Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Angels: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! Part III
Email Subscription From Dr. Boys | August 11, 2012 | Don Boys, Ph.D.

Posted on 08/11/2012 10:55:08 AM PDT by John Leland 1789

No subject on angels would be complete (and this treatise is far from complete), without dealing with the passage in Gen. 6, one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages. The incident happened just before the global Flood, and whatever position one may take as to the identity of the culprits, their sin was a partial reason (along with the violence) for the world disaster (Gen. 6:5; 11).

Moses tells about the “sons of God” cohabitating with the “daughters of men” resulting in the production of nephilim translated “giants” and/or “fallen ones.” Some scholars contend that the “sons of God” were humans in the linage of Seth while the “daughters of men” were women in Cain’s linage. Whoever these people were, it was a forbidden sexual sin that led to the Flood. It is noteworthy that the men chose the women that were “fair” suggesting that the women’s relationship to God was not important. Moreover, why would sex, even illicit sex, between men and women produce nephilim or any other unusual offspring?

Before giving my reasons for believing that the “sons of God” were fallen angels, we need to consider II Peter 2:4-5, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, (Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” Whatever these angels did, it resulted in them being thrust down to Tartarus. This is the only time Tartarus is used in the New Testament or the Septuagint, but it was often used by Greek authors (Homer, Philo, Pindar, etc.,) as the dark, dismal, doleful, deep abyss of Hades in the heart of the Earth.

What in the world was Peter writing about? He is clearly referring to fallen angels. But if they were those who followed Satan in rebellion, why were not all the demons in prison? Obviously, these imprisoned “spirits” had more to their résumé than rebel and follower of Lucifer. Maybe they were the “ugly” angels who did far more than rebel against God.

I think the only reasonable explanation is that they were the angels who pretended to be human and had sexual relations with human females and the results were so horrific that God put them in prison. If there are good angels, bad angels, then these are the ugly angels: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Furthermore, this would explain Jude 6 where he wrote, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” I think it is obvious that the imprisoned spirits in Jude and II Peter are the same demons who were judged by God for their sins as recorded in Genesis 6.

Those who believe the sinners were men maintain that sex between angels and humans is unreasonable, unnatural, and very unthinkable since angels are sexless. However, while the Bible teaches that there is no marriage in Heaven (Matt.22:30) and we will be like the angels, that does not mean angels are sexless. Needless to say (but I will anyway) to appear human, they had to take on either male or female bodies!

The “sons of God” term is used of both men and angels in the Scripture; however, that particular word in Genesis 6 is never used of humans, according to Willmington’s Guide to the Bible (that every serious Bible student should possess) and other sources. Friends with whom I have discussed this issue, after referring to “sons of God” always bring up the “fact” that angels are sexless. Maybe, maybe not. Angels can take on human form and could have been sexually involved; after all, they did other human things such as eating, walking, sitting, etc., as all humans do. Evidently the perverts in Sodom thought them human enough to try to have sex with them.

Moreover, Genesis 6 clearly states that the offspring of the union between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” were very unusual, even giants. However, Adam Clarke says that there are seven words for giant and not all of them mean people of enormous stature. No one suggests that every child born of humans would be unusual, even giants. No, the sexual incompatibility of demons and humans seems to have resulted in nephilim or “fallen ones.”

I pulled down my valuable set of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews to see what the ancients thought of Gen. 6. Josephus wrote of the sons of Seth, “They made God to be their enemy, for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good.” The translator’s footnote on that page reveals: “This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.” That position of Josephus and the revelation that the ancients thought the culprits were fallen angels should impress those who take the opposite position, after all, he was an expert on the Jews and his work was done two thousand years closer to the event we are discussing. Furthermore, the Greek Old Testament Septuagint identifies the “sons of God” as “angels of God.”

Because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of demon activity in Genesis 6, I have finally taken the position that angels cannot rebel again and demons were sexually involved in Genesis 6.

Whatever the correct interpretation is, it is a fact that sin will divide, defile and destroy anyone without discrimination as to race, gender, and national origin–human or angelic!

Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from www.thegodhaters.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: angels

1 posted on 08/11/2012 10:55:16 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Angels are sexless?


2 posted on 08/11/2012 10:59:26 AM PDT by youngidiot (The name's Bond. James Bond. James Bond Jovi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: youngidiot

That angels are “sexless” is not my position. I believe that they are, each and every last one of them is male.


3 posted on 08/11/2012 11:17:22 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Food for thought.


4 posted on 08/11/2012 11:35:52 AM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
For those who may have missed them, here are links to earlier posts in this series :

Link to part I

Link to part II

Interesting reading, IMHO.

5 posted on 08/11/2012 11:57:38 AM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
Clearly the angels that appeared to Abraham, Lot and Jacob had the ability to form material bodies that could eat and be grasped. It would seem those rebellious angels also had that ability until they misused it and were imprisoned as it were in a debased state.

Perhaps their off spring, the “fellers of men” are the basis of tales of the demigods of legend.

6 posted on 08/11/2012 12:53:30 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Genesis speaks of the ‘sons of God’ and John 3:16 speaks specifically of Jesus as God’s ‘only begotten Son’. It is possible that the ‘sons’ (note the lower case and upper case usage) are still sons, but simply not begotten, and by that, not human.

Another curious usage is that God is also called the Lord God and after reading a lot of other curious terms, I have to wonder if that means that He is the chief God. In Genesis 1:26, “God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.....”. I find myself wondering if that sentence references Him musing with what is called the Royal ‘We’ or if he is talking with His Family—the sons of God. As I do not read the Bible in the original translation, I can’t be sure.

As far as to whether or not the ‘sons of God’ are angels or demons, there is nothing to lead me to believe that they are anything but what they are called, the ‘sons of God.’

The Bible does not say that God forbade His sons to have intercourse with women; indeed, Genesis 6:1-4 indicates that it must have been a common practice as “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” Note the plural. It also does not state that those giants or men of renown were evil, only that ‘the wickedness of man was great in the earth’.

It would also seem hypocritical if God, Himself, begat a Son, if He’d been against the ‘sons of God’ doing the same earlier. There must be more to the story.


7 posted on 08/11/2012 1:04:02 PM PDT by Marty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

I’ll stick with Dr. John Whitcomb’s analysis on the subject which I believe is more in line with the totality of all scriptures. Demonically possessed men. See Genesis 1 to 11 studies 6 and 7 below.

http://www.voicesforchrist.org/welcome/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=John+Whitcomb


8 posted on 08/11/2012 1:30:13 PM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marty
"son of God" in the Scriptures always refers to a direct creation of God. (see, e.g., Luke 3:38, where Adam is called "the son of God.")

Each believer in the NT, each Christian, is a "son of God" by virtue of being born again, created after the image of Christ individually. Angels can not be "born again," but each is an individual creation of God, and that is why they are called in Scripture "sons of God."

9 posted on 08/11/2012 3:11:05 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.
"Demonically possessed men"

Then would demonically possessed men be called "sons of God?"

Rather, what if the expression "son of God" in the Scriptures refers to individually and directly created beings?

I was not a son of God until, in December of 1977, God created me after the image of Christ as part of the New Birth, when He saved me. That new, individual creation, made me a son of God.

Adam was called "the son of God" as a direct creation of God (Luke 3:38), which reference has nothing to do with being born again or regenerated.

10 posted on 08/11/2012 3:20:20 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
Not focused strictly on the phrase "sons of God" but looking at the entire passage in context (in addition to the other passages in scripture that tell us about angels and the "world that perished"). Sons of God is clearly a reference to angels here....in this case fallen angels.

The men (and likely the women) in this passage allowed themselves to become possessed by demons and those demons now completely CONTROLLED the actions, et. al. of those men (and women)....isn't that what possession means?....and that fits with the statement in verse 5, that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Think about what that is saying....there were no good thoughts at any point in time in that depraved possessed mind....sounds like demon possession to me. I see no reason why demonically possessed (completely controlled)men could not be referred to as the sons of God, because the reference would be to the ones doing the controlling/possessing (ie. fallen angels).

Angels were ALL direct creations of God and therefore ALL sons of God. Angels therefore do not procreate (there are and were (IMHO) never any baby angels, mommy or daddy angels). Angels are also spiritual beings by nature and do not have by nature physical bodies made or designed to procreate. And angels neither marry nor are given in marriage....there is no reason to because they don't procreate. The reference here says they took them wives of all which they chose....that doesn't sound like a God-ordained marriage to me.

God completely wiped that bloody violent world out ("the world that perished") and did imprison those specific demons (fallen angels) that participated in trying to completely corrupt and utterly destroy mankind through demonic possession.

You are correct that Adam was a son of God because He was a direct creation of God. However, all other humans were procreated from Adam and Eve (we have moms and dads, etc. unlike angels). But you are also correct that Christians are sons of God through the regeneration or new birth provided through Jesus Christ. We are indeed new creations in Christ...And praise the Lord for that.

I just don't buy into this half human - half angel thing and never have. It conflicts with to many scriptures in the Bible.

11 posted on 08/11/2012 6:32:26 PM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

ok so do the descendants of these demonic offspring exist among us today?


12 posted on 08/11/2012 6:33:34 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.
"Angels therefore do not procreate . . . "

Perhaps not with other angels producing baby angels.

But the serpent himself---Genesis 3:15---has SEED, just as certain as the woman has seed. A spiritual being, Satan, with SEED.

13 posted on 08/11/2012 8:17:43 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
"ok so do the descendants of these demonic offspring exist among us today?"

There will probably be yet another outbreak of the same phenomena, the closer we get to the Lord's coming, as it will be "as the days of Noah."

And there will be a person, Antichrist, who will be the counterfeit christ, who may even claim as much as a virgin birth ; a virgin birth could be produced by Satan, with his SEED (Genesis 3:15) in a perversion of scientific method.

14 posted on 08/11/2012 8:24:25 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; John Leland 1789
“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Angels clearly take human form.

15 posted on 08/11/2012 9:54:47 PM PDT by youngidiot (The name's Bond. James Bond. James Bond Jovi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Spiritual seed sure....not physical....because neither Satan or any angel is a physical being...they are spirit beings.


16 posted on 08/11/2012 9:59:48 PM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.
" . . . .neither Satan or any angel is a physical being...they are spirit beings."

Spiritual beings that, throughout Scripture, do very physical things, themselves, and have very physical capabilities, themselves, without possessing human beings.

What would it be about a spiritual being possessing a physical being, causing him to act sexually, that would genetically change the human seed to produce giants? (Genesis 6 ; and the other breakouts of nephilim throughout the OT, " . . . and also AFTER that . . . " i.e., after the days of the flood. ---the giants in the land of Canaan seen by the twelve spies ; the giants in Saul and David's day, etc.)

Does possession of humans by spiritual beings change genetic structure?

17 posted on 08/12/2012 3:35:00 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.

Do not confuse the meaning of physical with our worldly concepts.

Angels, while identifiable with spirit beings, also are associated with having bodies. Some fallen angels have lost their bodies, but still exist spiritually.

Job 2:2 refers to Satan walking to and fro the earth.

It is true that some demons do not have bodies as we know them, but they are still able to engage in actions which result impact physical phenomenon. They can interact physically, throw a man’s body around, engage in a fistocuffs, although not be visible nor touchable by the man. They are in a different domain, which we really do not need to know at present as His Plan for us doesn’t require it.

While many may not believe in the Gen6 basis for Gap theory, IMHO, it is wise not to label it as false, but instead simply accept His Word as it is.

If He had wanted us to know more about it, He has the ability to communicate it, and does if the situation so warrants it. IMHO they are not situations to be coveted nor sought, as that tends to be the domain of witchcraft, which is highly forbidden.


18 posted on 08/12/2012 4:14:59 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I'm not confused at all, thanks though....I've been studying my Bible on this topic too many years and like I said, I find Dr. John Whitcomb's analysis to be most in line with Biblical scriptures here. Anthropomorphism or personification is often used in scriptures with respect to describing spirit beings including God...that doesn't mean however, that by nature angels were created with physical (in particular) human bodies with the capacity to procreate. God created the different "kinds" of life forms in His creation....and the ones He intended to procreate, He created them to reproduce after their own kind. It says that no less than 10 times in Genesis.

Yes, demons and angels are in their own dimension and that isnt' a dimension we are supposed to try and mess with. Many do and find out the hard way that was a mistake.

And no, I do not believe in the so-called "gap theory" as I find that it does not stand up to what is taught in Genesis nor in looking at the totality of scripture. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis for very sound reasons. I believe God's Word for what it clearly says. Six days means six days - no more and no less. If God had meant something else He would have clearly said so. Please no Hebrew word lessons as I have done in depth studies of that as well.

Studied that one for over 20 years also and I find Dr. Morris' and Dr. Whitcomb's analysis to be in line with scriptures their as well....although I came to that conclusion through studying God's Word even before I was aware of those guys.

You are correct that God does not tell us everything (Deut. 29:29a) but there are many other things God does reveal to us (Deut. 29:29b) and the Bible is it's own best commentary; scripture interprets scripture. That is why I look at the totality of the scriptures related to a topic.

19 posted on 08/12/2012 11:36:53 AM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.
Please no Hebrew word lessons as I have done in depth studies of that as well.

Funny, ..most people I've met who have studied some Hebrew enjoy Hebrew word lessons.

20 posted on 08/12/2012 11:49:27 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
I think you may have answered your own question, though I don't claim to have the corner on this (or much of scripture for that matter):

Spiritual beings that, throughout Scripture, do very physical things, themselves, and have very physical capabilities....

Do the demonic possessions in scriptures result in anything supernatural in the humans that are possessed? What is there to preclude the same effect in physically altering the reproductive genetics of the one's they possess....being that angels themselves cannot procreate by God's design? There are demonic so-called "healings" of people's physical infirmities in some cases even today which are used to draw people down a false path and away from God. That would seem to me to be a form of genetic alteration or molecular cell manipulation.

21 posted on 08/12/2012 11:50:42 AM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Oh, I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it...but after 20 years of personal study, I’ve pretty much heard all the counter arguments.


22 posted on 08/12/2012 11:52:20 AM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Oh, I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it...but after 20 years of personal study, I’ve pretty much heard all the counter arguments.


23 posted on 08/12/2012 11:54:03 AM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
No subject on angels would be complete (and this treatise is far from complete), without dealing with the passage in Gen. 6, one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages. The incident happened just before the global Flood, and whatever position one may take as to the identity of the culprits, their sin was a partial reason (along with the violence) for the world disaster (Gen. 6:5; 11).

There is NOTHING controversial, confusing or convoluted about what Moses is told to write.

The Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of God. Eve was seduced by the devil and the Adam outright disobeyed the commandment of God. Hence they had removed from them the Tree of LIFE and were required to live off the labor of their own hands. Then by the time Noah is born, this earth is polluted by the fallen angels that the only family NOT affected is Noah and his family.... hence the flood. The flood was because the blood line to Christ had been polluted.

24 posted on 08/12/2012 12:04:47 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

I was trying to save you a lot of typing on the topic. It’s a little like trying to talk me out of using my authorized KJV of the Bible and into using a contemporary version. I’m set in my ways on that as well. :)


25 posted on 08/12/2012 12:14:09 PM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I agree....if there is anything that appears to be controversial, confusing or convoluted about any passage of the Bible it has to do with a misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the penman or ultimately the author.


26 posted on 08/12/2012 12:37:27 PM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.
I agree....if there is anything that appears to be controversial, confusing or convoluted about any passage of the Bible it has to do with a misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the penman or ultimately the author.

Well it is like reading Adam blaming God and that 'woman' that God gave him for his sin. Political correctness has NOT only afflicted the political stage, it is just NOT religiously correct to accept what God had his elect write. But hey as it is Written there is nothing new under the sun... some preachers/priests do it for the fame and fortune.

27 posted on 08/12/2012 12:47:41 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Down South P.E.
"being that angels themselves cannot procreate by God's design"

Well that is not what the Bible actually says.

The Bible does say that "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, . . ."

There is no indication here in Genesis ch. 6 that any angelic being possessed and/or indwelled anyone.

28 posted on 08/12/2012 3:19:41 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
I don't think I said I directly quoted the Bible and particularly that passage, when I said what you quoted below....However, I looked at the totality of ALL the scriptures in the Bible that relate to angels and drew my conclusions. Scripture interprets scripture....precept upon precept. Although I think I did actually already cite at least one or two evidences of demonic possession being implied in this particular chapter of Genesis.

The Bible doesn't use the words trinity or rapture either .....and several others I can think of....but clearly both of these are taught in scripture.

29 posted on 08/12/2012 3:46:58 PM PDT by Down South P.E. (Be a Berean Acts 17:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
Could it be that a 'species' called Angel has many races within it? When someone in the Bible refers to 'the angel of that person', they are not referring to 'sons of God', they are referring to the spiritual nature of the person.

BTW, there really are skeletons of giants being found. Their heights vary from ~ three meters to five meters, so far.

30 posted on 08/12/2012 3:56:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

There are also lots of faked youtube vids of ‘giants’, generated by a contestto see who could produce the best fakes.


31 posted on 08/12/2012 3:58:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
“THE SONS OF GOD” IN GEN. 6.2, 4. It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called “a son of God”. For that which is “born of the flesh is flesh”. God is spirit, and that which is “born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3.6). Hence Adam is called a “son of God” in Luke 3.38. Those “in Christ” having “the new nature” which is by the direct creation of God (2 Cor. 5.17. Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called “sons of God” (John 1.13. Rom. 8.14, 15. 1 John 3.1).[1]

[1] The word “offspring” in Acts 17.28 is quite different. It is [Greek script] (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.

This is why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6 ; 2.1 ; 38. 7. Ps. 29.1 ; 89.6. Dan. 3. 25 (no art.).[2] We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6.2 the Septuagint renders it “angels”.

Angels are called “spirits” (Ps. 104. 4. Heb. 1. 7, 14), for spirits are created by God.

That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.

The nature of their fall was clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own [Greek script] (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2 Cor. 5.2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.

The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.

The time of their fall was given as having taken place “in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Peter 2.7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of “the world that then was” (Gen, 1.1. 2 Pet, 3.6).

For this sin they are “reserved unto judgment”, 2 Pet. 2. 4, and are “in prison”, 1 Peter 3. 19. Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated “giants”), were monsters of iniquity ; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree from Adam (Gen. 6.9, see note). All the rest had become “corrupt” (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap.25 on the Nephilim.

This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Gen. 3.15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.

As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6.4, “and also after that” (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12.6) “the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land.”

In the same chapter (Gen. 12. 10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that he should be in “Isaac”. This attempt was repeated in 20. 1-18.

This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Emeny stand out prominently :----

The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50. 20.

The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1.10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2. 5. Heb. 11.23.

The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Ex. 14.

After David's line was singled out (2 Sam. 7), that was the next selection for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2 Chron. 17. 1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2 Chron. 21. 4).

The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2 Chron. 21. 17 ; 22.1).

When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed “all the seed royal” (2 Chron. 22. 10). The babe Joash alone was rescued ; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2 Chron. 23.3).

Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36.1; 38.1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136).

In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3.6, 12, 13. Cp. 6.1).

Joseph' fear was worked on (Matt. 1.18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was “a just man”, and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24.1) ; hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: “Fear not”.

Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2).

At the Temptation, “Cast Thyself down” was Satan's temptation.

At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.

The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.

At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed ; the watch set ; and the stone sealed. But “God raised Him from the dead.” And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10 .12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high ; and the members of “the one body” are hidden there” in Him” (Col. 3. 1-3), like another Jehoshaba ; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2 Chron. 23. 3).

The irrruption of “the fallen angels” (“sons of God”) was the first attempt ; and was directed against the whole human race.

When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.

When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed.

And when “the Seed of the woman” Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.

[2] In Hos. 1. 10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.

____________________

Source: Companion Bible, Appendix No. 23.

32 posted on 08/12/2012 5:05:31 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The "angel of a person" would be an APPEARANCE of that person (Matt. 18:10) ; as the "Angel of the Lord" is an Appearance of the Lord.
33 posted on 08/12/2012 5:12:37 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789; Down South P.E.
But the serpent himself---Genesis 3:15---has SEED, just as certain as the woman has seed. A spiritual being, Satan, with SEED.

I think a better reading of that passage is thy seed being Satan's followers and her seed being God's people, ie., Israel.

34 posted on 08/14/2012 12:51:51 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789; Down South P.E.
The Bible does say that "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, . .

If we look at Gen. 5 we see the line of Seth. He was born after Abel was killed by Cain. IOW, the line of descendants from Seth are the sons of God. It is their marrying the daughters from the line of Cain the daughters of men that Gen 6 is describing.

35 posted on 08/14/2012 1:19:03 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
No subject on angels would be complete (and this treatise is far from complete), without dealing with the passage in Gen. 6, one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages. The incident happened just before the global Flood, and whatever position one may take as to the identity of the culprits, their sin was a partial reason (along with the violence) for the world disaster (Gen. 6:5; 11). “THE SONS OF GOD” IN GEN. 6.2, 4. It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called “a son of God”. For that which is “born of the flesh is flesh”. God is spirit, and that which is “born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3.6). Hence Adam is called a “son of God” in Luke 3.38. Those “in Christ” having “the new nature” which is by the direct creation of God (2 Cor. 5.17. Eph. 2.10) can be, and are called “sons of God” (John 1.13. Rom. 8.14, 15. 1 John 3.1).[1] [1] The word “offspring” in Acts 17.28 is quite different. It is [Greek script] (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God. This is why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1.6 ; 2.1 ; 38. 7. Ps. 29.1 ; 89.6. Dan. 3. 25 (no art.).[2] We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6.2, 4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6.2 the Septuagint renders it “angels”. Angels are called “spirits” (Ps. 104. 4. Heb. 1. 7, 14), for spirits are created by God. That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6. The nature of their fall was clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own [Greek script] (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2 Cor. 5.2 and Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body. The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7. The time of their fall was given as having taken place “in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Peter 2.7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of “the world that then was” (Gen, 1.1. 2 Pet, 3.6). For this sin they are “reserved unto judgment”, 2 Pet. 2. 4, and are “in prison”, 1 Peter 3. 19. Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated “giants”), were monsters of iniquity ; and, being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Ap. 25). This was the one and only object of the Flood. Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree from Adam (Gen. 6.9, see note). All the rest had become “corrupt” (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (de facto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in v. 17 as in vv. 11, 12.) See further under Ap.25 on the Nephilim. This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Gen. 3.15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted. As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Gen. 6.4, “and also after that” (i.e. after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Gen. 12.6) “the Canaanite was then (i.e. already) in the land.” In the same chapter (Gen. 12. 10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that he should be in “Isaac”. This attempt was repeated in 20. 1-18. This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Emeny stand out prominently :---- The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen. 50. 20. The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex. 1.10, 15, &c. Cp. Ex. 2. 5. Heb. 11.23. The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Ex. 14. After David's line was singled out (2 Sam. 7), that was the next selection for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2 Chron. 17. 1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2 Chron. 21. 4). The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2 Chron. 21. 17 ; 22.1). When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed “all the seed royal” (2 Chron. 22. 10). The babe Joash alone was rescued ; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2 Chron. 23.3). Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa. 36.1; 38.1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Ps. 136). In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Est. 3.6, 12, 13. Cp. 6.1). Joseph' fear was worked on (Matt. 1.18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was “a just man”, and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24.1) ; hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: “Fear not”. Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2). At the Temptation, “Cast Thyself down” was Satan's temptation. At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him. The two storms on the Lake were other attempts. At length the cross was reached, and the sepulcher closed ; the watch set ; and the stone sealed. But “God raised Him from the dead.” And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Heb. 10 .12, 13), hidden in the house of God on high ; and the members of “the one body” are hidden there” in Him” (Col. 3. 1-3), like another Jehoshaba ; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2 Chron. 23. 3). The irrruption of “the fallen angels” (“sons of God”) was the first attempt ; and was directed against the whole human race. When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked. When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed. And when “the Seed of the woman” Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him. [2] In Hos. 1. 10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai. ____________________ Source: Companion Bible, Appendix No. 23.

I do not agree with the claim that Genesis 6 is one of the most controversial, confusing, and convoluted Bible passages.

Moses wrote down what he was told to write, he had no first hand flesh experience of the events. I consider it most informative to reflect on what Moses wrote down in the description of the formation of the Adam. The flesh was formed but the flesh was not living until the 'breath of life' which literally means soul, was breathed into his nostrils. YET not one word is mentioned about when the Adam's soul was created, yet it existed.

Also the 'condition' of the Adam's flesh body was such that from it was removed a 'curve' (NOT a literal rib, as I was taught as a child), from which the woman was formed. Now that tells me that each soul before conception where gender is decided, contains the fullness of characteristics of male and female. Why else would the God established union of one man and one woman as becoming one flesh? Both were equally required to replenish this earth.... well now except no flesh man was needed for the conception of Christ... The question almost always ignored is when were all souls created? According to what Moses penned the soul existed before the flesh body. Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: that soul that sinneth, it shall die. Thus far only the devil and those 'souls' of Genesis 6 have been judge to die.

Interesting now is it not that when asked by His disciples what would be the 'sign' of His return one of the signs was that it would be again as it was in the days of Noe... (Matthew 24:37-39) This has not happened yet, but the stage does appear to being set for their return.

Because of the 'religiously' correct teachings I was given through my childhood, like the sin of the Adam and Eve was eating an apple, I was 'shocked' when I actually read the account for my self the Garden Party took place in a fig grove. I have yet to eat any kind of literal fruit and discover I was naked. So who created this so called controversy?

I have a Companion Bible that I have nearly worn out.

36 posted on 08/14/2012 8:23:45 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
"If we look at Gen. 5 we see the line of Seth. He was born after Abel was killed by Cain. IOW, the line of descendants from Seth are the sons of God. It is their marrying the daughters from the line of Cain the daughters of men that Gen 6 is describing.

That doesn't work for many reasons. No humans are "sons of God" without regeneration, the new birth. Seth's line was not regenerated.

The very language, "sons of God," "daughters of men" makes it wrong. You have to explain why the females in Seth's progeny are not also "daughters of men."

Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?

What would have been the danger to earth, the attack on the seed (Gene. 3:15), or the offense against God, should the males in Seth's progeny marry the daughters of any others?

The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."

There is no particular curse upon the females of Cain's progeny.

37 posted on 08/15/2012 8:04:22 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
That doesn't work for many reasons. No humans are "sons of God" without regeneration, the new birth. Seth's line was not regenerated.

What about Enoch? He was in this line.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Why would the males in Seth's progeny, marrying the daughters of other men produce Giants ?

The term "giants" doesn't necessarily mean they were 10' tall. The Israelites encountered other tribes they thought were "giants" who just appeared that way because they were so aggressive. This is after the flood so it's unlikely that the nephilim repopulated the earth. They were all killed in the flood.

The Scriptures never call Seth's progeny "sons of God," nore do the Scriptures ever call Cain's progeny, "daughters of men."

Chapter 6 immediately follows Chapter 5 in which the line of Seth is written about. I think it is more likely that in this instance the phrase "sons of God" refers back to them. Other than chapter 6 we don't see any other instances where Angels may be procreating with humans. We have a lot of Scripture that points out that Angels do not procreate with other Angels and while they may appear to have physical form and can perform incredible acts in the physical world they are spiritual beings.

BTW, I love these threads. I wish I had seen them sooner. FWIW, if you post something like this you can click on my screen name and you will find an end times ping list. You will find a lot of posters who will be interested in this kind of topic.

38 posted on 08/15/2012 10:01:46 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Frankly, IMHO your arguments are simply rationalizing and humanizing ; it just seems that you must believe something that seems less supernatural ; perhaps you fear the supernatural.

GIANTS in Genesis 6, is exactly the same sense as the giant that young David faced in open combat.

According to Genesis 6:4, ("and also after that") this phenomenon of sons of God cohabiting with daughters of men was not isolated to the time immediately prior to the flood ; it took place in subsequent generations in Canaan and Israel. Thus, it is not talking about Seth's progeny, which if claimed through Noah, would be dispersed even unto our own day in all three races of men.

No, Enoch was not a "new creature" in the sense of regeneration ; was never labeled a "son of God." The expression "son of God" ALWAYS refers to a direct, individual creation of God: either by physical/material creation (including the angels, who are called "sons of God" in the OT; or in the NT sense, being created after the image of Christ. Men in the OT---not even Enoch, Abraham, David, etc. were "born again". Christ had to die and be raised from the dead before INDIVIDUALS could be "born again."

39 posted on 08/15/2012 10:38:31 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson