foot of the planet...This is simply a way of stating that they occupied the land in which they were dwelling.
  • 0

#7
Jordan

Jordan

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,888 posts
Actually it is possible for both sides, however... If the spiritual flood is worldwide (and it is too) why can't Noah's flood be worldwide too. It makes no sense if one flood is local and the other flood worldwide. The way I'm seeing the bible. History repeats itself.
  • 0

#8
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
Great point Jag I also like the Dove found no rest for her feet verse Alistien postedsurley the dove could fly a long distance and see further than she could fly.
  • 0

#9
Jordan

Jordan

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,888 posts
I can say lots of things that sounds right (Note I said sounds) but however, I clearly think Christ's First Coming is local...because He was only there for the lost sheep of Israel in His time as flesh.However concerning dove and raven...The dove is white, the raven is black.The dove came back, (Genesis 8:8, Genesis 8:10, Genesis 8) the raven didn't. (Genesis 8:7)The raven is unclean (Leviticus 11:13) The dove would be clean. (in a spiritual sense) etc...
  • 0

#10
stone

stone

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
I believe the flood was world wide. The creation scientists that speak of a sedimentary layer in the fossil record, which is supposed to indicate the flood, say that the layer is found all around the world. Also I believe the large dinosaurs died in Noah's flood which is why it must have been world wide. Also I believe the timing of Noah's flood is not given in the bible because the geneology has a large time break right after the sons of Noah are mentioned and just a few generations later there is already a world full of people with kingdoms, so the geneology given is a partial geneology and the flood could have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. All of the cave man stuff they are discovering is mankind getting back up after Noah's flood. Before Noah's flood there was a scientifically advanced civilization that had dconquered aging, had flying machines and great skill in building but they were wicked so they were destroyed except for Noah and his family.The angels called sons of God in Genesis 6 were angels of God; they were not fallen angels as some suppose. They are called sons of God just like Jesus was called a son of God. Their name indicates that they were God's angels and not fallen angels. The idea they were fallen angels comes from a misinterpretation of the scriptures in Jude. The angels that left their first estate in Jude is referring to all the fallen angels in general and it is not a reference to Genesis 6.
  • 0

#11
Jordan

Jordan

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,888 posts
(stone;49079)
I believe the flood was world wide. The creation scientists that speak of a sedimentary layer in the fossil record, which is supposed to indicate the flood, say that the layer is found all around the world. Also I believe the large dinosaurs died in Noah's flood which is why it must have been world wide. Also I believe the timing of Noah's flood is not given in the bible because the geneology has a large time break right after the sons of Noah are mentioned and just a few generations later there is already a world full of people with kingdoms, so the geneology given is a partial geneology and the flood could have happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. All of the cave man stuff they are discovering is mankind getting back up after Noah's flood. Before Noah's flood there was a scientifically advanced civilization that had dconquered aging, had flying machines and great skill in building but they were wicked so they were destroyed except for Noah and his family.The angels called sons of God in Genesis 6 were angels of God; they were not fallen angels as some suppose. They are called sons of God just like Jesus was called a son of God. Their name indicates that they were God's angels and not fallen angels. The idea they were fallen angels comes from a misinterpretation of the scriptures in Jude. The angels that left their first estate in Jude is referring to all the fallen angels in general and it is not a reference to Genesis 6.
I have to disagree with the majority of your post. But I want to leave only a couple. Dinosaurs did not exist in Noah's flood. Dinosaurs existed before Adam's time. Dinosaurs existed before Genesis 1:3.Concerning fallen angels not being sons of God. They still are. If you completely disobey your parents forever, are you still a son / daughter of your parents. Of course you are.Question #1, how can 2 humans create a giant for there was no such thing as giants before Genesis 6.Question #2 If the term sons of God being angels that is of God, that loves Him, where was the abomination started...As for flying machines, you are preaching that can never be proven in the bible.
  • 0

#12
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
Question #1, how can 2 humans create a giant for there was no such thing as giants before Genesis 6.
Sorry but where does it say two humans created a giant.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. It says there were giants however the word translated giant here is nephil or nephily which the NIV translates as Nephilm and itaccording to strong's means tyrant,bully or from it's root nephal means similar as above or fugitive, and Nelson puts it simply as fallen ones. hence it refers to the state of certain people being cast out of society as fugitives and not giants there is infact no hint of giants coming from this word. the only word that comes close to giants is rephaim I think used to describe Goliath and even then the word goes more with invigorating describing the feel one gets around someone as huge and powerful as Goliath. One lookd inferior and insignificant. Also it says the sons of God gave birth or rather the women they impregnated gave birth to men who became mighty men of old. So their children were men not giants.
Question #2 If the term sons of God being angels that is of God, that loves Him, where was the abomination started...
what abomination?
  • 0

#13
HammerStone

HammerStone

    Webmaster

  • Administrator
  • 4,644 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina
It's root means fallen, don't mistake that. Trying to suggest that fallen translates into tyrant is surely a stretch. It's a very liberal interpretation of fallen when Genesis 6 is pretty clear on the matter.
  • 0

#14
Jordan

Jordan

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,888 posts
(Alistein;49269)
(thesuperjag;49092)
Question #1, how can 2 humans create a giant for there was no such thing as giants before Genesis 6.
Sorry but where does it say two humans created a giant.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. It says there were giants however the word translated giant here is nephil or nephily which the NIV translates as Nephilm and itaccording to strong's means tyrant,bully or from it's root nephal means similar as above or fugitive, and Nelson puts it simply as fallen ones. hence it refers to the state of certain people being cast out of society as fugitives and not giants there is infact no hint of giants coming from this word. the only word that comes close to giants is rephaim I think used to describe Goliath and even then the word goes more with invigorating describing the feel one gets around someone as huge and powerful as Goliath. One lookd inferior and insignificant. Also it says the sons of God gave birth or rather the women they impregnated gave birth to men who became mighty men of old. So their children were men not giants.
(thesuperjag;49092)
Question #2 If the term sons of God being angels that is of God, that loves Him, where was the abomination started...
what abomination?
You imply that the "sons of God" are not fallen angels...You imply that these "sons of God" are either human or angels that love Him...If you imply that the "sons of God" are humans, then there is no such abomination, because it is good for flesh to marry a flesh, so 2 humans can not make a giant.It was an abomination to God for these "sons of God" (spirit) to marry the daughters of men. (flesh) It is abomination for the spirit to marry a flesh women. (Genesis 6:2) Because of that, they gave birth to a giant (Genesis 6:4)
  • 0

#15
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
The ‘sons of God’ of verses Gen 6:2 and 6:4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12). My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.87 The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view: For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds88 so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33:There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.89This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the godly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ‘in Satan’s pocket,’ Satan knew from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood.Genesis 6 describes a desperate attempt on the part of Satan to attack the godly remnant that is named in chapter 5. So long as a righteous seed is preserved, God’s promise of salvation hangs over the head of Satan, threatening of his impending doom.The daughters of men were not raped or seduced as such. They simply chose their husbands on the same basis that the angels selected them—physical appeal. Now if you were an eligible woman in those days, who would you choose? Would you select a handsome, muscle-bulging specimen of a man, who had a reputation for his strength and accomplishments, or what seemed to be in comparison a ninety-pound weakling?Women looked for the hope of being the mother of the Savior. Who would be the most likely father of such a child? Would it not be a ‘mighty man of renown,’ who would also be able to boast of immortality? Some of the godly Sethites did live to be nearly 1000 years old, but the Nephilim did not die, if they were angels. And so the new race began.
  • 0

#16
jeffweeder

jeffweeder

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationAustralia
The ‘sons of God’ of verses Gen 6:2 and 6:4 are fallen angels
HiI'm not sure about all this angel and daughters talk,---- So who were the "sons of God."I'll leave it for scripture to sort out, and this is what i find so far.;Sons of God-----Who is worthy of such a title?Doesnt God have 1 only begotton of himself?----who was titled as Gods only son?Isnt his name above every name?---even that of Angels?Did God make Angels in his image, or was it Man? How could you be a son of God, if your not made specifically in his image?Are Angels anywhere called the sons of God?Is man?
LK 3the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
From Seth to Adam?What of Abel? Cain?Even after the fall, Abel bought a sacrifice to God that was acceptable.Cain didnt, was banished even futrher away from the Garden, and God replaced Abel with seth, and he bore the offspring.I reckon these might be the sons of God.Eventually, Noah was the only one bringing a true sacrifice to God, as the cainninite men, took the daughters of seth, and only Noahs family was left undefiled.
  • 0

#17
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
(jeffweeder;49299)
HiI'm not sure about all this angel and daughters talk,---- So who were the "sons of God."I'll leave it for scripture to sort out, and this is what i find so far.;Sons of God-----Who is worthy of such a title?Doesnt God have 1 only begotton of himself?----who was titled as Gods only son?Isnt his name above every name?---even that of Angels?Did God make Angels in his image, or was it Man? How could you be a son of God, if your not made specifically in his image?Are Angels anywhere called the sons of God?Is man?From Seth to Adam?What of Abel? Cain?Even after the fall, Abel bought a sacrifice to God that was acceptable.Cain didnt, was banished even futrher away from the Garden, and God replaced Abel with seth, and he bore the offspring.I reckon these might be the sons of God.Eventually, Noah was the only one bringing a true sacrifice to God, as the cainninite men, took the daughters of seth, and only Noahs family was left undefiled.
Job 1:6 6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.Job 2 1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.Who was Satan ?? He was an angel only angels could go to visit God The Angels are also the sons of God he created themJude6 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 dayhttp://www.christian...t=fallen angelsread view 1 and 2 I already reposted 3 here it will tell you about seth veiw
  • 0

#18
Red_Letters88

Red_Letters88

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 390 posts
(jeffweeder;49299)
HiI'm not sure about all this angel and daughters talk,---- So who were the "sons of God."I'll leave it for scripture to sort out, and this is what i find so far.
Kinda off the topic, but I remembered a verse that may help you.Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.and this one- which uses "sons of God" in place of angels.Job 2:1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.................................................................................
  • 0

#19
jeffweeder

jeffweeder

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationAustralia
Hmmm ,interesting scriptures, thanks Kriss and RL88After thinking about them a little while, this thought came to me.;The sons of God come to God and satan tags along also.Why is satan seperated as something different, as though he wasnt a son of god?God said to satan...where have you come from?...what are you doing in the presense of the sons of God?He is the accuser....so God immediately says to him..have you considereed my servant Job? Job 1 It appears to me that satan is there to undermine the sons of God, and Job is the challenge to satans lies.
the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also
Maybe this had to do with when the sons of Adam presented their sacrifice to God.Satan is only seen to ridicule the sacrifices made.God says...have you considered this Job fellow?satan and his host could never be associated with being a son of God....surely.
  • 0

#20
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
(Denver;49272)
It's root means fallen, don't mistake that. Trying to suggest that fallen translates into tyrant is surely a stretch. It's a very liberal interpretation of fallen when Genesis 6 is pretty clear on the matter.
No it's not. Check the concordance for yourself. The strongs clearly indicates what it is and even if it says and is translated fallen it still does not say the sons of God had giants as children. It says they had children that became mighty men. Also fallen does not translate to angels. It certainly could read as Fallen angels or something like that. 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 (not giants)which were of old, men of renown.
  • 0

#21
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
You imply that the "sons of God" are not fallen angels...You imply that these "sons of God" are either human or angels that love Him
I have not implied anything. I simply asked what the abomination was as there was no mention of it in earlier post. The sons of God could well be angels there are scriptures supporting it. However there is no record that the offspring were giants the offspring according to genesis 6:4 were men. I do agree that it was an abomination for angels to marry or have intercourse with humans, but the resulting children were not giants if I am reading this verse righ but mighty men. It certainly could have said giants or mighty giants.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
  • 0

#22
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
Hmmm ,interesting scriptures, thanks Kriss and RL88After thinking about them a little while, this thought came to me.;The sons of God come to God and satan tags along also.Why is satan seperated as something different, as though he wasnt a son of god?God said to satan...where have you come from?...what are you doing in the presense of the sons of God?He is the accuser....so God immediately says to him..have you considereed my servant Job? Job 1 It appears to me that satan is there to undermine the sons of God, and Job is the challenge to satans lies.Quote:the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also Maybe this had to do with when the sons of Adam presented their sacrifice to God.Satan is only seen to ridicule the sacrifices made.God says...have you considered this Job fellow?satan and his host could never be associated with being a son of God....surely.
You do bring up some rather interesting points. There are certainly many that believe as you do that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth. It definitely is interesting.
  • 0

#23
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
(jeffweeder;49308)
Hmmm ,interesting scriptures, thanks Kriss and RL88After thinking about them a little while, this thought came to me.;The sons of God come to God and satan tags along also.Why is satan seperated as something different, as though he wasnt a son of god?God said to satan...where have you come from?...what are you doing in the presense of the sons of God?He is the accuser....so God immediately says to him..have you considereed my servant Job? Job 1 It appears to me that satan is there to undermine the sons of God, and Job is the challenge to satans lies.Maybe this had to do with when the sons of Adam presented their sacrifice to God.Satan is only seen to ridicule the sacrifices made.God says...have you considered this Job fellow?satan and his host could never be associated with being a son of God....surely.
Jeff you seem to be reading into it what is not there Satan was with them because he was one of them no where does it say differentlyWas he fallen yes thats why he was accusing and is also called the tempter ect. He acted differently but he was still one of them. We are told this in scripture. Understanding this does not change scripture it explains it so that we understand happened so can be prepared for what will happen.
  • 0

#24
Christina

Christina

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,901 posts
(Alistein;49317)
I have not implied anything. I simply asked what the abomination was as there was no mention of it in earlier post. The sons of God could well be angels there are scriptures supporting it. However there is no record that the offspring were giants the offspring according to genesis 6:4 were men. I do agree that it was an abomination for angels to marry or have intercourse with humans, but the resulting children were not giants if I am reading this verse righ but mighty men. It certainly could have said giants or mighty giants.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
I beg to differ Alistein Gen 6:4 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. Seems you are ignoring the first part of this verse and the others--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 2:20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead [was] a bedstead of iron; [is] it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits [was] the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deu 3:13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, [being] the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jos 12:4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, [which was] of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jos 13:12 All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jos 15:8 And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same [is] Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of Hinnom westward, which [is] at the end of the valley of the giants northward: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jos 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou [be] a great people, [then] get thee up to the wood [country], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jos 18:16 And the border came down to the end of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of the son of Hinnom, [and] which [is] in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to Enrogel,
  • 0

#25
Alistein

Alistein

    Advanced Member

  • Christian Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 93 posts
Gen 6:4 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. Seems you are ignoring the first part of this verse and the others
I am not ignoring it I already said the word giants here in the hebrew is nephil or nephily which means feller and is in the concordance translated as tyrant or bully the root word nephal as it as fugitive. there is no where it is translated as fallen angels or their childen. It then specifically tells you that they bare children. what kind of children? The verse says mighty men and it actually says they became not that they were born mighty men. This verse does not support giants in anyway. Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. First check the meaning of the word in the concordance. Does't this seem like an exageration. Finally the bible said they brought a lying or evil report. As for the rest of the scriptures check the words in the Hebrew first before jumping on them and also by your logic if the lord wiped out the fallen angels and their children. during the flood how could they have existed again seeing you say the fallen angels were already improsed and their children destroyed. Did the fallen angels escaped to sin again. as you can see there is no sense in that. On the other hand if you say God didn't wipe them out then that means He failed and didn't keeps His and the flood was of no use and as some said if it wasn't worldwwide why not just tell Noah to travel far where it would not reach, noah would certaily have travelled far enough atleast 70years or what ever time he used in building the ark.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users