Rick

Tithing should be done scripturally. Out of the abundance of the heart. Not out of obligation as some teach today. Be a joyful giver and not one who is giving in order to meet a percentage or a standard. Thats as simple as it gets. Rick

Knowing a little about how computers work using binary code etc., I know that any microprocessor will react according to the data provided during programming etc.. It's hard for me to read the above article and not giggle a little when I see it being tied to psychic phenomenon etc., especially with the talk of a global consciousness affecting its process. A random number generator will generate numbers at random. At times these numbers could coincide with an event and be attributed to it..., but im sure that there is no mention of the times that the numbers fluctuated and no mention is given as to an explanation as to why. That would decrease interest and not give the article the hint of credibility the writer seeks to convey. Although Im fully aware there is a spirit world as well as a physical one, I tend to be leery of attributing power to a machine that was created and programmed by a man. To make it appear so seemingly powerful as to foretell the future is to place it in a position equal with God. Who alone knows the beginning from the end. The only spiritual influences to me, that seem to be present are those that are affecting the writer as he looks to a machine for his future, and not to his God. Rick

Good study! You could also add: " Rom:5:10: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Saved by His life...Not our own. Rick

Ronald, You may be able to repair Internet Explorer. There should be an option under start/ programs/accessories/system tools/system information for doing this. In some cases you can also go through the add/ remove programs of your control panel to repair it. But best to check your comp information owner's manual first to prevent any potential snags. Rick

Hi Pookierock! Welcome! Since your new here and dont know any better....I mean...Havent been told yet. lol It's customary for all new chatters to bring doughnuts to chat for the admins for the first week or so. hehehe Preferably chocolate iced with the cream filling inside? ( My favorite! ) Some even bring coffee. But if you have a problem finding doughnuts, a bag of chips, cookies or anything edible would be fine. Oh, and be sure to bring something for Bro Chuck. ( He likes those little round biscuits that come in the boxes, that are shaped like bones??. I think the brand name is " Purina" ) Just Kidding! Welcome to Worthy! Hope you learn soon to call it home. Rick

Dad Ernie, That pretty well explains the purchase of the field. I have to admit this is not an area that I have looked into before, and honestly never really thought much about until Adstar's question. The two accounts of the purchase of the field ( Judas in one account and the priests in the other account) seem to be reconciled in the priests purchasing the field with the money that Judas earned from his betrayal. But thats pretty much what you posted up. Since Judas went straightway and hanged himself, it would make sense that he didn't actually purchase the field himself. But it was purchased with the money he earned. Thanks for clearing that up! Rick

Hi Adstar! Great question! Although Im not certain of the answer, I do have an idea as to a possible scenario that might explain his purchase of the field. Jn:13:29: For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. Isnt it possible that since Judas also carried the bag consisting of the finances of the ministry that he could have failed to return it to the other apostles after betraying Christ ? His wickedness and the portion of the ministry he recieved may have been from the finances of the apostles??. We may be assuming that the wickedness being mentioned was only in his betrayal of Christ, whereas it may have been much more and included stealing. His portion could possibly be the money from the bag that he carried and valued more than the Saviour. It may indicate that his portion may have been the money instead of the future reward of eternal life. I may be wrong, but there's no account of his returning the bag he carried or any mention of what became of it after the betrayal. Its possible that this money was used to buy the field. Rick

If tithing is an unscriptural and obligatory requirement being placed on God's people, then God is already being robbed. " Mt:25:40: And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Rick

Steve, Maybe giving money in the correct scriptural context would be a better description. But that would make for sound doctrine and stewardship for a believer. No sense in feeding the wolves. Yod, Abram tithed 10% on the spoils of war. Not on his personal possessions, income, etc. Unless Ive overlooked something, I cant find anything that would indicate that Abraham ever tithed again. If we use this event as an example of tithing, we could just as easily say that we are to tithe only on the spoils of war. Its not a very good example of using tithes as a way of explaining how we should presently give. The spoils were taken in the process of recovering Lot from the hands of the enemies. Abram kept nothing for himself which would indicate that he was not tithing from his own personal increase. God Bless! Rick

Generous giving = leaders becoming wealthy? As it happens, I belong to a church where the members give generously every week. With this money we plant churches, feed the poor, pay the staff, etc. We don't have a fancy building to maintain. Nothing left for a gym or a waterslide, etc. As for the lifestyles of our leaders: I have been into their homes, which are not luxurious. No fancy cars, private schools, no designer clothes, no jet-setting vacations. Looks like a whola lotta generalizing here. Steve, Im not saying that giving should not be done, just that the reason for giving should be based on the abundance of the heart instead of obligation. Im sure there are many that use tithes in a productive way. But Im also just as sure that there are those that use tithes for their own personal benefit. My gripe is with those that stand before a needy congregation and through legalism and error use tithing as a way of extorting money from those who need it most. Many will stand boldly and declare that tithing is required of them. Then they will continue to call for the member to give their God due 10%. And if they fail to do so, they lack faith, or will not recieve the blessings of God. In some cases they may even suffer loss because they failed to plant this " seed money". Im sure we all have heard of those that do this, the whole time living far above the meager earnings of those that in most cases are the target of their selfish greed. Not all denominations are Biblically sound. But yet one thing most have in common is that they require financial support in order to continue. Sure there are needs to be met. But through obligation and basically a spiritual threat, the members are called to support these unsound and sometimes harmful religious organizations. Maybe its because they lack cheerful givers and need to coerce in order to acquire the money they need to operate. Whereas if it was a God centered group without a love for money, whose spiritual needs were being met Biblically through their church, the love of God and the desire to reach out with the gospel to others would compel them to be those cheerful givers. The early church grew with alot less than present day churches. The gospel was taken by foot to those that were encountered. It continued to grow and prosper. Not through the love of money, but through the love of God. How many modern day religious organizations are actually no different than the temple that had the money changers? They operate a den of thieves. It's these I speak of. God Bless! Rick

What is being taught today is basically a way to make some very wealthy at the expense of those that are seeking help. They represent giving as a means of investing in order to make money. Giving should be out of the abundance of the heart and not out of obligation. " 2Cor:9:7: Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." Rick

Terrific post! I think it described " The Masterpriece" beautifully! It sure helps to know the artist to understand the work. God Bless! Rick

Glad I could help Shiloh. God Bless! Rick

Instead of comparing the name Allah as mentioned in the Quran, to that of the God of the Bible and declaring them to be the same, or even possibly the same, why not check out the person of each as revealed in the Quran and the Bible and compare them instead? If they are the same then the attributes they each possess will be the same, If they are different, then they cannot possibly be the same. Simple enough? A good source of info comparing the two can be found at this site. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm Hope it helps! Rick

Hi Jesus Loves U! Reading over your post, its evident that your not cold hearted or un-concerned spiritually about your relationship with God. As a christian, we have all faced difficulties at one time or another. We have the Spirit of the Living God in us, but we can also fail if we do not mind the things of the spirit. God has given us His promises that He will never leave us nor forsake us. God is a loving Father to His children. You made mention of your argument with your son. And of your asking for forgiveness from God for the things you said. As a child of God, you cleared things up with your Father. Yet you say something else still seems to be wrong. As a father to your son, did you ask for your sons forgiveness for the things you said to him? I dont know the circumstances surrounding you and your son's argument. But it sounds like it may be left unresolved. Maybe an apology to the son for the words spoken out of anger, and a hug with the words, I love you son! would change the way you feel. I can almost guarantee it will. Rick

Something that I have never really fully understood is the connection between paradise and the heart of the earth. To the thief was the promise that " This day..Thou shalt be with me in paradise. Mt:12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Anyone want to take a shot at reconciling the two? Thanks, Rick

She gave a rational evalutation. Her evaluation seemed more rational than the Sethite view, imo. The Sethite view is not as rational. i would say she's more frustrated than anything. References to 'little green men', which is NOT at all what we're talking about is belittling. As well, just recently, Gladatiator stated something about her belief in life on other planets! No wonder she's frustrated! He obviously doesn't read the stuff but just likes to post! Nobody DOES believe in life on other planets! We're believing in the exact opposite!! C. Cult reasoning is completely intolerant of opposing beliefs. Such rigid Dogmatism is usually defended by claims of supernatural " Divine Revelations" from God, instructing the cult founder in the necessity of their espoused doctrine. Rick: What page(s) of the book did you get this from? I also have this book and would like to see if there are more points regarding cult reasoning that are not mentioned because they don't apply. Here's what I know about Reflections. It took a lot of convincing to get her to post here. I told her that the people here at Worthy would not think of her as a lunatic. I said some might agree and some might disagree, but never did I dream that some might accuse her of being a 'cult leader'. Anyway, after I convinced her that if God wants her to teach this stuff then she should do it, she finally started posting! And you know what? She was right all along! I certainly didn't see it coming but she did. Does a cult leader tell you the importance of putting on your spiritual armour everyday? Do they stress to you the importance of fasting? And of reading your Bible? All of your posts above talk about the rigidity of a beleif system. Well, you're equally as rigid regarding the Sethite view. And who's scaring who here? Where is the fear coming from? First we're debating scriptures, and next you're posting on the dangers of a cult?? Artsylady, Maybe you should re-read my post. And this time, maybe you could look to see if I called anyone a cult leader? I can speak for myself, and would appreciate if in further interaction that you would not falsely attribute words to me.

Well, clearly, in the same verses, satan was right along side them. he had obviously been cast out too! I dont suppose it makes much sense that satan was in the garden of eden as was God, Oh! and let's not leave out Adam and eve too. Or that God was walking with men outside of the garden, after the fall, and yet satan was present there also. From your point of view, I suppose Satan just pops into heaven whenever he chooses to. Maybe he wasnt cast from heaven, and was just politely asked to leave. And is able to come and go as he pleases. And if satan can do this, Im sure those that were not the main leader of the angelic rebellion surely could then. lol I dont think so. As for it being a new doctrine. Not at all!. There are many that do not believe that the sons of God are angelic beings. Some were posted by me earlier. If you so whole heartedly believe that they are angels, provide some Biblical evidence that they are??? I believe most that hold to this ideaology tend to read it into it. Please refrain from using un-inspired sources. Im eagerly awaiting! Under His Blood, Rick

The "cut and paste by Chuck Missler" implies that I pick and choose in order to slant a view to fit my points, which is untrue. You imply that his point of view helps in selling his books concerning alien encounters, etc. The "etc" part is the part where he teaches and preaches the Gospel of Christ as equally as any other "point of view". What I find interesting in your accusation of his plagiarism. Had I included an article or excerpt from Chuck Missler or any other Christian author withOUT their included resources, you would say that they included no resources. Had I included an article or excerpt from he or any other Christian author DID include their resources (and I did) you would accuse them of plagiarism. This is called the "doggone if I do and doggone if I don't" trap. I expected this in advance. But I must make an extremely valid point, so let me remind you and others of something very important here in your reference to his agenda being in "selling his books"...Though many, many Christians alike, are seeing the supernatural phenomena for what it is based on God's Word, I'm quite certain that had "selling books" been their sole and primary focus they could have and probably would have chosen a subject matter that would have been sure to reap them more profits. If my motivation in writing a book is to make money I'm going to pick a subject that is sure to be a blockbuster subject...indeed. Lastly, it's a shame that the main and primary resource, the Bible aka God's Word has supplied more than adequate amounts, by both Chuck Missler and other Christians...theologians, scholars, and last but not least...by those here that love God, love His Word, and are dedicated to Him and all of His Word. And while the book of Enoch is no longer "lost" and is not considered by some to be a true "book" of the Bible? It is indeed a history book that can no longer be denied...even the scholars stand behind this truth. It has become more than difficult to further deny what the usage of the phrase/term(s) "sons of God" and "sons" means in the varying locations of the OT and NT and why each represented something different. It has been pointed out several times as to why each was represented as they were and God's Word has been more than clear and precise about that. Without the deliberate intention of being condescending to you, but it makes absolute and perfect sense that God destroyed the earth with a flood, but NOT because of a sinful man who you say were/are the "sons of God". There would be no point in God telling us that if "sons of God" were mortal men that they had sexual relations with "human women". The distinction between the two alone tells us that there was a mortal AND (the word "and" is the definitive word here) supernatural difference bewteen the two that created the Nephilim. Even the offspring of this mortal and immortal union warranted be given a select name.What DOES make absolute and perfect sense is for God to have destroyed the earth with flood in order to eliminate the blasphemously contaminated gene pool. I really mean no disrespect here, Rick, but it just doesn't get any clearer than this, I mean really. This is not said in or with the tone that we all here are right here, but in light of reemphasizing God's Word about "human" women (why would a disitinction need to be made in the mortal context??? there would have been no need for one if there hadn't indeed been a supernatural/immortal and there just isn't any other way to put this). Then God's Word makes more than one referral later in Scripture about the oddities of the result of the Nephilim. God's Word has been way too clear about WHAT the "sons of God" were and were not in the OT context of these "sons". I have learned a great deal more than even my own countless hours of studies from artsylady, Brother John, and all of those that have contributed in the understanding and Scriptural facts regarding this subject. And while what the "sons of God" are in regards to this topic...meaning they play an obvious integral role to "aliens" and "ufos" and what they really are is "fallen angels", we simply live in times where there are too many unexplainable "sightings" of these fallen angels by extremely credible people who have no agenda in selling books, becoming famous, and many are not even Christians. This whole phenomena has brought about a fear that God's Word specifically tells us is not something that He authors. At this point in the whole phenomena I have concluded that there are two reactions to it...one being the discernment to know more about what it is based on a Biblical and spiritual level and, two, being just the opposite...denial. One of the most famous traits to denial is to try and explain away something because of pure unmitigated fear. Once we as Christians have come to know Jesus in the ways He so desires for us to, we can't live in denial or fear, either one. They just can't coincide and live together. That brings us back to the whole concept of darkness not going hand in hand with the light. We have nothing to fear when we know Jesus in the way He has taught us. When we choose not to live in fear and in denial, we see and discern the mysteries and the proverbial blinders are removed! Love through our Jesus...For He has not given us a spirit of fear! Ref Very interesting responses. I'll try to address them, since I see a need to clarify some misconceptions and error. " The "cut and paste by Chuck Missler" implies that I pick and choose in order to slant a view to fit my points, which is untrue. You imply that his point of view helps in selling his books concerning alien encounters, etc." I think you are confused about the implications. His books are written based on his point of view. If you have not already bought one of these books, you might want to try one of the following. Alien Encounters - Book: The Secret behind the UFO Phenomenon By Chuck Missler, Mark Eastman Alien Encounters Conference By Chuck Missler, Mark Eastman " If my motivation in writing a book is to make money I'm going to pick a subject that is sure to be a blockbuster subject...indeed. " The last time I noticed his books were not free. He's not passing them out as a source of knowledge to educate people... Yes Indeed! lol He sells books to those that like him , have an interest in alien encounters and alien theology. " And while the book of Enoch is no longer "lost" and is not considered by some to be a true "book" of the Bible? It is indeed a history book that can no longer be denied...even the scholars stand behind this truth. " There are many that find it to be Un-inspired. That it is scripturally NOT considered to be the word of God. Many of the " lost" books were omitted because they contained error and were not in harmony with the other inspired books of the Bible. They were left out for a reason. As for their historical significance, Im not sure where that comes into play here. My comments were that an un-inspired book can NOT be used to clarify the inspired Word of God.

Artsylady, I tend to agree that ALL of the references for sons of God should be examined in light of finding the true context of the term. The danger lies not in examining ALL of them, but in attributing a meaning to only one based on a preconceived understanding. As for the sons of God mentioned in Job in verses 1:6, Job:2:1, and Job:38:7, of which you asked " Who are these?" . To attribute a definition would be no different than what has already been done on this thread. If you are asking my personal opinion as to who these are, I would have to state that I believe they are also mere men. Many accounts tend to place the scenario as to the meeting place as in heaven, where these sons of God come before God, and present themselves. The problem I see with this is that it isnt mentioned in the scriptures as having taken place in heaven. The fallen angels that these are alluded to being were once cast from heaven. It would not make much sense that they would be able to come into the presence of God in His Holiness after falling, especially since they were cast from heaven to begin with. Its also important to remember that God walked among men on the Earth even after the Garden of Eden was closed off to mankind. Even after Cain slew Abel. Gen. 4:16 reveals that Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod. There are other verses that indicate that Enoch walked with God. Whether this is literal in its description or representative of his relationship with God is unclear, but with Cain being in the presence of God as mentioned earlier, it becomes likely that it is indeed literal. The literal viewpoint that the sons of God are indeed those that called on the name of the Lord as mentioned in " Gen:4:26: And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. " , is in fact an explanation that would hold throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New. It would not require that a different definition be used for each. This interpretation would also make more sense in that if fallen angels procreated with mankind in the beginning of creation, being created beings, when did it stop? If it was in fact taking place then, it would still be taking place today. The destruction of the flesh would not have destroyed angelic beings. They would have continued to procreate and destroy mankind through this inter-breeding. But if these were reserved in chains of darkness as the scriptures reveal, Then it would not have been possible. Under His Blood, Rick

What is being expressed here is that Rick subscribes to the Sethite view where all of this is concerned. Following is something everyone here should read and study in order to understand the origin of the Sethite view and the problems and dangers in believing the Sethite view. You will find the exact translation of sons and sons of God in the Hebrew in the following study. I have something equally important to add to this but I will give you all time to read, study, comprehend, and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you. Later tonight or tomorrow I will post the next study. Love through Jesus, Ref -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites? by Chuck Missler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1 The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others. However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.) Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included. Origin of the Sethite View It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.) Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view. Problems with the Sethite View Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following: 1. The Text Itself Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.") The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5 The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth. If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.) And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support. The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12 The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term. 2. The Daughters of Cain The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens: 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 It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?) Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful. 3. The Inferred Lines of Separation The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth. 4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16 The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?) It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17 If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood? 5. The Unnatural Offspring The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood. Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood. The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18 Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly. A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19 6. New Testament Confirmations "In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21 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; 2 Peter 2:4-5 Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah. Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus. The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process: 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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7 The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24) These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies. 7. Post-Flood Implications The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan. One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty. 8. Prophetic Implications Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.") In Summary If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record. It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known. For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!) For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following: George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975. John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879. Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976. Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952. Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was originally published in the August 1997 Personal Update NewsJournal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: [RETURN TO TEXT] Matthew 24:37. Matthew 24:37. Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26, as well as Old Testament allusions such as Daniel 2:43, et al. Cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (where they are in existence before the creation of the earth). Jesus also implies the same term in Luke 20:36. A footnote in an edition of the famed Scofield Bible, in suggesting that "sons of Elohim" does not always denote angelic beings, points to one ostensible exception (Isaiah 43:6) but the term in question is not there used! God simply refers to Israel as "my sons" and "my daughters." Indeed, all of Adam's race are termed God's "offspring" in Acts 17:28 (although Paul is here quoting a Greek poet). The sons of Elohim are even contrasted with the sons of Adam in Psalm 82:1, 6 and warned that if they go on with the evil identified in verse 2, they would die like Adam (man). When our Lord quoted this verse (John 10:34) He made no mention of what order of beings God addressed in this Psalm but that the Word of God was inviolate whether the beings in question were angels or men. Luke 3:38. John 1:11, 12. 2 Corinthians 5:17. 2 Corinthians 5:1-4. Luke 20:36. This term appears only twice in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6. Genesis 4:18. Genesis 11:6. This instruction was given to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob. Even the presumed descendants of Ishmael cannot demonstrate their linkage since no separation was maintained. A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (Penteteuch), p. 29. Gen 4:26 is widely regarded as a mistranslation: "Then began men to profane the name of the Lord." So agrees the venerated Targum of Onkelos; the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel; also the esteemed rabbinical sources such as Kimchi, Rashi, et al. Also, Jerome. Also, the famed Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, 1168 a.d. Exodus 12:5, 29; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23; 5:15, 18, 25; 22:19, 21; 23:12; Numbers 6:14; et al. Over 60 references, usually referring to the freedom from physical blemishes of offerings. Each human gamete has 23 pairs of chromosomes: the male has both "Y" (shorter) and "X" (longer) chromosomes; the female, only "X" chromosomes. The sex of a fertilized egg is determined by the sperm fertilizing the egg: "X+Y" for a male child; "X+X" for a female. Thus, the male supplies thesex-determining chromosome. Deut. 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 26:60; 2 Corinthians 13:1; et al. Jude 6, 7; 2 Peter 2:4-5. Homer, Iliad, viii 16. Jude is commonly recognized as one of the Lord's brothers. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:9; Jude 1:1.) The only other use in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:2, alluding to the heavenly body which the believer longs to be clothed. Genesis 6:4. 2 Corinthians 2:11. Luke 21:26; 2 Thess 2:9, 11; et al. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Vol V, p.2835-2836. Hello ReflectionofHim, Just a couple of things, I introduced an opposing point of view concerning the sons of God. It does not mean that I hold to any particular view. It does mean that I am open minded enough to consider other possibilities, and to thoroughly search them out before I come to a conclusion as to what is being expressed in scripture. As we both well know, it is easy to become entangled in a false belief system based on assumptions. My interest is in expressing that view to allow others to see that another possibility exists. Although I do tend to lean to the sethite view. I personally do believe that the sin that entered mankind through Adam was in itself enough to bring on the fall of mankind and bring death through sin to all. I believe that event started the downfall of civilization. Sin had entered man. This sin was introduced by a fallen angel. Satan. Additional interaction was not needed to bring about the fall of mankind. The sin of Adam had already done that. As for the cut and paste by Chuck Missler, Im sure his point of view helps in selling his books concerning alien encounters etc. From my own studies I have come across comments of his plagiarism of other sources that he failed to attribute credit to. I tend to think that his interest may be more financial than in search of truth. His views tend to overlook any other explanation as legitimate, Im sure this is necessary in leading one to accept his particular viewpoint as the only possible scenario. Although many Bible scolars reject it. Some of which I provided on an earlier post, and time prohibits me from posting again. He uses un-inspired sources to explain the Bible, such as the Book of Enoch etc. Not very credible source to explain the truth of God's word. His comments are based on his leading his readers to accept his viewpoint rather than on Biblical truth. An example in point, is that he states:

Adam is referred to as the son of God because in effect God created him from the dust of the earth. Adam had no mother, therefore he was the (a) son of God. When you take Genesis 6 in context with Jude 6 and 7 It is pretty apparent to me that we