Satan and his demons are real beings/entities (with personalities) not abstract evil within unregenerate man

[Gray_Joy]

No, it originates from passages like these from a book that is accepted as holy scripture...

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The Job 1 passage portrays Satan being with the sons of God as they presented themselves before the Lord. The Lord is located in heaven (third heaven/paradise), so that implies that the sons of God and Satan were talking to God in heaven, which means they could not have been human beings.

The Job 38 passage portrays the sons of God as being present while God created the foundations of the earth. It portrays the time when God "laid the foundations of the earth" being the same time "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy". So, they existed before He created man. Therefore, they cannot be human beings in that passage.

This does not mean that every reference to "the sons of God" has to refer to angels. I don't believe the phrase refers to angels in Genesis 6 as some do. Angels cannot procreate with humans. I find that idea to be ridiculous. The phrase "the sons of God" is simply a reference to those who belong to God, which is true of both angels and human beings.

Another thing worth considering is that while the book of Enoch is not part of the canon, it is quoted by Jude here...

Jude 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

This shows that Enoch was not just some book full of falsehood and fiction, but it contained some truth within it that lines up with canonized scripture or else it certainly would not have been quoted by Jude.

Sure. Jesus even referred to Enoch during his ministry.

The first printing of the King James 1611 Bible contained the Apocrypha.
Until it didn't.

It's weird that men would think themselves entitled to determine what believers should be able to read from God. And after making their judgement ,remove books s
o that readers don't ever learn what God had to say.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure. Jesus even referred to Enoch during his ministry.

Where? Can you tell me which verse(s) you are referring to here?

The first printing of the King James 1611 Bible contained the Apocrypha.
Until it didn't.

It's weird that men would think themselves entitled to determine what believers should be able to read from God. And after making their judgement ,remove books s
o that readers don't ever learn what God had to say.

I'm not really arguing that 1 Enoch should be included in the canon, but, certainly, the text that Jude quoted from 1 Enoch lines up with what scripture teaches or else he wouldn't have quoted it. So, there's no reason to just write off the book as if it's full of nothing but fiction and fables, as some do.

 

[Grailhunter]

Sure. Jesus even referred to Enoch during his ministry.

Yeshua referred to the person Enoch, but not the text.
Jude seamed to quote the Book of Enoch. Jude 14-15
There are several texts mentioned in the Bible that we have not found yet.
As far as other extra-biblical texts......Christians labeled and designated a lot of them as Gnostic....mainly because they did not like them.
But actually Gnostic is a Christian term, these people did not call their beliefs Gnostic. Most of them were written in the 2nd century and later. Some of the extra-biblical texts were favored by various early churches, like the Shepard of Hermas.

It is like the word Pagan. Pagan is another Christian term that came around in the 4th century. The non Jewish or Christian people did not refer to themselves as Pagan. They were the norm and usually associated themselves by region or empire.

Some early Christians consider John's writings Gnostic because he referenced the Logos, which originated with the Greeks in the 6th century BC.

The whole Micheal Jackson theme of the dead rising out of graves was too scary for a lot of early Christians and Martin Luther questioned its inclusion in the Canon.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yeshua referred to the person Enoch, but not the text.

Where? Are you just talking about Luke 3:37 where Enoch is included in the genealogy of Jesus? That's not Jesus talking there.

 

[Grailhunter]

Where? Are you just talking about Luke 3:37 where Enoch is included in the genealogy of Jesus? That's not Jesus talking there.

Right.
I should have said Enoch the person is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. My point was that the text or book of Enoch is not one of the lost books mentioned.

 

[Gray_Joy]

Where? Can you tell me which verse(s) you are referring to here?


I'm not really arguing that 1 Enoch should be included in the canon, but, certainly, the text that Jude quoted from 1 Enoch lines up with what scripture teaches or else he wouldn't have quoted it. So, there's no reason to just write off the book as if it's full of nothing but fiction and fables, as some do.

Matthew 25:31
When the Son of Man comes in his glory... he will sit on his glorious throne.

Reflects back to the similitudes of Enoch in, 1 Enoch 46–48.

 

[doctrox]

The fact that the sons of God took wives is not any more harsh than when it happened elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Scriptures, pls.

It refers to a pivotal event right before the Great Flood, where the "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful and took any women they wanted as their wives.

They chose them, and then they mated with them.

 

[rwb]

Scriptures, pls.

It refers to a pivotal event right before the Great Flood, where the "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful and took any women they wanted as their wives.

They chose them, and then they mated with them.

Yes, human males likened to sons of God married human females of mankind and mated with them. Nothing about fallen angels marrying human women and procreating offspring that would be neither angel or human!

 

[doctrox]

Yes, human males likened to sons of God married human females of mankind and mated with them. Nothing about fallen angels marrying human women and procreating offspring that would be neither angel or human!

...already explained thoroughly with scripture, to which you have consistently failed to respond in like manner.

 

[Grailhunter]

Scriptures, pls.

I am surprised you asking me this. Keep in mind that there are no wedding ceremonies in the Old Testament and there is no requirement for a wedding ceremony in the Old Testament to be married. Women were bought and sold in the Old Testament as wives and concubines, not necessary with their consent. Even in Christianity most of the time the fathers choose their daughter's husband and sometime money was exchanged. This continues today to some degree but mostly stopped in the 19th century.

Back then the sexual union consummated the marriage....no need for a ceremony.
Here are some Old Testament examples....

• Genesis 24:4–67 – Abraham’s servant is instructed to “take a wife for my son Isaac” from Abraham’s relatives. Isaac later “took Rebekah as his wife” after her betrothal, marking the formal start of their marriage Bible Hub+1.
• Genesis 28:2 – Jacob is told to “take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban” after his father’s blessing Online Bible.
• Genesis 21:21 – Sarah is told to “take a wife for my son” after Hagar’s removal Online Bible.

2. Human Agents Taking Wives

• Genesis 26:34–35 – Esau “took a wife from the daughters of Canaan” as part of his inheritance Christian Research Institute.
• Genesis 29–30 – Jacob “took” Rachel and Leah as wives, later marrying their handmaidens Christian Research Institute.
• Genesis 36:12 – Eliphaz “took” a wife from the daughters of Canaan Christian Research Institute.
• Judges 12:9 – A judge “brought in thirty daughters from outside for his sons” Online Bible.
• Ezra 2:61 – Priests “took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai” Online Bible.
• Nehemiah 7:63 – Priests “took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai” Online Bible.

3. Prophetic or Symbolic “Taking”

• Hosea 1:2 – God commands Hosea to “take to yourself a wife of whoredom” as a living parable of Israel’s spiritual adultery. This was not a literal marital act but a symbolic instruction to illustrate God’s love and judgment www.answerthebible.com.

4. Legal Contexts

• Deuteronomy 21:10–13 – Instructions for an Israelite to “take” a captive woman as his wife, including the process of mourning her parents before marriage Bible Hub.

 

[doctrox]

Here are some Old Testament examples....

For starters, you're citing altered (copyrighted) material/"versions" rather than the TR/MT/AV.

"took" can also mean stolen, taken captive...

v1 - Earthly women are being born, nothing unusual there.
v2 - The reason why the "earthly women" were "taken" was because they were seen as "fair" by the "sons of God." This is not a description of a normal marriage.
v3 - The Lord is upset and limits the lifespan of man.
v4 - The offspring of the unions grew to become giants, famous/infamous.
v5 - God saw the wickedness of man was great, continually.
v6 - The Lord was sorry for making man.
v7 - The Lord decided to destroy everything...
v8 - ...except for Noah, whose generations were pure.

 

[Grailhunter]

For starters, you're citing altered (copyrighted) material/"versions" rather than the TR/MT/AV.

Oh, scripture is copyrighted.....

 

[Grailhunter]

It's a no-brainer In Gen. 6:2, as the reason why the "earthly women" were "taken" was because they were seen as "fair" by the "sons of God." This is not a description of a normal marriage.

In the Old Testament it is. Why would you are they want to marry an ugly women?

 

[Grailhunter]

The Lord is upset and limits the lifespan of man.

Not tied to the story of the sons of God.

 

[Grailhunter]

The offspring of the unions grew to become giants.

The scriptures do not say that.

 

[Grailhunter]

God saw the wickedness of man was great, continually.

Yes He did but not tied to the story of the sons of God.....like I said, big on assumptions and little on scriptures.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Lord was sorry for making man.

The sons of God are not men.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Lord decided to destroy everything...

And yet the planet remained.

 

[Grailhunter]

except for Noah, whose generations were pure.

No one is without sin.

 

[doctrox]

Oh, scripture is copyrighted.....

No, not the real thing, as a testimony cannot be copyrighted. But your cites are copyrighted inventions of men who claim ownership over their inventions.

Not tied to the story of the sons of God.

Of course not. The sons of God had already done their dirty work. Now the debris of their deeds moves through to the next generation i.e. the giants on earth.

The sons of God are not men.

Correct, neither in the OT nor the NT. We believers will come into the fullness as sons of God when we go on to eternity.

In the Old Testament it is. Why would you are they want to marry an ugly women?

The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

And "ugly" to you may not mean "ugly" to the sons of God; it was all new to them. They were privy to the entire scene whereby God had created earthly woman.

And yet the planet remained.

God executed all living except for Noah's 8.

No one is without sin.

God never said Noah was sinless. Noah himself got drunk, etc. God said Noah was justified, and perfect in his generations i.e. unblemished.

The scriptures do not say that [The offspring of the unions grew to become giants].

There are over 800 references to giants in the Holy Bible.

Some angels rebelled against God, left their first estate and mated with earthly women. These women then gave birth to "hybrids" that grew to be of large stature aka "giants." There are 36 tribes of giants mentioned in the Holy Bible (you didn't hear that from your hireling pastors). The giants interbred with everything in sight, including animals. The giants were also cannibalistic. This is the key to prophecy, the reason why God executed the entire planet via the flood, except for Noah's eight (because his generation was perfect i.e. was not interbred with the giants).

The Nephilim are not the giants, but the giants are Nephilim-related. After the flood, the disembodied spirits of the giants remained, which is one reason why we are told that the woman is to have power on her head, because of the fallen angels and the possibility that these malevolent creatures may again desire to revisit our women for a repeat episode (1 Cor. 11:10). The disembodied spirits of the giants are what we refer to as devils or demons; they are not eligible for salvation; they remain in the air about us everywhere; and they seek physical embodiment in us in order to act out their wicked nature.