End Times and Current Events
December 13, 2019, 10:20:54 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

The Sons of Seth and Daughters of Cain Theory Refuted

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Sons of Seth and Daughters of Cain Theory Refuted  (Read 1843 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21598



View Profile
« on: April 09, 2011, 07:15:11 am »

The Sons of Seth and Daughters of Cain Theory Refuted

The Bible is replete with evidence that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are fallen angels (demons). All of the ancient Jewish and Ante-Nicene Christian commentators believed the “sons of God” to be referring to demons (fallen angels).
Augustine of Hippo

The first, as far as we can see, to definitively deny the sons of God as being angels was Augustine of Hippo of the fifth century, approximately seventy five years after the drafting of the Nicene Creed. Augustine did much to spiritualize the history of the Bible and twist a simple straightforward reading of the Bible. His method of Bible interpretation made a profound impact and his legacy remains even to this day. Many centuries after Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Catholic Church in the 13th century, quotes in his magnum opus, Summa Theologica, from Augustine’s work City of God (De Civ. Dei xv) concerning the sons of Seth:

Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain.[i ] Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge. Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man,[ii] (emphasis mine).

Just as Augustine fallaciously suggested the sons of God were the so called “godly line of Seth,” the daughters of men have been labeled as being from the “ungodly line of Cain”. Augustine says, “By the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain,” (Augustine as quoted in Summa Theologica, Aquinas). We must ask the important question – where in Scripture does it say such a thing? Augustine makes the claim above that Scripture designates those daughters as coming from the race of Cain, but just where do we see that? The answer is that we simply do not. It was first tentatively considered by Julius Africanus and then completely invented by Augustine and then repeated by all who would follow in his footsteps ever since. If the term “sons of God” refers to the “sons of Seth” as so many suggest, then why does the text not simply state it? Unfortunately neither Augustine nor Aquinas substantiates the claim. They simply presume their statement to be true and offer no biblical proof. Augustine states that “Scripture designates” that the daughters of men “sprang from the race of Cain”. But where in Scripture does it say that? Sadly, their unbiblical assertion has left its mark in the modern day creating a great deal of confusion regarding what the Bible literally teaches.

Calvin’s Interpretation

John Calvin in the 17th century carried on the tradition started by Augustine that the sons of God are in fact the sons of Seth. He states in his commentary:

The principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of God, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate, (emphasis mine).[iii]

Calvin rightly describes the world as being wicked, but he vainly asserts that the world had been “divided into two parts.” Where do we see such an idea in the Bible? He also introduces his deterministic philosophy of predestination by stating that apparently the sons of Seth were adopted by “special privilege.” His denial of who the sons of God truly were creates a tremendous amount of confusion that has clouded the interpretation of the text for potentially millions of people over the centuries. Furthermore, nowhere do we see that the daughters of men are from the so called ungodly line of Cain.

Calvin continues with his unbiblical prohibition of inter-class marriages. Notice that again he does not offer any biblical support for any of his positions. He does not seek to prove his point with Scripture but with opinion and conjecture. Having simply asserted his position, Calvin then ridicules the ‘sons of God as demons[m1] ’ interpretation.

That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition, (Calvin Commentary Genesis 6:1 emphasis mine).

We have already seen how “sons of God” is used in Scripture – furthermore that there were no human “sons of God” before the resurrection of Jesus. However Calvin introduces great confusion into the text by dogmatically declaring that God’s terms are very capricious and that they sometimes mean one thing in one context and quite another someplace else. The simple biblical definition, as we have seen, is that sons of God are direct creations of God. Calvin is unable to define sons of God because of bad exegesis.

Should anyone object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of God, sometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and though in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters, (emphasis mine).[iv]

Now, to support his presuppositions, he must explain away the giants (Nephilim) that are introduced in Genesis 6:4 and are the result of the sons of God (or as he would say the sons of Seth) and the daughters of men (or as he would say the daughters of Cain).

Moses does not indeed say, that they were of extraordinary stature, but only that they were robust. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those who explored the land of Canaan, (Jos 13:33.) But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion, (emphasis mine).[v]

He downplays the fact that the fruit of the union between the sons of God and daughters of men were men of extraordinary size. He simply asserts that they were “great” in their evil. His interpretation is unfounded and he is not completely honest here for the word (Nephilim) used in both places is exactly the same. Calvin and numerous others turn to Genesis 4:26 in order to substantiate their case. Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary is very typical of those that leap to the conclusion that sons of God must be referring to the Sons of Seth.

Observe the different expressions: sons of God, and daughters of men. If you turn to Gen 4:26 you there discover that the children of Seth are said to call on the name of the Lord; including both sons and daughters; and hence, therefore, these are meant by the sons of God.[vi]

They suggest that this passage in some way proves that the term “sons of God” is really a hidden meaning for sons of Seth. Let’s take a look at the passage to see if their claims are valid.
Seth and His Sons

Seth appears a total of seven times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (NKJV). We get a brief glimpse of his life by stringing together all of the passages[vii] that speak of him.

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth [...], and as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD, (Genesis 4:25-26).

And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. (Genesis 5:3-4, 6-8).

Here 130 years after creation, Adam has a son named Seth; then 105 years after that Seth had a son named Enosh. Thus we learn that a total of 235 years after creation men began to call upon the name of the Lord. The Hebrew term for Lord is YHWH which is the personal name of God. God told Moses: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai שַׁדָּ֑י אֵ֣ל], but by My name LORD [YHWH יְהוָה] I was not known to them,” (Exodus 6:3). Thus to think that this was the first time that humans began to worship the Lord is unfounded. Rather we simply read that they began to use his personal name at that point for some purpose. While it appears to have begun with a son of Seth, we should not infer that it was limited to that line. After all, the Hebrew text very literally says az hukhal likro beshem YHWH [בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה לִקְרֹ֖א הוּחַ֔ל אָ֣ז] “then was begun (the) calling by (with, in) the name YHWH” (translation mine). The term hukhal (הוּחַל) is the passive (hophal) of begin. The subject of the verb hukhal is “calling” (likro’ לִקְרֹא). The word “men” does not even appear in the text. Thus we see that apparently, up until that point, men were not invoking God by His proper name. It could be that they didn’t know it, though we cannot be sure. Nevertheless this reading of the verse does not in any way substantiate the notion that Seth’s sons were the sons of God. Another reading is possible which may clarify the passage.

 
A Possible Translation

Conversely, the verb hukhal (הוּחַל) comes from the root (חלל) the basic meaning is “to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin” according to Brown Driver Briggs’[viii] Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the alternative reading would be “then calling by the name of YHWH was profaned”. This alternative reading actually finds endorsement by the ancient Aramaic Targumim. Targum Onkelos interprets the passage as:

 

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted [חָלוּ] (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Onkelos, emphasis mine).

 

Targum Jonathan is similar though it amplifies that reading even more:

 

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err [למטעי], and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Jonathan, emphasis mine).

 

While neither “began” nor “profane” supports the sons of Seth theory, the latter would seem to make more sense in light of the entire story of the Bible. The divine name seems to have been known from the very beginning of creation. Adam was familiar with it because he heard the voice of the LORD (YHWH) God in the garden after he had sinned. Calling by the name of the Lord was until that time respected and honored but it was in the days of Enosh when calling by the name of the Lord was defiled. God then destroyed the world because of the continual wickedness. Noah retains knowledge of the name and then apparently at the tower of Babel the name is forgotten or lost. God chooses not to reveal His name again until Moses has the encounter at the burning bush.
The Sons of Seth Were Not Sons of God

Regardless of which reading we take, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the concept that Genesis 4:26 can be used to interpret the sons of God as the sons of Seth. There is no indication that Seth’s sons were somehow more godly than the rest of humanity. Furthermore, it must not be missed that Adam lived another 800 years after begetting Seth and that he had sons and daughters. Likewise “Seth lived eight hundred and seven years and had sons and daughters,” (Genesis 5:7). All of the sons and daughters of Seth as well as the sons and daughters of Cain were in fact sons (and daughters) of Adam. Technically speaking every human ever born on this planet is a son or daughter of Adam; the Hebrew language uses the term to mean “human”. Thus the text is driving home the point that there are two dissimilar groups: the daughters of Adam on the one hand and the sons of God on the other. To suggest that the daughters of men were actually the daughters of Cain is fanciful. Rather, the daughters of Adam are contrasted with the sons of God: the daughters of men were human and the sons of God were not.

Furthermore, we can in no way infer that all of these sons and daughters remained so godly that they would be distinguished from the sons of Cain. After all, only eight people were saved out of the entire world. These sons of Seth must not have been so godly after all. Simply put, the sons of God do not refer to the lineage of Seth, but to direct creations of God, which before the redeeming work of Christ was limited to Adam himself and to angels. Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis six refers to fallen angels who had relations with human women.

http://www.douglashamp.com/the-sons-of-seth-and-daughters-of-cain-theory-refuted/

Click here for part one

Click here for part two

Click here for part three

Click here for part four

Click here for part five

Click here for part six
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8

Khazaq
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2011, 08:51:45 pm »

Genesis 6
[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
[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.
[5] 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.
[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

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.

Job 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.

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?

Psalm 29:1  Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength.

In Hebrew, "mighty" is actually translated from "beney-Elohim", same words translated into "sons of God" in the aforementioned verses.  Ben is the singular form meaning "son", beney "sons".  El is the singular form of "God" in Hebrew, while "Elohim" is the plural.

Psalm 89:6  For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? 

In Hebrew, mighty is actually Elohim.  The phrase "sons of the mighty" is translated from beney-Elohim.

Josephus records that this was indeed the view from antiquity, that fallen angels procreated with human women.

"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 call giants." - Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1 - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21598



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2011, 09:21:23 pm »

wow, the first 8 parts are now missing from this guys site. that sucks as they had some great info.  Cry
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21598



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2011, 09:31:26 pm »

found part 6

Part Six: The Sons of God
According to Ancient Sources

Ancient extra-biblical sources are important because they act as a type of commentary on the Scripture. What we find

from these authors is that they confirm the literal interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 which is to say that the  sons of God were fallen angels (demons) who procreated with women. Again, this is important because when Jesus spoke of the days of Noah, all the listeners would have believed that fallen angels and demonic-human hybrids were rampant on the earth at that time. The ancient Christian and Jewish interpreters confirm that Satan has been seeking to overturn the Genesis 3:15 prophecy and destroy mankind.

 

Fallen Angels According to the New Testament

Both Peter and Jude speak specifically concerning the actions of these fallen angels. Peter, in his second epistle speaks of false teachers with destructive heresies and the destruction they will bring upon themselves. He emphasizes the certainty of their destruction because of how God judged the (fallen) angels and the ancient world.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell [tartarosas ταρταρώσας] and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment, and if he did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah, a herald of righteousness, along with seven others, when God brought a flood on an ungodly world, and if he turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, having appointed them to serve as an example to future generations of the ungodly, and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man in anguish over the debauched lifestyle of lawless men, – if so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority. Brazen and insolent, they are not afraid to insult the glorious ones, (2 Peter 2:4-10 NET).

How can we know for certain that Peter is not merely referring to the initial fall of the angels from Heaven? After all, we know that Satan was once in God’s presence and fell from his exalted position according to Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.[ i] We also learn from Revelation 12 that Satan took one third of the angels with him when he fell. Couldn’t Peter simply be referring to the “sin” of when Satan and the other angels initially rebelled? Peter gives us the answer in chapter five of his first epistle when he says that we need to be on guard because: “your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,” (1 Peter 5:8). We can state with confidence that no angel has sinned worse than Satan himself. Thus why would God cast some of the lesser demons (fallen angels) into hell (a place Peter refers to as Tartarus[ii]) and yet leave the majority of the demons, including the king of demons, Satan himself, free to “prowl around”?

 

We know that during Jesus’ earthly ministry there were many encounters between Jesus and demons. During one encounter the demons even ask Him: “What have we[iii] to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”[iv] (Matthew 8:29. We see that they were free to roam about but that there will be a time when the Lord Jesus will judge them. Jesus speaks of the judgment following the Great Tribulation known as the Judgment of the Nations in Matthew 25:41 and confirms that the final destiny of all fallen angels is the lake of fire. ”Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” (Matthew 25:41).

Thus the angels that have been cast into hell (tartaros) and are locked in everlasting chains waiting until the final judgment must have done something more than the initial rebellion. For if the first rebellion was sufficient to require them to be locked up already, why should Satan and so many other demons be allowed to go about freely? Peter provides evidence of just what landed them in everlasting chains so prematurely by his statement in verse ten: “especially those who indulge their fleshly desires [sarkos en epitumia σαρκος εν επιθυμια μιασμου] and who despise authority.” The Greek term employed by Peter (epithumia επιθυμια) is defined by Thayer’s Greek Lexicon as a great longing for something, often of things forbidden. This word coupled with “flesh” (sarkos σαρκος) and “defilement”[v] (miasmou μιασμου) makes a powerful statement – the unrighteous, which includes (fallen) angels acted upon a forbidden longing to defile or stain their flesh.

Jude, most likely basing his own writing on Peter, then elaborates in what way the angels sinned.

Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe. You also know that the angels [angelous αγγελους] who did not keep within their proper domain [arkhen αρχην] but abandoned their own place of residence [oiketerion οικητηριον], he has kept [There is an interesting play on words used in this verse. Because the angels did not keep their proper place, Jesus has kept them chained up in another place. The same verb keep is used in v. 1 to describe believers’ status before God and Christ. (NET Notes Jude 6)] in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day. So also [hos ως] Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality [ekporeusasai εκπορνευσασαι] and pursued unnatural desire [sarkos heteras σαρκος ετερας] in a way similar to these [toutois τουτοις] angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire, (Jude 1:5-7 NET).

 

There are several things that confirm what Peter was saying in relation to the angels having been equivalent to the sons of God in Genesis 6. Jude says that the angels didn’t keep their proper domain, arkhen (αρχην). We see this word in a similar context in the writings of Paul. In Romans 8:38 Paul is confidently stating that nothing can separate us from God’s love: “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities [archai αρχαι] nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,” (Romans 8:38).

In writing to the Ephesians Paul makes a bold statement concerning who we are truly warring against.

 

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities [tas arkhas τας αρχας], against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places, (Ephesians 6:12).

 

Paul is stating that the principalities [archai αρχαι] are rulers in the kingdom of Satan. Jude on the other hand is referencing what the angels left – that is to say, they left their abode or domain of power and rule (where they acted as principalities of wickedness in the heavenly places).

Jude then goes on to say that in a like manner Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities committed an act like these (the Greek text has a masculine demonstrative dative pronoun “to these”). The New American Bible comments on verse 7:

 

However, the phrase “practiced unnatural vice”—translated literally as “went after alien flesh”—refers to the desires for sexual intimacies by human beings with angels, which is the reverse of the account in Genesis, where heavenly beings (angels) sought after human flesh.[vi]

 

The NET Bible notes that use of the masculine pronoun refers back to the antecedent “angels” because it is masculine whereas the mention of “cities” (Greek poleis πόλεις) is feminine and thus angels must be the antecedent of “to these”.[vii]

 

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (and the cities of the plain) was so wicked that God destroyed them with fire and brimstone from the sky. However, in order to not let the righteous suffer the same fate as the wicked, God sent two of his angels to rescue Lot and his family. Upon coming to the city the men of the city begin to beat on the door demanding that Lot send out the two men in order that they might have sexual relations with them. At the very least homosexual conduct is being spoken of here. However, with the passage from Jude in view, it is at least possible that God destroyed them not merely for their homosexual conduct, but for previously having relations with angels (of course fallen angels i.e. demons). The notes from the NET Bible offer some valuable insight on the term “strange flesh”.

This phrase has been variously interpreted. It could refer to flesh of another species (such as angels lusting after human flesh). This would aptly describe the sin of the angels, but not easily explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. […] Another alternative is that the focus of the parallel is on the activity of the surrounding cities and the activity of the angels. This is especially plausible since the participles ἐκπορνεύσασαι (ek****eusasai, “having indulged in sexual immorality”) and ἀπελθοῦσαι (apelthousai, “having pursued”) have concord with “cities” (πόλεις, poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns). If so, then their sin would not necessarily have to be homosexuality. However, most likely the feminine participles are used because of constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense). That is, since both Sodom and Gomorrah are cities, the feminine is used to imply that all the cities are involved. The connection with angels thus seems to be somewhat loose: Both angels and Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in heinous sexual immorality. Thus, whether the false teachers indulge in homosexual activity is not the point; mere sexual immorality is enough to condemn them (NET Notes Jude 1:7).

 

The NET notes nicely draw out the bottom line of the use of the term sarkos heteras σαρκος ετερας (strange flesh in the KJV). When this information is coupled with what Paul has to say about the different kinds of flesh in I Corinthians 15 the picture becomes incredibly clear that the angels went after something foreign to themselves as did the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

All flesh is not the same flesh [sarx σαρξ], but there is one kind of flesh [sarx σαρξ] of men, another [alle αλλη] flesh [sarx σαρξ] of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies [somata σωματα] and terrestrial bodies [somata σωματα]; but the glory of the celestial is one [ετερα], and the glory of the terrestrial is another (1 Corinthians 15:39-40).

Paul states that there are different kinds of flesh, men, animals, fish, and birds. Note that all earthly creatures have flesh but it is other or different (alle αλλη). Paul then describes the difference between the celestial and terrestrial bodies and states that they are different (heteros ἕτερος of another different kind). After describing the difference between the glory of the sun versus the moon, etc. (I Corinthians 15:40), he then returns to the resurrected bodies that we will possess. There are both earthly bodies and heavenly bodies and they are “heteros” which is the very same word that Jude uses to describe the angels and Sodomites in their going after flesh of another kind.

 

We learn from Peter and Jude that both the angels (demons) and inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah took part in forbidden and debauched sexual conduct. We have seen that the reference by Jesus that in heaven we do not marry but are like the angels does not preclude what fallen angels did in the past. The texts are clear: the (fallen) angels did something that was so heinous that it landed them in everlasting chains in complete darkness until the great day. But we also saw that not all of the fallen angels have been confined there – most conspicuous is Satan himself who still has free reign. Thus, nowhere in the Bible does it say that angels are incapable of mixing their seed with humans. What we learn from Peter and Jude is that they were not supposed to. They left their proper domain i.e. the realm of the prince of the power of the air, and came to earth where they fathered the Nephilim with human women.
Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

The conclusions we have reached from the New Testament is backed by all the ante-Nicene Church Fathers. We will consider all the fathers that mentioned something concerning the sons of God (demons) and their mixing with the daughters of men and we will see that all of them believed that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were identified as fallen angels.[viii]

 
Athenagoras

Church Father Athenagoras, AD 177 wrote in “Concerning the Angels and Giants” that it was the fallen angels who fathered the giants before the flood.

 

Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice […], so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament […] these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him.”[ix]

 

Notice Athenagoras’ description of how these angels outraged (were not faithful) to the government that had been entrusted to them. This language of course corresponds to the language of 2 Peter 2 and Jude of the angels that did not keep their first estate (residence). Athenagoras further commented how these angels could no longer rise to where they once had been (heaven) and the souls of giants, who he says are in fact demons, wander the world.

 

These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world, perform actions similar, the one (that is, the demons) to the natures they have received, the other (that is, the angels) to the appetites they have indulged.[x]

 
Commodianus

Commodianus, A.D. 240, wrote how from angels’ seed the giants came about. Again, we see that the ancient Christian interpreter believed Genesis 6 to be referring to the comingling of angels and women which produced a hybrid race of giants, which confirms that when Jesus mentioned “as it was in the days of Noah, so will the coming of the Son of Man be” people would have thought about the Nephilim.

 

When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed 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. […] 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.[xi]

 
The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus

 

Julius Africanus (A.D. c. 160?- c. 240?) was the first to tentatively suggest that “sons of God” might be referring to the descendants of Seth and the “seed of men” could possibly be referring to descendants of Cain. However, he also conceded that it could just be angels as the text he was reading stated. Furthermore, it was by these angels that the race of giants was conceived. Augustine, however, was truly the first to state without a doubt that the sons of God simply meant sons of Seth.

 

When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found “the sons of God.” What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Savior Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God. But if it is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.[xii]

 
Pre-New Testament Jewish Texts

Ancient Jewish sources a century or two before or after Jesus that mentioned the sons of God as fallen angels include texts such as the book of Enoch, Tales of the Patriarchs (also known as the Genesis Apochryphon), Philo, the Aramaic Targumim of the Pentateuch, the ancient historian Josephus and others. They consistently accepted the interpretation that fallen angels were capable of producing offspring and therefore had some kind of genetic seed to pass on.  This again demonstrates that the phrase “as it was in the days of Noah” was a reference to Nephilim on the earth.
The Genesis Apocryphon

The Genesis Apocryphon[xiii], found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, contains accounts purportedly by the ancient patriarchs (Joseph, etc.) from the book of Genesis, but with more detail. Whether or not it goes all the way back to those original patriarchs we may never know, but the book does provide us with some important evidence (at the very least as a commentary) of what pious Jews from Qumran believed about the ancient past, offering valuable insights into what they thought about the sons of God and the Nephilim.

 

In this fragment Lamech fears the child in his wife’s womb is not his but is in fact from the fallen angels known as the watchers. The child would therefore be a Nephilim or giant.

 

I thought, in my heart, that the conception was the work of the Watchers the pregnancy of the Holy Ones and that it belonged to the Giants… and my heart was upset by this… I, Lamech, turned to my wife Bitenosh and said… Swear to me by the Most High, Great Lord {…} I swear to you by the Great Holy One, the King of the heavens… That this seed, pregnancy, and planting of fruit comes from you and not a stranger, Watcher, or son of the heaven… (Col. 2. [1])
The Watchers

He uses the word “watchers” which is also found three times in Daniel 4. These watchers we see in Daniel came down from heaven and were also called holy ones.

    I saw in the visions of my head while on my bed, and there was a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven, (Daniel 4:13).
    This decision is by the decree of the watchers, And the sentence by the word of the holy ones, In order that the living may know That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, Gives it to whomever He will, And sets over it the lowest of men,’ (Daniel 4:17).
    And inasmuch as the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, “Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave its stump and roots in the earth, (Daniel 4:23).

The Genesis Apocryphon also qualifies the “watcher” with “son of the heaven.” In Second Temple Judaism “heaven” was often used as a circumlocution for “God”. Therefore we could see here a reference to sons of God being used to describe heavenly beings. The secondary designation of “holy ones” is parallel to angels, which does not refer only to good angels but to both good and bad of that class of beings. Holy is a word that does not necessarily imply perfection but set apart for a particular purpose.[xiv]

The Book of Giants

The book of Giants was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and has been dated to sometime before the second century BC. It is similar to the description of the giants found in the book of Enoch. Whether or not this book is based on a much older tradition we do not know. But it does act as a commentary on Genesis 6. Only fragments exist of the book so any particular order is somewhat a matter of guesswork on the part of the scholars. Nevertheless we still find some very insightful information concerning the events believed to have preceded the flood. From our first fragment (Qumran cave 1, fragment 23, lines 9, 14, 15) we see the general condition of the earth (brackets here are inserted by the Qumran scholars).[xv]

 

1Q23 Frag. 9 + 14 + 15

2[ . . . ] they knew the secrets of [ . . . ] 3[ . . . si]n was great in the earth [. . . ] 4[ . . . ] and they killed many [ . . ] 5[ . . . they begat] giants [ . . . ] (emphasis mine).

 

The next fragment appears to speak of taking two hundred different animals and mixing their seed with one another (miscegenation).

 

1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6

[. . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [. . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from every [bird . . .] 5[. . .] for miscegenation [. . .]

Apparently from the intermingling of kinds strange creatures came about, namely giants and monsters. Whoever the writer was, he was indicating that the cause of the flood was the creation of monsters and giants (unnatural creatures) which came from the mixing of seed. The key word is “corrupted” which refers to a degradation of the genetic code.

 

4Q531 Frag.

2 [ . . . ] they defiled [ . . . ] 2[ . . . they begot] giants and monsters [ . . . ] 3[ . . . ] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted . . . ] 4[ . . . ] with its blood and by the hand of [ . . . ] 5[giant's] which did not suffice for them and [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] and they were seeking to devour many [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] the monsters attacked it, (emphasis mine).

 

4Q532 Col. 2 Frags. 1 – 6

2[ . . . ] flesh [ . . . ] 3al[l . . . ] monsters [ . . . ] will be [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] they would arise [ . . . ] lacking in true knowledge [ . . . ] because [ . . . ] 5[ . . . ] the earth [grew corrupt . . . ] mighty [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] they were considering [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] from the angels upon [ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] in the end it will perish and die [ . . . ] 9[ . . . ] they caused great corruption in the [earth . . .] (emphasis mine).

 
I Enoch

We next turn to the book of I Enoch. When the book of Enoch was written is not known. It is entirely possible that some or all of the book was in fact written by Enoch. After all the New Testament book of Jude quoted from I Enoch: “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,” (Jude 1:14). However, we can be certain that it was a central book for the Dead Sea community approximately two centuries before Christ. The book describes in great detail the situation of the earth before the flood and how the sons of God, which the writer clearly identifies, are fallen angels. The text below is from The Book of Enoch, translated from the Ethiopic by R.H. Charles, 1906 (Chapter 9). His comments have been placed in the endnotes.

 

(1) It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

(2) And when the angels[xvi], the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children. [Verses 3-6][xvii]

(7) Then they swore all together, and all bound themselves by mutual execrations. Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon Ardis,[xviii] which is the top of mount Armon.

(8) That mountain therefore was called Armon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual execrations.[xix] (9) These are the names of their chiefs: Samyaza, who was their leader, Urakabarameel, Akibeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel, Saraknyal, Asael, Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael, Turel, Yomyael, Arazyal. These were the prefects of the two hundred angels, and the remainder were all with them.[xx]

(10) Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. 11And the women conceiving brought forth giants,[xxi]

(12) Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;

(13) When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;

(14) And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another,[xxii] and to drink their blood, (emphasis mine).

 

The details concord quite well with the biblical and extra-biblical evidence that we have already seen. The ancient Jews at Qumran, whether simply the readers of the document or perhaps the authors of it, certainly believed that the sons of God were to be interpreted as fallen angels and that they had sexual relations with women thereby producing the giants. The ancient Jew, if not Enoch himself, understood the watchers to be angels (whether good or bad) and it was these watchers (who were also in Daniel 4) who came down and mingled their seed with humanity. Thus according to the author of Enoch, demons mingled themselves with the seed of men and produced a hybrid race.

 
Philo’s Interpretation

Philo was a first century Jewish philosopher from Alexandria who was known for trying to make the Bible harmonize with Greek philosophy by way of allegorization. If anyone should have allegorized away the sons of God and the giants it was Philo. However, Philo does nothing of the sort but takes a very literal approach and greatly strengthens our conclusion that the fallen angelic beings were mingling their seed with women.

 

And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them whom they Chose.” [Gen 6:2] Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air, (emphasis mine).[xxiii]

The text that Philo is quoting from simply interpreted the Hebrew “sons of God” as angels. This is also what the Septuagint did in the book of Job. Philo states very clearly “But sometimes Moses styles the angels the sons of God” in his Questions and Answers on Genesis part 4, note 92. Note that he also discusses how angels, or sons of God, have on occasion appeared as men. For Philo the giants are absolutely the product of fallen angels and women.

On what principle it was that giants were born of angels and women? The poets call those men who were born out of the earth giants, that is to say, sons of the Earth. But Moses here uses this appellation improperly, and he uses it too very often merely to denote the vast personal size of the principal men, equal to that of Hajk or Hercules. […] But he relates that these giants were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; as they did on this occasion, when forming connections with women for the production of giants. […] But sometimes Moses styles the angels the sons of God, inasmuch as they were not produced by any mortal, but are incorporeal, as being spirits destitute of any body, (emphasis mine).[xxiv]

 

Ironically, Philo takes the text quite literally. In his writings On the Life of Moses, I – Part 4, he writes: “they saw that they were very numerous indeed, and giants of exceeding tallness with absolutely gigantic bodies, both as to their magnitude and their strength,” (emphasis mine).[xxv]

 
Targum of Jonathan

The Targum of Jonathan is very poignant in just who the sons of God are and even mentions them by name:

 

Schamchazai and Uzziel, who fell from heaven, were on the earth in those days; and also, after the sons of the Great had gone in with the daughters of men […], (Targum Jonathan Genesis 6:4, emphasis mine).

 
Josephus

We next turn to Josephus, the premier Jewish historian of the first century without whose work we would know very little concerning the fall of Jerusalem. In addition to his work entitled Wars of the Jews, Josephus also wrote a much longer work entitled Antiquities of the Jews in which he plainly states that angels begat sons with women. It is worth mentioning that the piety of Seth and his sons is noted by Josephus. Seth’s sons’ apostasy is also noted, but Josephus is careful not to suggest that the “sons of men” were in fact the sons of Seth. He maintains the distinction between them.

 

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 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.[xxvi]

 

After reporting on Seth’s son’s bad conduct, he then turns his attention to the events which led up to the flood. Josephus specifically states that it was angels that mingled their seed with women.

 

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 call giants, (emphasis mine).[xxvii]

 

William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, picks up on Josephus’ use of the word angel. He states: “This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.”[xxviii]

 
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are biographies written between 107 and 137 B.C. They show what ancient Jews believed about the sons of God and the giants that were on the earth before the flood. In the testament of Reuben, the author discusses how the Watchers were the fathers of the giants. However, in this text it was not only the angels (watchers) who lusted after women, but the women that also lusted after the watchers.

 

For thus they allured the Watchers who were before the flood; for as these continually beheld them, they lusted after them, and they conceived the act in their mind; And the women lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven, (Testament of Reuben 18-20).

 
Secrets of Enoch

Little is known of this books origin except that in its present form it was written somewhere about the beginning of the Christian era.

And they said to me: These are the Grigori [Watchers], who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light, and after them are those who are held in great darkness on the second heaven, and three of them went down on to earth from the Lord’s throne, to the place Ermon, and broke through their vows on the shoulder of the hill Ermon and saw the daughters of men how good they are, and took to themselves wives, and befouled the earth with their deeds, who in all times of their age made lawlessness and mixing, and giants are born and marvelous big men and great enmity.[xxix]
Summary

We have seen that the evidence from the New Testament interprets the sons of God in Noah’s day as being fallen angels that mixed their seed with women. All of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers (before the council of Nicaea) believed that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were to be identified as fallen angels. Both Jewish and Christian interpreters believed that a select group of angels, who had previously fallen, took women and fathered children by them. They did not see this as an impossibility nor a problem theologically. In fact, it was the key that solved many riddles. By rejecting the simple and literal interpretation, later interpreters have had to disregard the text in order to make it fit their preconceived notion. The implications for our study are huge: if the fallen angels did that once, then they will do it again as Jesus Himself prophesied “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be,” (Matthew 24:37).

The idea that the sons of God were the supposed sons of Seth is conspicuously absent from these ancient commentators. If the vast majority of interpreters had believed them to be the sons of Seth and the women to be the daughters of Cain then we might be forced to reconsider our conclusion; the fact is, however, that 100% of them (before Augustine) confirm our conclusion that Satan has been trying to mix his seed with humans and thereby thwart the Genesis 3:15 prophecy. Only when Augustine began reinterpreting the Old Testament allegorically, so that he could reinterpret the literal promises made to Israel and apply them to the church, did the sons of Seth explanation take root.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 09:33:04 pm by Dok » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3836


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2011, 01:28:15 am »

Great post  Cool , you have clarified some things for me.

Quote
Secrets of Enoch
Little is known of this books origin except that in its present form it was written somewhere about the beginning of the Christian era.

If we could only work out the origins of the book of Enoch we could add extra support to the Sons of God are angels in Genesis belief. I mean where else did the author of Enoch get his ideas about angels and men joining together? It must have been from Genesis right?
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21598



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2011, 06:08:58 am »

Great post  Cool , you have clarified some things for me.

If we could only work out the origins of the book of Enoch we could add extra support to the Sons of God are angels in Genesis belief. I mean where else did the author of Enoch get his ideas about angels and men joining together? It must have been from Genesis right?


I have to agree. Every ancient source before 500 ad agrees that these are fallen angels, called watchers. All jewish commentary says this also. Peter and Jude were both pointing to this. Daniel actually sees watchers.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
nuclearnuttery
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2011, 11:12:50 am »

if common people knew that fallen angels' influence extended past shoulder-sitting to active participation in weapons programs and politics, etc -- there might be more resistance to evil in our culture. To me, belief in demons requires a complete re-evaluation of what "intelligence" is, how irrelevant "time" is to anyone but people, and literally a willingness to be less reliant on physical sight (big taboo in TV-Land) while navigating life. I never really understood this, but I guess part of being a Christian is taking good care of all one's "unseen" parts; like one's spirit, or one's relationships, or one's giving schedule, etc. Those without religious beliefs tend to live in fewer dimensions unless they are just very very adventurous.

It really does seem as if many in the churches have forgotten the powers of darkness and have started blaming ethnic groups for certain conditions. @@ eek.

My grandma sent an awful forward to all the nonbelievers and otherwise in my family, about "premature death" and fear of hell. Fear CANNOT be the driving force in Christianity. The whole point is that God extends his love to individual persons. Remember the woman who gave a year's wages for myrrh and put it on Christ's feet. She was driven by love, not fear. No one had loved her in her whole life like Jesus did and in spite of being a **** she had the spiritual sensitivity to feel that. MNaybe that says something about the kinds of people we typically hate in this country -- I am thinking those are the ones God needs for his work the most and so we have to help get to them.

This includes the homeless and the politically confused, the Arab and the Goth, everyone can use Love and everyone can appreciate Eternal Life -- the only thing they don't fully understand is that God is real and that He cares. They can't see Him unless they want to. Human beings are unaware of their higher parts, the parts that see the unseen. The quantum brain, the electrical feedback of the universe, the seat of reason. Without God's guidance what can we do with these tools? What would we be doing to each other on this earth if there was no mention of God? No books with his Story? I can't even imagine it. There is a chance that people could improve, but it would be so much less solid of a faith imo!!! Because like the man said, "without hope of Heaven we are men most miserable" (christians). Because of what we give up, how very different the "real" or "higher" world is from the projection of matter that we live inside. Morality is the bridle on the horse's mouth -- who knows where the power could take you without a way to steer!

We need tempering and restraint because of the great potential to harm one another. even the angels have something to learn from us humans and patience and generosity are two biggies. People who don't have much and can't go far, it means so much more on one level than the same action done by one with greater power and reach. Our weakness defines our willpower.
Report Spam   Logged
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3836


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2011, 12:03:54 am »

Ephesians 6:
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

When i found out that a Christian really battles evil spiritual powers and not people then it really made me see the world in a different way.
The battle is on today, we are soldiers in God's army. Now i can look at lost people and know that they are under satan's control. I mean usually it is pretty obvious. We need more people on God's side and that is done by preaching to the lost, and praying that the lost will hear of Jesus, repent and be enlightened.
I mean the whole point of angels having offspring with women was Satan's spiritual attack on the human race so that it might be possible that Jesus would never come from a pure line of people. Thankfully God had Noah and his family in mind to defeat satan's plan.
Report Spam   Logged
nuclearnuttery
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2011, 04:34:12 pm »

That is very interesting and scary.
Yesterday guys, it occurred to me, the "Nephilim" name is quite similar to the half-demon race in the awful comic "Lucifer", the "Lilim" -- they are depicted as being at war with heaven and humanity, yet remaining for the most part unseen by humans.. sound familiar? Rather like Icke? Interesting, very interesting!!!

Anyhow, yes, it pains me to see and hear people blame the world's ills on one race or another, one faith or another; I do see a lot of truth in Jesus etc. but still struggle with accepting people and that translates to loving God very little and being disobedient.  =( how awful to realize that. Maybe I am gonna croak soon lol. anyway, don't listen to those awful gloom and doom email forwards (about premature death etc); we are supposed to carry light and water not gunpowder and vinegar!! My own grandma sent that email to all teh family last week, omg. =((((

you guys are inspiring to those who are "fake"
there is hope yet @@

edit: speaking of fake and nephilim in the same post, Lady Gaga's recent treatment of Weird Al was disappointing. "Perform This Way" was ssupposed to be the next "white and nerdy". so much for good clean humor and satire! A dying breed!!!
the only bar in hollywood seems to be how visually outrageous and disgusting we can be, so as to corrupt tiny kids watching tv with weird irreconcilable images of filth instead of funny things like weird al...

anyway i am beginning to truly hate hollywood. i understand God's anger a bit better now... the kids have little chance -- no wonder he hates those who corrupt them.
i hope i can at least hide my bad habits from my kid even if i can't ditch them quick. lol
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 04:36:49 pm by nuclearnuttery » Report Spam   Logged
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3836


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2011, 02:34:51 am »

Quote
anyway i am beginning to truly hate hollywood. i understand God's anger a bit better now... the kids have little chance -- no wonder he hates those who corrupt them.
i hope i can at least hide my bad habits from my kid even if i can't ditch them quick. lol

Titus 2:
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 Peter 2:
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

1 Peter 2:
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Romans 12:
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21598



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2014, 08:26:50 am »

10 Biblical Facts That Prove The Sethite Theory Is A Lie

How do you prove that the Sethite explanation of Genesis 6 is a lie? Its actually pretty easy when you know where to look and what to look for. The following information is a sure fire way to shut down any and all Sethite nonsense. After reading this, a person has to choose to continue in their deception and completely ignore the facts, in order to hang on to a belief in the theory. Feel free to share this with those that have been deceived and see what kind of excuses they give you if they choose to ignore the fact.

1. No Cain or Seth – Proponents of the theory claim that Genesis 6:1-4 is referencing the sons of Seth and daughters of Cain, but their names are nowhere to be found in the entire chapter.

    “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

2. An Angel Is Called A Son of God – In the book of Daniel, we find Nebuchadnezzar referring to the angel in the fiery furnace as a son of God (the article “a” or “the” varies according to translation).

    “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God… Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.” – Daniel 3:25-28

3. The Phrase Is Used To Refers To Angels – Its no coincidence that the Hebrew phrase translated as “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 is “bene elohim“, which also happens to be one of the ranks of angels in Jewish literature. Here are five sources that document that fact:

    About.com http://angels.about.com/od/AngelBasics/f/What-Are-Angel-Types-In-Judaism.htm
    Wikipedia.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_angelic_hierarchy
    Jewish Virtual Library http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/angels.html
    Angel Assignments http://www.angelassignmentstm.com/angel-hierarchy.html
    Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1521-angelology#4364

4. Christ Had To Be Born First – According to John 1:12 it was only after the birth of Christ that humans gained the ability to become sons of God. One of the requirements was to believe in Christ. Because He had not yet revealed His name in the Old Testament, the sons of God could not have been human beings.

    “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” – John 1:12

5. Sons of God Are Not Birthed By Humans – John 1:13 tells us that sons of God are not born of man, but are born of God. Angels (direct creation of God), Adam (direct creation of God), and Christ (firstborn of God) are the only direct sons of God. Humans can only become sons of God by being “born again”. In the Old Testament, people did not have the option of being born again.

    “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:13

6. The Sons of God Existed Before Humans – According to Genesis 1:1 God created the earth “in the beginning.” Humans were created on the 6th day, but we find the sons of God (bene elohim) watching the creation of the earth, which means they existed before mankind.

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

7. Seth’s Line Was Not Obedient To God – According to the Bible, it was the sons of God that were taking women of their choosing. According to the Sethite Theory, this mixing was against the will of God. This is a contradiction within their own theory. If the descendants of Seth were purposely disobeying God, then they were not righteous. God demands our obedience, and it is through Samuel the prophet that we learn this.

    “And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” – 1 Samuel 15:22

8. Seth’s Line Destroyed In The Flood – Seth’s entire line, except for eight people were destroyed in the flood. This is contrary to the Biblically based fact that God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. Either God is a liar or the Sethite line was not the righteous line they are made out to be.

    “That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” – Genesis 18:25

9. Not Widely Accepted – The theory that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were the righteous Sethites, was invented in the 1st century A.D., but was not accepted until the 3rd century A.D.  In fact, so many people rejected it that the Catholic Church had to declare it heresy under the penalty of death to teach the angel theory. St. Augustine (354 A.D. – 430 A.D.) also spoke about these events:

    “There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called incubi, had often made wicked assaults upon women.” – St. Augustine, The City of God

10. Even Doubters Couldn’t Ignore It – Thomas Aquinas (1,225 A.D. – 1,274 A.D.) was a believer in the Sethite Theory, but even he felt he needed to explain events similar to those found in Genesis 6, that were being reported in his own time.

    “Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes.” – Thomas Aquinus, Summa Theologica

- See more at: http://ministerfortson.com/?p=33615#sthash.Ro76GpyY.dpuf
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy