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
id 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
id 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
