The true sin committed in Eden

[Job one]

I just read Hammerstone's private interpretation of genesis 3.

I admit that he put great effort to impose and embellish his accusations against Eve, our common mother. Needless to say, I think it very unchristian to bear false witness against anyone.

I find a great many flaws in the assumptions made. I find a great many unanswered questions that would arise based on the conclusions given.

For starters, it is my clear understanding that Adam is indeed the first man placed upon this earth. Can anyone show otherwise?

Second, the author indicates that Satan has a body and can procreate. Can anyone give clear evidence to support such a conclusion?
If so where and when was he born? Who were his parents?

 

[tomwebster]

I just read Hammerstone's private interpretation of genesis 3.

I admit that he put great effort to impose and embellish his accusations against Eve, our common mother. Needless to say, I think it very unchristian to bear false witness against anyone.

I find a great many flaws in the assumptions made. I find a great many unanswered questions that would arise based on the conclusions given.

For starters, it is my clear understanding that Adam is indeed the first man placed upon this earth. Can anyone show otherwise?

Second, the author indicates that Satan has a body and can procreate. Can anyone give clear evidence to support such a conclusion?
If so where and when was he born? Who were his parents?

Re-read the study, it is not an assumption, it's not a private interpretation, and it's all there. Satan has never been born in the flesh, he is Lucifer.

 

[Job one]

Dear Tom,

Could you be a little more vague? So if Lucifer was never born in the flesh, then how did he get a body?

 

[tomwebster]

Dear Tom,

Could you be a little more vague? So if Lucifer was never born in the flesh, then how did he get a body?

He has a body, it's not flesh, it has the ability to father children.

 

[charlesj]

Re-read the study, it is not an assumption, it's not a private interpretation, and it's all there. Satan has never been born in the flesh, he is Lucifer.

Hello tomwebster:


I didn’t get to read Hammerstone’s writing on Genesis 3. It looks like to me that
Job One did not say that Satan was born in the flesh, but just the opposite.


As far as Lucifer (mentioned only one time, Isaiah 14:12) is concerned, if you will read
the context, even chapter 13, you will find that this is speaking of a man, that is, the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar and not some devil. Most denominational people will tell you that
it is Satan.



Lucifer
— brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to
denote his glory. (Easton’s Bible Dictionary)


Lucifer
(Lat. ‘light-bearer’). This was the Lat. name for the planet Venus, the rightest object in the sky apart from the sun and moon, appearing sometimes as
the evening, sometimes as the morning, star. In Is. 14:12 it is the translation f hēlēl (‘shining one’: lxx heōsphoros,
‘light-bearer’; cf. the Arabic for enus, zuhratun, ‘the bright shining ne’), and is applied tauntingly as a title for the king of Babylon, who in his glory and pomp had set
himself among the gods. This name is appropriate, as the civilization of Babylon began in the grey awn of history, and had strong astrological connections. Babylonians and
Assyrians personified the morning star as Belit and Ištar. Some have considered that the phrase ‘son of the morning’ ight refer to the crescent moon; cf.
Gray in ICC, ad loc.; others (e.g. S. . Langdon, ExpT 42, 1930–1, pp. 72ff.) argue for an identification with the planet Jupiter. The similarity of
the description here with that of such passages as Lk. 10:18 and Rev. 9:1 (cf. 12:9) has led to the application of the title to Satan. The
true claimant to this title is shown in Rev. 22:16 to be the Lord Jesus Christ in his ascended
glory. D.H. Wheaton (The new Bible Dictionary 3[sup]rd[/sup] Edition)


LUCIFER, Nebuchadnezzar called, Isa. 14:12 (Nave’s Topical Bible)

Lucifer

Lucifer (lo̅o̅ʹsi-fuhr), the English translation in the kjv (Isa. 14:12) of the Hebrew word
meaning ‘light bringer’ or ‘shining one,’ sometimes designating the morning (or
day) star, that is, Venus (cf. rsv: ‘Day Star’). The English word ‘Lucifer’ comes from the Latin for ‘light
bearer.’ In Isa. 14:12, the King of Babylon, in an apparent reference to Canaanite mythology, is
tauntingly called ‘Day Star, son of Dawn’ because he has fallen from his lofty but temporary position of power. In the Christian church, this passage from
Isaiah came to be connected with Jesus’ saying in Luke 10:18: ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’ Thus the connection was made (erroneously) between
Lucifer and Satan, and Lucifer was popularly understood as another name for Satan. See also Canaan, Canaanites; Devil; Satan; Stars, Star of Bethlehem. J.M.E. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary)

Your servant in Messiah,

charlesj

 

[tomwebster]

charlesj,
I am going to let you believe whatever you want, you have the right to be wrong.

 

[Job one]

Dear Tom:

This gets more interesting as you expound this new gospel doctrine regarding the physical nature of Satan.

You now claim: "He has a body, it's not flesh, it has the ability to father children."

This is a new revelation I have never heard of before.

Can you tell me just exactly the physical nature of this "non-flesh body" which you assert exists?

Who gave him the power to procreate? And why????

 

[Person]

Dear Tom:

This gets more interesting as you expound this new gospel doctrine regarding the physical nature of Satan.

You now claim: "He has a body, it's not flesh, it has the ability to father children."

This is a new revelation I have never heard of before.

Can you tell me just exactly the physical nature of this "non-flesh body" which you assert exists?

Who gave him the power to procreate? And why????

Hi Job one,

Are you familiar with the Genesis 6 account?

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.

Angelic beings being able to procreate with flesh woman is not a new revelation, it is quite Biblical.

 

[Amazing Grace]

GE 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

GE 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

GE 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

GE 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

GE 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

GE 3:10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

GE 3:11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

GE 3:12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

GE 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

GE 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

GE 3:15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

GE 3:16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

GE 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, `You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

GE 3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

GE 3:19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

GE 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

:unsure: Not sure what the debate is all about. Satan here is in the body of a serpent. Most commonly thought to be a snake.

The serpent is punished by having it's legs removed as per v14, crawl on your belly. Snakes often have the little legs on the side that are useless and they have to crawl on their belly, which is why it is thought the serpent being referred to was a snake.

Satan was a beautiful Angel when he was up in heaven.

EZE 28:13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.

EZE 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

EZE 28:15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

EZE 28:16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

EZE 28:17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Now Satan is described as a Dargon.

REV 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

That is all I have on Lucifer who became Satan that Dragon, ancient serpent called the Devil.

 

[aspen]

Jacob T?

 

[charlesj]

Hello tomwebster:


I didn’t get to read Hammerstone’s writing on Genesis 3. It looks like to me that
Job One did not say that Satan was born in the flesh, but just the opposite.


As far as Lucifer (mentioned only one time, Isaiah 14:12) is concerned, if you will read
the context, even chapter 13, you will find that this is speaking of a man, that is, the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar and not some devil. Most denominational people will tell you that
it is Satan.



Lucifer
— brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to
denote his glory. (Easton’s Bible Dictionary)


Lucifer
(Lat. ‘light-bearer’). This was the Lat. name for the planet Venus, the rightest object in the sky apart from the sun and moon, appearing sometimes as
the evening, sometimes as the morning, star. In Is. 14:12 it is the translation f hēlēl (‘shining one’: lxx heōsphoros,
‘light-bearer’; cf. the Arabic for enus, zuhratun, ‘the bright shining ne’), and is applied tauntingly as a title for the king of Babylon, who in his glory and pomp had set
himself among the gods. This name is appropriate, as the civilization of Babylon began in the grey awn of history, and had strong astrological connections. Babylonians and
Assyrians personified the morning star as Belit and Ištar. Some have considered that the phrase ‘son of the morning’ ight refer to the crescent moon; cf.
Gray in ICC, ad loc.; others (e.g. S. . Langdon, ExpT 42, 1930–1, pp. 72ff.) argue for an identification with the planet Jupiter. The similarity of
the description here with that of such passages as Lk. 10:18 and Rev. 9:1 (cf. 12:9) has led to the application of the title to Satan. The
true claimant to this title is shown in Rev. 22:16 to be the Lord Jesus Christ in his ascended
glory. D.H. Wheaton (The new Bible Dictionary 3[sup]rd[/sup] Edition)


LUCIFER, Nebuchadnezzar called, Isa. 14:12 (Nave’s Topical Bible)

Lucifer

Lucifer (lo̅o̅ʹsi-fuhr), the English translation in the kjv (Isa. 14:12) of the Hebrew word
meaning ‘light bringer’ or ‘shining one,’ sometimes designating the morning (or
day) star, that is, Venus (cf. rsv: ‘Day Star’). The English word ‘Lucifer’ comes from the Latin for ‘light
bearer.’ In Isa. 14:12, the King of Babylon, in an apparent reference to Canaanite mythology, is
tauntingly called ‘Day Star, son of Dawn’ because he has fallen from his lofty but temporary position of power. In the Christian church, this passage from
Isaiah came to be connected with Jesus’ saying in Luke 10:18: ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’ Thus the connection was made (erroneously) between
Lucifer and Satan, and Lucifer was popularly understood as another name for Satan. See also Canaan, Canaanites; Devil; Satan; Stars, Star of Bethlehem. J.M.E. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary)

Your servant in Messiah,

charlesj

Tom:


Here is another resource that says Lucifer isn’t the devil. Just read the context of Isaiah 13 & 14 and you will
see Isaiah is referring to the king of Babylon.



LUCIFER (Lūʹ sĭ fẽr) Latin translation (followed by the KJV) of the
Hebrew word for “day star” in Isa. 14:12, where the word is used as a title for the king of Babylon, who had exalted
himself as a god. The prophet taunted the king by calling him “son of the dawn” (NIV, NASB), a play on a Hebrew term which could refer to a pagan god but
normally indicated the light that appeared briefly before dawn. A later tradition associated the word with evil, although the Bible does not use it as
such. See Day Star. (Hollman Illustrated Bible Dictionary)


The KJV is the only one that has the name Lucifer.


Anyway, May the Lord be with us as we study His Word.


Your servant in Messiah,


charlesj

 

[Job one]

My how this new doctrine has expanded with new ideas!

First we are told that Eve and Adam had sex with Satan.

Next we are told that Satan has some kind of body which is capable of procreation.

So if he can procreate with any woman he wants to, are we to assume that he has over the last 6000 years beguiled and fathered tens of thousands of children?

Next, we are told that Adam is really not the father of the human race, but that now we have angels according to a previous post are having sex with women and procreating.

So So in your family history are you descended from Adam? Or from an angel? Or from Satan?

If we descended from Adam and Eve we have a noble birthright heritage.

Some assert that they may be the product of adultery and are descendants or seed of Satan.

Now others claim that they may be the seed of adultery by having come from procreation by angels of God.
:unsure:

I wonder how much of this is really true or is this just the fantasized product of false doctrine paraded by corrupt thinking???

As has been said: "As a man thinketh, so is he."

 

[Amazing Grace]

Adam and Eve had sex with Satan? :wacko:

What version of the Bible are we reading here? :unsure:

I know there are some perverted ones out there but that is a bit beyond what was in the original.

The only sex I recall Adam and Eve engaged in was between themselves. I won't bother quoting the verses I think they are well known where we get Cain, Abel and Seth. What isn't that well known is that Adam and Eve had plenty of Children together.

GE 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

They had plenty of years together as man and wife and they obviously put that time to good use.

However I certainly believe strongly, there is nothing in the scriptures to intimate that Satan had sex with Adam or Eve. Nothing!

There is the time of Noah where they talk about the Sons of God having sex with the daughters of men. Personally not to sure what they are talking about but you would have to guess Fallen Angels because there were only Fallen Angels and mankind on the Earth at that time (as per the Bible). So the Nephilim were a mixed breed I guess. Those verses do point to that kind of intermixing. I thought they were all wiped out by the flood?

 

[Rach1370]

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.

Angelic beings being able to procreate with flesh woman is not a new revelation, it is quite Biblical.

He has a body, it's not flesh, it has the ability to father children.

Hi guys! I can't help but feel many people overlook the obvious and place a great deal of meaning into these bible passages that simply weren't meant.
When the bible talks of "sons of God" or "sons of satan" doesnt' it simply mean that that's where a persons afiliation is?
In Gen 6 it talks of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. I truly believe that it just means that men who were Godly, who 'walked with God' just as Enoch did, saw how beautiful the women 'of the world' were, and married them. Which is a problem...it still is today when a believer and non beleiver are yoked together.

The same applies for the idea that Satan shacked up with Eve! I am a child of God, but God is not actually my earthly father. Even so, those who are "sons of Satan" are those who worship Satan and follow his chaos and evil. It doesn't make Satan their actual daddy!

You may say thats just my supposition, but it doesn't clearly say either way, so anything else is just supposition as well....so let's not tear each other down for having opposing ideas.
We're all children of God here, so surely we can debate what the Bible teaches without the usual "Im right, therefore you have to be wrong!" Jesus taught with love, so if we have strong beliefs in one idea or another, can we not prove it with love and strong scriptural basis?? I'm just wary that's where this was headed...and I pray not!!

 

[tomwebster]

Instead of going to the work of writing a study for you on Genesis, which you likely will not read anyway, I will just point you to Hammerstone's study: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/447-the-true-sin-in-the-garden-of-eden-bible-study/page__p__1649__hl__%22genesis+3%22__fromsearch__1#entry1649

It doesn’t really matter to me if you believe it or not. I do know you will not know who the enemy is in the future. You do need to start studying. I really suggest you get a good KJV, I always recommend the Companion Bible edited by E.W Bullinger, and a good copy of the Strong’s Concordance (The older ones by Nelson and Zondervan are better than the new ones). Again, you do whatever you want.

 

[Person]

Hi guys! I can't help but feel many people overlook the obvious and place a great deal of meaning into these bible passages that simply weren't meant.
When the bible talks of "sons of God" or "sons of satan" doesnt' it simply mean that that's where a persons afiliation is?
In Gen 6 it talks of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. I truly believe that it just means that men who were Godly, who 'walked with God' just as Enoch did, saw how beautiful the women 'of the world' were, and married them. Which is a problem...it still is today when a believer and non beleiver are yoked together.

The same applies for the idea that Satan shacked up with Eve! I am a child of God, but God is not actually my earthly father. Even so, those who are "sons of Satan" are those who worship Satan and follow his chaos and evil. It doesn't make Satan their actual daddy!

You may say thats just my supposition, but it doesn't clearly say either way, so anything else is just supposition as well....so let's not tear each other down for having opposing ideas.
We're all children of God here, so surely we can debate what the Bible teaches without the usual "Im right, therefore you have to be wrong!" Jesus taught with love, so if we have strong beliefs in one idea or another, can we not prove it with love and strong scriptural basis?? I'm just wary that's where this was headed...and I pray not!!

Hi Rach,

Job 1:6 and 2:1, refer to "sons of God". They appeared before the LORD in Heaven. For me; it is reasonable to conclude that in the OT; "sons of God" are, in fact, spiritual beings who are supposed to reside in the heavenly realm.

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.

2:1 Again 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.

 

[HammerStone]

I admit that he put great effort to impose and embellish his accusations against Eve, our common mother. Needless to say, I think it very unchristian to bear false witness against anyone.

If you are going to level a charge, it's quite unbiblical to do it without witnesses or even proof.

find a great many flaws in the assumptions made. I find a great many unanswered questions that would arise based on the conclusions given.

The same could be said of the traditional interpretation.

For starters, it is my clear understanding that Adam is indeed the first man placed upon this earth. Can anyone show otherwise?

Easily; the language used in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 vary. The traditional method has been to reconcile the two and just assume they're talking about the same person.

Second, the author indicates that Satan has a body and can procreate. Can anyone give clear evidence to support such a conclusion?

The angels in Sodom; you'd need a body to be raped. I apologize for the graphic illustration, but it gets the point across. Elsewhere, Satan is addressed in flesh/"manly" terms in passages like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.

 

[the stranger]

Hey HammerStone. I hope all is good. I also would hold some real questions with your view (though of course, nothing personal) but because of time, I would just for now wonder what you think of Jesus when He states in Matthew that angels (which Satan is) cannot reproduce. What do you make of that passage in relation to Genesis? Also, I guess what came to mind in a more natural train of thought was this. Here is Eve, (pardon my tone) going at it with Lucifer, and here is Adam, watching this go down. "Come on, Adam, this is great" says Eve. If I was Adam, after Eve being created for me alone, and me alone being the one making love to her, I would be one very very upset man to see my wife with this, shall we say, handsome angle, and for the life of me, I cannot see how Adam would say, "Jeepers, maybe your right, this could be fun".

About the fruit, you are right that it can often refer to acts of sex and such, but if the picture we see in Revelation (21) is the finale garden of Eden, or paradise, than the fruit trees in Revelation certainly do not represent anything but what is stated in scripture. Fruit of course can also refer to the fruits of the Spirit, which in this case, of course, is unlikely.

In any event, it was an interesting read, and certainly much study has gone into it. When more time becomes at my side, perhaps I will research it further myself.

God bless brother

 

[tomwebster]

Hey HammerStone. I hope all is good. I also would hold some real questions with your view (though of course, nothing personal) but because of time, I would just for now wonder what you think of Jesus when He states in Matthew that angels (which Satan is) cannot reproduce. What do you make of that passage in relation to Genesis?....

Maybe you could identify which verse you are referring to in Matthew so I can clear it up for you.

If it’s one of these it’s quite simple, there is no need for reproduction in heaven. There will not be any births, since birth is for this earth age. It’s how we come through the flesh.

Mat 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
Mat 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
Mat 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
Mat 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.
Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

OR:

Mar 12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mar 12:20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
Mar 12:21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
Mar 12:22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
Mar 12:23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

 

[Rach1370]

Instead of going to the work of writing a study for you on Genesis, which you likely will not read anyway, I will just point you to Hammerstone's study: http://www.christian...ch__1#entry1649

It doesn’t really matter to me if you believe it or not. I do know you will not know who the enemy is in the future. You do need to start studying. I really suggest you get a good KJV, I always recommend the Companion Bible edited by E.W Bullinger, and a good copy of the Strong’s Concordance (The older ones by Nelson and Zondervan are better than the new ones). Again, you do whatever you want.

Hey Tom, was that post addressed to me?
Why would you assume that I wouldn't read something you posted...especially if it was addressed to me??
I don't believe that the three earth ages and some of the thoughts that come with it is a direct salvation issue, therefore I'm not trying to start a war over it!!
But the fact of the matter is that the things we are talking about are only vagely stated in Genesis. It could possibly mean what you think it means, but it could also mean what I think it means. All I was trying to point out is that it is possible to have opposing opinions on such a subject, but to still discuss the topic without trying to make the other person feel like they are engaging in heresy.
As far as studying...I have, thank you. Am working my way through a theology course.
I never mind talking about the differing ideas that Christians have, it's how we learn and grow! But too often lately discussion has broken down into insults and fights. Surely you want to aviod that as well!!?

Hi Rach,

Job 1:6 and 2:1, refer to "sons of God". They appeared before the LORD in Heaven. For me; it is reasonable to conclude that in the OT; "sons of God" are, in fact, spiritual beings who are supposed to reside in the heavenly realm.

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.

2:1 Again 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.

Hey person! It's an interesting passage, and I'll agree that it seems to mean heavenly beings of some sort! But still, how often are we refered to in the Bible as the 'children of God'...sons and daughters. So again, really, in regards to Genesis, it could be either. Contextually, I just can't see it saying that Satan actually fathered people. It makes much more sense to me for it to be saying that these men were followers of Satan, just as we are followers of God.