Genesis 6

[Christina]

GENESIS 6 I have posted this study before but it has been updated and we have new members and its important to understanding Gods Word .........................................GENESIS 6 – WHO WERE "THE SONS OF GOD"?GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (NKJV)There has been much speculation about who these "sons of God" mentioned in the sixth chapter of Genesis were. Three basic interpretations of this passage have been advanced. The first, and oldest, belief is that "the sons of God" were fallen angels who consorted with human women, producing giant offspring called nephilim (Heb. נפלים). This view was widely held in the world of the first century, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus. The second view is one which was first suggested by Julius Africanus and later advocated by Saint Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. Augustine rejected the concept of the fallen host having committed fornication with women. In his early fifth century book The City of God, he promoted the theory that "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God," and the female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men." He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, intermingling the bloodlines and corrupting the pure religion. This view has become the dominant one among most modern biblical scholars. (Though his intensions may have been good, It also was done for political reasons. He wanted to make the common Jew looked on less favorably in hopes it would ensure the church domination over Judaism. If people believed it was the common Jewish bloodline who killed Christ rather than the work of Satan and the nephilim they would be looked on with distain. This new interpetation of scripture resulted in much bloodshed and Anti semitism. It has caused confusion to this very day. It can not go without my notice this was a man/church changing the meaning of Gods word for his religious/political reasons )The third view is that "the sons of God" were the sons of pre-Flood rulers or magistrates. This belief became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism after Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai pronounced a curse in the second century CE upon those Jews who believed the common teaching that the angels were responsible for the nephilim. This interpretation was advocated by two of the most respected Jewish sages of the Middle Ages, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) and Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Nachmanides), and became the standard explanation of rabbinical Judaism. However, it is not widely accepted by modern scholars. To determine who these "sons of God" were, we'll first examine what various outside sources have to say about this topic. Then we'll examine the ultimate authority, the Bible, to see its position. Let's start with a quotation and footnote from William Whitson's translation of the respected first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' history of the Jewish people: Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed to them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness; whereby they made God to be their enemy, for many angels* of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and, being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better; but, seeing that they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. (p. 32, bk. 1, ch. 3, §§72-74, The Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whitson) * This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity. As you can see, Josephus believed and recorded that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. As Whitson's footnote acknowledges, this belief was standard in the ancient world. Another well-known first century Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria, shared Josephus' views on this topic. In his work "On the Giants," Philo wrote: "And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all them whom they chose." Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels . . . (p. 152, The Works of Philo, "On the Giants," translated by C.D. Yonge) The Book of Enoch (also called I Enoch) is a collection of pseudepigraphic writings by various authors which dates to the first or second century B.C. This book was well-known by the early church; in fact, Jude, the brother of Jesus, quoted Enoch 1:9 in verses 14 and 15 of his epistle. Obviously Jude felt that the Book of Enoch he had access to in the first century was trustworthy. This work, which survived to our day against great odds, deals extensively with the fall of the angels. It was viewed favorably by some early "Christian" writers also (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others). However, it was never universally accepted as inspired Scripture. Below is a selection from the Book of Enoch which records the sin of the angelic "watchers": ENOCH 6:1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon . . . (From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, translated by R.H. Charles)A similar passage is also found in the pseudepigraphic Book of Jubilees: JUBILEES 5:1 And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they 2 chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth – all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men 3 (was) thus evil continually . . . (From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, translated by R.H. Charles)The Genesis Apocryphon, one of the texts uncovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, also contains references to the angels interbreeding with human women. In this text, a conversation between Lamech, the father of Noah, and his wife Bathenosh is detailed. Lamech questions his wife because he thinks that the conception of Noah was due to either an angel or one of their offspring, a nephilim. The Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon all clearly show that the common understanding at the time of Christ was that the fallen host had committed fornication with women in the period before the flood. As stated previously, many early Christian writers accepted the story told in Enoch as fact. Let's examine the writings of two of them, beginning with Justin Martyr, who lived from 110 CE to 165 CE. Here is what he had to say in chapter 5 of his Second Apology, entitled ""How the Angels Transgressed": God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . . (p. 363, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)Now let's examine chapter 3, "The Worship of Demons," from The Instructions of Commodianus, a North-African bishop who lived about 240 CE: When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods. (p. 435, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)The idea that the nephilim or giants were the offspring of the fallen host and human females was not unique to Judaism. This understanding was likely behind the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythologies, as well as those of India and the near east. All these beliefs resulted not as mere inventions of fertile human imagination, but as a corruption of antediluvian truths which were distorted as their origin was forgotten over time. Take, for example, the legend of the Titans. In Greek mythology, the Titans were a family of giant gods who were the offspring of Uranus (heaven) and Gaea (earth). The most famous of the Titans was Cronus, who killed his father. Cronus later led the Titans in their losing war against Zeus and the Olympian gods. After their defeat, the Titans were imprisoned in a section of the underworld called Tartarus. In his second epistle, the apostle Peter uses part of this Greek myth to explain the fate of some of the fallen angels. He states that for their sins, these angels had been tartarosas, which The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament translates literally as "confining them to Tartarus" (also known in the Bible as "the Abyss"). II PETER 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell [tartarosas] and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (NKJV) This is the same Tartarus where Greek mythology says the Titans were imprisoned. It's highly unlikely that Peter would have used such an analogy if this pagan legend wasn't based on at least some grain of truth which his readers would have knowledge of. The idea that evil angels mated with human women and had offspring (the nephilim) appears far-fetched to us in this modern era, but it seems to have been widely accepted as fact in the ancient world. As we've seen above, the word translated "giants" in Genesis 6:4 is nephilim. Let's look at what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has to say about the possible origins of this Hebrew word: The etymology of nepilim is uncertain, the following explanations have been advanced with mixed reception. First, it may derive from the niphal of the verb pala, meaning "be extraordinary," i.e., "extraordinary men." Second, it may be derived from the verb napal, "fall," in one of the following senses: (1) the "fallen ones" – from heaven, i.e., supernatural beings; (2) morally "fallen men"; (3) "those who fall upon," in the sense of invaders or hostile, violent men; (4) "those who fell by" the sword (cf. Ezk. 32:20f.); (5) "unnaturally begotten men" or bastards (from cf. nepel, "abortion" or miscarriage"). (pp. 518-519, vol. 3) Michael S. Heiser, who holds a PhD in biblical Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages, believes that nephilim actually comes from the Aramaic word naphil, which means "giants" according to A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (pp. 923-924, vol. II) compiled by Marcus Jastrow. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament renders the Hebrew term nephilim as gigantes, which literally means "earth-born." In Greek mythology, the Gigantes were the sons of Gaia, a savage race of giants eventually defeated by the Olympian gods. From the sources we've just examined, it's readily apparent that the general understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 at the time of Christ was that the angels had sinned by committing fornication with human women. But does the Bible support this theory? First, let's look at all of the Old Testament references to "sons of God." This phrase is translated from the Hebrew beney 'elohim (בני אלהים), beney ha'elohim (בני האלהים), and beney 'elim (בני אלים): GENESIS 6:1 When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the divine beings [beney ha'elohim] saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. 3 The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years." 4 It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth when the divine beings [beney ha'elohim] cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (Tanakh, the new Jewish Publication Society translation according to the traditional Hebrew text) DEUTERONOMY 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [beney 'elohim]. (RSV) JOB 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them. (NKJV) JOB 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. (NKJV) JOB 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [beney 'elohim] shouted for joy? (NKJV) PSALM 29:1 O give the Lord you sons of God [beney 'elim], give the Lord glory and power; 2 give the Lord the glory of his name. Adore the Lord in his holy court. (The Psalms: A New Translation)PSALM 89:5 The heavens proclaim your wonders, O Lord; the assembly of your holy ones proclaims your truth. 6 For who in the skies can compare with the Lord or who is like the Lord among the sons of God [beney 'elim]? (The Psalms: A New Translation) As you can see, each reference above is to angels. There are no instances in the Old Testament where the phrase "sons of God" refers to men. Let's see what E.W. Bullinger has to say about these "sons of God" in Appendix 23 to The Companion Bible: "The Sons of God" in Gen. 6.2, 4. It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God." For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh." God is spirit and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3.6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3.38. Those "in Christ" having the "new nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2 Cor. 5.17; Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1.13; Rom. 8.14, 15; 1 John 3.1). This is why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Ps. 29.1; 89.6; Dan. 3.25 (no art.). We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.4 in any other sense. Moreover in Gen. 6.2 the Sept. renders it "angels". (pp. 26, 27, Companion Bible Appendixes) Now let's look at Genesis 6:9, which discusses Noah's genealogy. This Scripture is further proof that fallen angels had interbred with humans. GENESIS 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect [tamim] in his generations. Noah walked with God. (NKJV) In Genesis 6:9, the Hebrew word tamim, here translated "perfect," means "physically without blemish." As the first sentence makes clear, it's referring to the genealogy of Noah; it does not refer to moral perfection. Below is what Appendix 26 of The Companion Bible has to say about this word as used in verse 9 of Genesis 6: The Heb. word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and, not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity . It is rendered without blemish in Ex. 12.5; 29.1; Lev. 1.3, 10; 3.1, 6; 4.3, 23, 28, 32; 5.12, 18; 6.6; 9.2, 3; 14.10; 22.19; 23.12, 18; Num. 6.14; 28.19, 31; 29.2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36; Ezek. 43.22, 23, 25; 45.18, 23; 46.4, 6, 13. Without spot: Num. 19.2; 28.3, 9, 11; 29.17, 26. Undefiled: Ps. 119.1. This shows that Gen. 6.9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection . . . (p. 28, Companion Bible Appendixes) Now let's examine what Jude said about the fallen angels in the New Testament: 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. (KJV) Because of the punctuation of verse 7, this Scripture appears to say that Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the cities around them, gave themselves over to sexual immorality. However, the underlying Greek text does not support this interpretation. Kenneth Wuest writes of verse 7: This verse begins with hos, an adverb of comparison having meanings of "in the same manner as, after the fashion of, as, just as." Here it introduces a comparison showing a likeness between the angels of verse 6 and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha of this verse. But the likeness between them lies deeper than the fact that both were guilty of committing sin. It extends to the fact that both were guilty of the same identical sin. The punctuation of the A.V. [KJV] is misleading, as an examination of Greek text discloses. The A.V. punctuation gives the reader the impression that Sodom and Gomorrha committed fornication and that the cities about them committed fornication in like manner to the two cities named. . . . The words "in like manner" are related to the verbal forms, "giving themselves over to fornication" and "going after strange flesh." In addition to all this, the Greek text has toutois, "to these." Thus, the translation should read, "just as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them, in like manner to these, having given themselves over to fornication and having gone after strange flesh." The sense of the entire passage (vv.6, 7) is that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them, in like manner to these (the angels), have given themselves over to fornication and have gone after strange flesh. That means that the sin of the fallen angels was fornication. (pp. 241-242, vol. II, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament) The underlying Greek text indicates that the fallen angels left their own domain and indulged in sexual immorality, going after "strange," or "other" flesh. The KJV obscures this fact, probably because the view that the fallen angels were "the sons of God" spoken of in Genesis 6:2, 4 was not accepted when it was translated in 1611. However, some translations do more clearly show the meaning of this passage. The New English Bible better presents what Jude was saying: JUDE 6 Remember too the angels, how some of them were not content to keep the dominion given to them but abandoned their proper home; and God has reserved them for judgement on the great Day, bound beneath the darkness in everlasting chains. 7 Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and followed unnatural lusts; and they paid the penalty in eternal fire, an example for all to see. (NEB) It's clear that Jude wrote of the fornication of the angels as a fact. In verse 7 of his epistle, he compares the sexual wickedness in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities to the sin of the angels. The nature of the angels' fall is also clearly stated in Jude 6, where it is said that they left their own "abode" (Gr. oiketerion). This word occurs in the New Testament only here and in II Corinthians 5:2, where it is used of the spiritual body of a resurrected saint. II CORINTHIANS 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation [oiketerion] which is from heaven, (NKJV) There is a great deal revealed in the Bible about angels. Angels could and did assume human form and even eat men's food (Gen. 18-19). Although the Bible doesn't tell us how, Jude 6 shows that some angels left their proper abode (their spiritual bodies) and took on fleshly bodies so as to marry and produce offspring by the daughters of men. Although the angels committed sexual sins and corrupted the human lineage to some extent, they did something else that threatened to foil God's plan for humanity. Let's go back to 1 Enoch to see what these fallen angels did that affected the human race enormously: 1 ENOCH 8:1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . . (From The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, translated by R.H. Charles)As the text above shows, the angels brought with them knowledge which humanity did not have beforehand. This information led to a rapid advance in the knowledge base of the antediluvian society, including the invention of advanced methods of waging warfare. In the NKJV translation of Genesis 6:4, the nephilim are called "mighty men who were of old, men of renown;" however, the NRSV translates that same phrase as "heroes that were of old, warriors of renown." Genesis 6:11 shows that the earth was filled with violence; this is very likely the direct result of the nephilim, who apparently were mighty warriors. If the ancient legends are indeed based in fact, as they appear to be, these angelic offspring were superhuman in size and great in strength. There is also an indication from the ancient text known as the Book of Jasher that this corruption of bloodlines extended to the animals also. JASHER 4:18 And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals. 19 And the Lord said, I will blot out man that I created from the face of the earth, yea from man to the birds of the air, together with cattle and beasts that are in the field . . .(From The Book of Jasher, published by J.H. Parry & Company, 1887)The Book of Jasher is mentioned twice in the Bible (Jos. 10:13; II Sam. 1:18). While it's evident the copy of this book that has survived to our time has been corrupted to some extent, the Scriptures seem to confirm the information contained in this section of Jasher: GENESIS 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." (NKJV) It appears likely that the objectives of the Flood were the destruction of the polluted human and animal bloodlines and the eradication of the forbidden knowledge that humanity had learned from the fallen host. There is one other New Testament passage which hints at the sin of the angels before the flood. It is an enigmatic scripture found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church. I CORINTHIANS 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (NKJV) In I Corinthians 11, Paul states the position of women in relation to men and says that the symbol of authority on a woman's head is needed "because of the angels." Without an understanding of what took place anciently between the fallen host and women, this verse is cryptic at best. There is opposition to the view that the fallen angels are the "sons of God" referred to in Genesis 6. Some cite Matthew 22:29-30 and Mark 12:24-25 as objections, saying that these Scriptures clearly teach that angels do not marry. MATTHEW 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them [the Sadducees], "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (NKJV) MARK 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (NKJV)First, these verses do not state whether angels can marry or procreate. Here Christ was referring only to the way things will be after the first resurrection of the dead. Additionally, the angels in heaven who did not sin are the example cited, not the angels confined to Tartarus because they sinned by marrying humans and producing offspring. To get a better perspective of what Christ was saying, let's look at the parallel account of this conversation in Luke's Gospel. LUKE 20:34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." (NKJV) Christ's primary purpose in his answer was to affirm the reality of the resurrection to these questioning Sadducees, who did not believe that there would be a resurrection. As you can clearly see from Luke's account of this confrontation, Christ is making two points about the age to come: (1) Resurrected humans will not marry, and (2) resurrected humans will be given eternal life, which the holy angels now have. Interpreting these Scriptures to mean that angels have never been able to marry or procreate reads more into them than was intended by Jesus. Some also object by saying that Genesis 6:4 shows that there were nephilim on the earth before "the sons of God" came in to "the daughters of men" and also afterward; therefore, these giants cannot be the offspring of this union. Does the phrase "in those days, and also afterward" mean that the nephilim were present before the the sons of God cohabited with the daughters of men? "In those days" plainly means the time after the "sons of God" had come down to earth; the fact that they had taken wives is disclosed in Genesis 6:2. In time sequence, chapter six of Genesis should follow chapter four; the fifth chapter is an inset into the story flow. "Afterward" specifies after the flood, when we see another instance of giants appearing, this time in the land of Canaan which the Israelites were to inherit (Num. 13:33). Satan once again tried to thwart God's plan by using these savage hybrids to occupy the land of Canaan and keep Abraham's offspring out. Obviously none of the nephilim survived the Flood. These giants are often mentioned in the early books of the Old Testament until the last of them were finally killed off. The word nephilim only appears twice in the Old Testament (Gen 6:4; Num. 13:33), but these giants are also referred to as gibbor (Gen 6:4; Num. 13:33; Job 16:14) and rephaim when they reappear in a more limited fashion after the flood (Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deu. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Jos. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16; II Sam. 5:18, 22; 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 23:13; I Chr. 11:15; 14:9; 20:4, 6, 8; Isa. 17:5; 26:14). They were known by the proper names of Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horites, Anakim, Zamzummim, and Avim. CONCLUSIONAs shown above, the evidence that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 are fallen angels is substantial. By their sexual immorality, these angels produced offspring which were strong and violent. The concept of a race of giants which resulted from the union of gods and humans is virtually universal in the world's early civilizations. The original intent of the angels may have only been to satisfy their forbidden lust. Yet the knowledge they brought with them and taught mankind caused society to develop at a more rapid technological pace than God had intended. This societal development was not positive, and it gave rise to a very violent society, one in which the nephilim apparently played a large role. God was forced to restrain in the Abyss the wicked angels that produced the nephilim, and cleanse the earth of them and the violence they brought with the great Flood. Bryan T. Huie Updated: July 31, 2008

 

[tomwebster]

The book, "Sargon the Magnificent" is an interesting if you would like more info on Cain and his offspring.

 

[waquinas]

And we can find absolutely no trace of this demon seed in any human DNA today because........................

 

[Jordan]

(waquinas;56420)
And we can find absolutely no trace of this demon seed in any human DNA today because........................
Demon seed? Cain was not a denom, but he was human. As for the giants, even though fallen angels married human women, giants are still human...but deformed. (I think that's the right word... or no?)

 

[Christina]

(waquinas;56420)
And we can find absolutely no trace of this demon seed in any human DNA today because........................
Believe what ever you like but Gods Word is still Gods Word it was given to Gods people and they understood it for some 4000 years till One man in the Catholic church started changeing the teaching. Dont You think you should try to fully understand the subject and how it fits into Gods plan and the Word. before you toss it aside??

 

[tomwebster]

(thesuperjag;56428)
Demon seed? Cain was not a denom, but he was human. As for the giants, even though fallen angels married human women, giants are still human...but deformed. (I think that's the right word... or no?)
Cain's father was Satan, an angel. The giants' fathers were also angels.

 

[Jordan]

(tomwebster;56447)
(thesuperjag;56428)
Demon seed? Cain was not a denom, but he was human. As for the giants, even though fallen angels married human women, giants are still human...but deformed. (I think that's the right word... or no?)
Cain's father was Satan, an angel. The giants' fathers were also angels.I know that. If Cain's father was Adam, then it makes God a liar for saying what He said in Genesis 3:15. And Christ for what He said on John 8:44.Another thing, Satan and God can't mix.I know it may sound different to you, I'm just don't like to use words that is NOT from the bible.

 

[crooner]

(kriss;56442)
Believe what ever you like but Gods Word is still Gods Word it was given to Gods people and they understood it for some 4000 years till One man in the Catholic church started changeing the teaching. Dont You think you should try to fully understand the subject and how it fits into Gods plan and the Word. before you toss it aside??
I just listened to Perry Stones tapes that say about the same thing. Anyone can go to his web site.

 

[Christina]

Yeah, Perry has been teaching this the last month you can catch his past programs on you Tube.Thanks for reminding us of this Crooner

 

[tomwebster]

(crooner;56452)
I just listened to Perry Stones tapes that say about the same thing. Anyone can go to his web site.
Stone teaches the rapture, that is all I need to hear from him. http://www.voe.org/ and http://www.raptureready.com/ The primary function of his web site is to sell "stuff." He is a Hireling, and will be held responible for the sheep he leads astray.

 

[crooner]

Not evey one has total lite on any subject. But we can learn from every one. He does not beleive in garen of eve sex idea. He however is a true christian that seeks the truth. None of us is totally correct.

 

[Christina]

I will have to agree with you crooner, Stone does agree with Rapture but you can not have a TV show on the big Religious networks unless you do teach it. I call it Religious Blackmail by the money guys.I think the key here is to be able to discern for one self. We cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. If one teaches 10 truths and 1 untruth .do we not learn from the truths. As you say no one knows it all. Discernment, Know Gods word for onesself.And you are not confused by one who maybe wrong about one thing or another If you Back everything with scriptureyou got no worries. I just pray the main stream bible thumpers do not persecute Stone for daring to teach these truths I think he is being very courageous.

 

[tomwebster]

(kriss)
... If one teaches 10 truths and 1 untruth ....
and if that 1 untruth causes the hearer to worship the antichrist ????????????? Kriss, I think the rapture doc. has a far more serious consequence than that.

 

[Christina]

I agree Tom but even Bulinger wasnt 100% correct 100% of the time and we do not throw out all his good work.I not advocating following any man blindly just giving credit where credits due. We are supposed to go to Gods Word for the truth, One who does that should hopefully be able to discern fact from fiction.

 

[waquinas]

(kriss;56442)
Believe what ever you like but Gods Word is still Gods Word it was given to Gods people and they understood it for some 4000 years till One man in the Catholic church started changeing the teaching. Dont You think you should try to fully understand the subject and how it fits into Gods plan and the Word. before you toss it aside??
Hold on, give me a break please, just asking questions. To me, if I am going to believe this understanding of these verses, then it follows the dna of these individuals would have to be different than a human. they would be in a real sense superhuman and that would show in dna.We should be able to find evidence of that in human dna, unless we are to also understand that either we are all in some part (however small) a product of this demon-human breeding program or that none of us now are or some of us are. The second conclusion is not possible as the other part of this understanding is that some of these creatures survive God's Wrath (flood) and that today we have two very different lines of dna in the human population. Unless I am mistaken, this is seen as necessary for people believing this as it explains how we get an anti-Christ in their view.The first conclusion makes more sense to me as science tells us from extensive sampling of dna all over the world, the data points us to a single line of dna - in fact some go so far as to a single common parent for us all (Adam and Eve) which is ok with me and fits nicely with the Bible in that regard. That leaves the third possiblity, some of us are high-breds. But then to accept this understanding a single line of dna points to us all being demon-human crosses,Peoples are peoples (none of us would deny) so if this were the case I must think there would be a lot cross breeding between humans and these high-breds. So the problem I have with the whole idea is that we do not see such a variation in the human dna of the population that points to anything but a single line.

 

[Christina]

Well if you study this subject you will find most were killed, it is one of the reasons in the old Testament God ordered Joshua to kill men women and children.It was also the reason for the flood. Secondly you are not completely correct about DNA I just watched a TV show on this about People sending in their DNA to find their ancestors, the fact is after several gen it gets watered down to generalities, Another Words you could probably not find a direct descendant of King Tut today but you could find that someone was from tribes of peoples that lived around the area of ancient Egypt. thirdly it basically comes down to who are you going to believe Gods Word or mans?Man says we evolved from apes God says we were created who you gonna believe?

 

[waquinas]

well thank you for thinking so highly of me and my studies. I do not understand why there is a pretense on this site, supposedly non-denominational, that all views are welcomed and equally heard here. Just asking questions. If it makes sense for you to believe these things without asking or considering some very reasonable questions, that is ok with me.It would be helpful if Denver and you should publish a list of such beliefs and just state that there be no debate on those subjects, as you basically have done with tribulationists.

 

[tim_from_pa]

Let me throw in a curve ball about DNA (if I may get a tad off on this subject instead). When it comes to the lost tribes of Israel, skeptics say that he NW Europeans, British and Americans cannot be the lost tribes because their DNA does not match with the Jew.However, I claim from a genealogical and mathematical perspective that it does not have to. The Jews have the same common ancestor as the Israelites, but their pedigrees are different. They are two different families.Consider this indisputable genealogical fact: Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh were already "half Egyptian". In addition, Joseph did not have the same biological mother as the Jews. So in two short generations, the fathers of the these two tribes (Joseph and Judah the Jews) already only had one third in common as the other.I can attest to my own family. My brother's girls and my two sons (they are of course cousins) have the same grandfather, but my brother's girls are more dark complexion---- they could be mistaken for possibly Hispanic. My two boys, especially the younger one, look Germanic or Celtic and fair skinned---- a big difference in only two generations as well.Now, the Dna-ists will argue up one side of the wall and down the other that as long as there is a common father, that there should be some similarity in DNA.Well, let's now consider mathematics instead of just genealogy. There's something like 130 generations from the Queen to Adam. And about 110 generations back to Abraham. If 110 generations of Israelites and Jews can converge in Abraham, then they should be able to converse 10 or 20 more generations back, right (to Noah or Adam). Yet, there are different racial characteristics, basically found in Shem, Japath and Ham. So my point being is that if we find divergence in only 10 or 20 generations from Adam (or Noah) to Abraham to be able to tell the different races, then wouldn't there be as much if not more in 110 generations? Therefore, if Jews and Israelites would be separated for about 100 generations, then I would expect the same divergence to take place as from Noah to Abraham.That's my point---- but the DNA-ists will of course find fault in my logic because I did not formally study it. They will tell you why its totally reasonable to believe that we have different races of people in only a few generations and yet they stay the same over a hundred (not to mention they probably know diddlysquat about genealogy).

Whatever. Believe what one will.

 

[Christina]

(waquinas;56547)
well thank you for thinking so highly of me and my studies. I do not understand why there is a pretense on this site, supposedly non-denominational, that all views are welcomed and equally heard here. Just asking questions. If it makes sense for you to believe these things without asking or considering some very reasonable questions, that is ok with me.It would be helpful if Denver and you should publish a list of such beliefs and just state that there be no debate on those subjects, as you basically have done with tribulationists.
I answered your questions to best of my ability, the problem is its not what you wanna hear I never claimed to know all the answers to genetics ect. I know what the bible says and I know the scriptures you wanna question the bible with science that's your prerogative. But it seems your the one with the problem not us Just because we have rules to keep this site from becomeing like all the others just a collection of opinions without any proof, If you want opinions there are many sights to get them. We deal in biblical facts. if you dont like something thats said you free to disprove it with scripture. The last time I checked the science of DNA wasnt covered in detail in scripture God says what he says. Thats good enough for us.

 

[waquinas]

Again, if you guys feel it is ok to confuse people with discussions of the accuracy (or rather lack of) of using DNA to trace genealogy when the question was about DNA reflecting a single common source of DNA for all HUMANS, then that is fine with me. Trying to trace genealogy with DNA was popular a fews years back, but it was never an exact science and that was a known fact even then (by scientists at least) when it was popular for people wanting to have it done. If one gets your information from Oprah then perhaps facts do not matter (she is not a Zulu). Saying DNA reflects a single common source of all humans has been around for decades and is accepted as fact today and has nothing to do with there being races today or whether we can accurately trace our "roots" with DNA. One reflects Oprah's view of science (genealogy with DNA), the other is fact. These topics are apples and oranges, you are mixing the two in order to try and support your point while trying to refute the implications of the question I asked. Race and the question of why there is absolutely no non-human DNA in the human gene pool today are different subjects. The FACT I may NOT be able to accurately trace my genealogy with DNA testing is not a rebuttal to the FACT that science says ALL of US come from a single source. If there were a demon-human crossbreed at that source point, it would be reflected NOT in two different original races of men, but in two different species. One human the other non-human (half human half demon). The only common source between the two species then would be Eve and that would mean science would NOT be able to state it is a FACT that we ALL come from a SINGLE set of parents. Apples and oranges.God is not the author of confusion (you will find that in the Bible) so we should not have to go there to make our points.