The Flood Story Revisited

[Omegaman 3.0]

6 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,  (that reads 'angels' in another place, weird?

Not THAT weird. The Greek would translate to 'with His holy myriads' if we chose to be literal. We understand that myriads is a big number, but it is not as specific as "ten thousands" - probably innumerable might have been a better choice. Now, saints or angels? Hagiais - 'holy' - holy, set apart, separated, sanctified - all pretty much synonyms.  Holy ones it the Bible, we often refer to as saints. When we are speaking to God's set apart people (His elect people the church), we call them saints. As a side note it is always used in the plural, there is no 'St. Peter' or 'St. Paul' in the Bible, just the saints. 

Bible translators have choices to make. Should they leave it literally (usually my preference) and say  "with (or amidst) His holy myriads", or should they try to tell you what they think it means, in order to aid in the readers' understanding?

If they do that, they might insert what they think is being spoken of. Candidates here might be a reference to when Jesus returns with His saints at the second coming - or the angels (which in the Greek, the word means messengers - though spiritual beings are often in mind) who accompany Him on His return, or both to people and to angels.

Now it is possible, that a translator might guess based on some other evidence. For example, the translator(s) might note the similarity to Deut 33:2:

He said, "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand."

Not a bad guess, since not only is the wording similar, but the Hebrew there uses the word meribbot which makes me speculate that myriads could have been a transliteration.

In any case, I tend to think that all we can do is to speculate based upon the speculations (is that even desirable?) of translators, as to how some of these things relate to the flood, or giants, or angels, or judgement (and of whom and for what?). I think it is risky territory to try to make plain what is NOT plain in scripture. 

I tend to reserve my judgement and plead the truth (which is another way of saying that I am ignorant and not afraid to admit it).

I also ask myself questions like:

How does this advance the gospel? How does this help the unsaved? How does my speculation glorify God? How does this help me or others live a more holy life? Etc. Then I shake my head and move on to things to which I can answer those same questions more confidently.

[AdHoc]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

These comments on the seed of men and the ways in which it was corrupted are often among the reasons raised for kill offs although I don't believe that's exactly the point you're making here. Thanks for the associated references for your ideas.

Some of your comments raise even more questions for me. Referring to your comments on Noah, the bible says no man is righteous. No not one. So Noah's 'righteousness' must have been somehow different. If Noah was righteous it had nothing to do with anything about him so far as I can tell.  Since Noah walked with God I can only infer he had the foreknowledge of salvation and was justified for this reason. "Good men" will be thrown into hell. As to point 3, could this simply mean his generations were aligned with God's plan? God would bring the messiah from that lineage.

No doubt, Satan would have done anything in his power to prevent the birth of Jesus as we can see in the story of Herod having all babies killed. It doesn't surprise me a bloodline corruption was on the table, even if the intended purpose wasn't fulfilled it would surely louse up men. The thing I find strangely missing from our modern bibles is any detailed or even cursory mention of these things. Genesis simply tells us men sinned and God judged, unless we want to include the small mention that "the sons of God went into the daughters of men". 

If we dare to include shreds of historical writings coming from ancient peoples on these things and some of the books not said to be included in the legitimate bible, we come up with giants who were seen and worshiped as gods, who demanded blood sacrifices and were generally cruel in their demands and leadership.Other writings coming from the American Indians tell us of a cannibalistic group of giants who attacked them and TOOK their wives. These would be the offspring of the angel/human abominations who are said to be the demons of today in spirit form. Not sure if the same sort of thing took place in regards to the progeny of these beings as similar to their angelic fathers of not. Some of the stories give these giants supernatural powers which if we accept the story to begin with, this isn't much more of a stretch. The bible speaks of " Mighty men, men of renown'. The translation almost gives these beings a superior stance among men and a mark of approval instead of calling them the abominations that they were.

So far as the bloodlines of Jesus and the seed He came from. I have questioned much about all of this. This isn't to say I doubt the Holy word. I don't. Both Adam AND Eve sinned, so it is difficult for me to say the bloodline of Jesus through her was clean, UNLESS  Yahweh had Mary impregnated with a PURE man's genes. He was a man but he was a PURE man. We can say the bloodlines of men are passed through the man, but the women this produces are also sinners in need of the blood of Christ. If we take these ideas too far they begin to look similar to Hitler with his Aryan race theories. Some un linking had to happen genetically in order for Christ to be born. He was unlike any man before or since then.

Back to the OT and how I see it tieing in. One of the frontal assaults of the other side seems to be genetic disruption. Why isn't this more clear in scripture today if it was truly such an ingrained part of the motive for a flood? God doesn't even mention giants for the most part with respect to the flood. We could read between the lines which is admittedly dangerous unless we get it right. Then we could say that YES, men were evil. One of the main reasons they were evil was genetic corruption. Men were already sinners from Adam. This is no surprise. The idea here seems to be the extent of the sins was much more intense. No good sinners but apparently there can be worse ones. 

As in the times before the flood the bible refers to these sinners as "worse and worse'. Not seeing their evil state and seeking help for it, but rather reveling in it and becoming worse. These are the days we live in now.

You have the Christian debating skills I wish I had. You can object so nicely and still make a point. I enjoyed your posting. I would like to address just two of your thoughts - the second paragraph and the third last paragraph.

Man's righteousness:
The fall of man poisoned his flesh, and his soul - the thinking, feeling and deciding organ, panders to the flesh. So we would say that the DISPOSITION of man tends always to evil. The Law show that even if a man is DISPOSED toward righteousness, he will ultimately fail (Rom.7, Gal.5:17). The Law however, does not regard this. It demands what it demands. But what God does is He introduces sacrifices for when man is overwhelmed. So we are informed that Zacharias and Elizabeth were "righteous" and "blameless" (Lk.1:6). That is, they were DISPOSED to keep the Law - but not perfect.

This "righteousness" is commanded by God and can be achieved to a high percentage by zealous and disciplined men and women who love and fear God. But when it comes to the PRESENCE of God, the terrible truth of man's sin-nature is revealed. The God of the universe is, by His very attributes, HOLY. Psalm 113:6 says that He must humble Himself to look upon His grand creation. Man's POSITION before God is untenable and he must die if he sees God. But God has made man for fellowship, so to combat the low POSITION of man, God lets a Select Man go through the whole process of Law without a single fault and then lets the Man die - the innocent for the guilty. Jesus, having set a standard of righteousness that satisfies God, is taken in His totality as a Man, and IMPUTED to the Believer. The righteousness established by man, however good, already fails in creation, never mind in sin.

Thus, God, for fellowship with His creature, IMPUTES a POSITIONAL righteousness of His making. This allows man to be in God's company without being slain. But then the man goes out of God's company and must serve God the way God has commanded. In this he is DISPOSITIONALLY righteous or unrighteous. Aaron, High Priest of Israel, may, with sacrifices, washings and special clothing ordained by God (all pictures of Christ), enter the Holy of Holies once a year and survive. If he made one mistake he was a dead man. But then Aaron leaves the Sanctuary and outside he is subject to the Law of Moses. Here, he must establish his own righteousness.

Noah's righteousness was his OWN. He was "RIGHT" with God in his actions. He was just, righteous in business and family dealings, walked with God and taught men to be right with God. These are all HIS works. But when an audience with God is inevitable for a Covenant, he must build an altar. He must come in the name of a Substitute. As we can see from Noah's first encounter with wine, he was, unlike the High Priest, NAKED - and his POSITION brought forth a curse on a son who was also not perfect.

The bloodline of Jesus:
This matter is of utmost importance, yet it is, to my thinking, relatively simple. God had His man in the Garden - yet without sin. At this time, Adam had not yet sinned. He is put to sleep by God and God builds of him, the wo-man. So the first of Adam's "KIND" is formed and made out of Adam in sinless condition. But God, having started this primary couple, man and woman, decrees that from then on, the offspring will spring from the woman - not the man. In 1st Corinthians 11:8–12 God establishes TWO THINGS. It reads;

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

(I) God establishes the government of marriage. The woman is OF the man FOR the man, and so she must admit him as her head (not king).
(II) God decrees that in the reproduction of man-"kind", all men thereafter will come from the woman. Because both seeds are required they are mutually dependent except in ONE THING - the blood. In Acts 17:26a we are told,

26 And (God) hath made of ONE blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, ... .

It is the man who (i) carries the responsibility in government and thus the failure of Eden is imputed to him, and (ii) the sin nature comes from him being the ORIGIN of the "KIND". Therefore Romans 5:12 says; "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".

Eve sinned and poisoned her nature, but she (i) does not carry the responsibility, and (ii) the man is the transmitter of the sin nature. But since ALL men (except Jesus) need the man and the woman, all are polluted with the sin-nature. Jesus' incarnation however does NOT use the man. It used the Holy Spirit (Matt.1:18, Lk.1:35). The bloodline of Jesus is free of Adam's bloodline, making Him sinless by birth. But He is, nevertheless, having come from the woman - fully a Man-KIND.

Nice swapping ideas.

[Dennis1209]

3 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Please do me a favor and when writing in response to me allow what ever to go forth.  It's very rare that I PERSONALLY find something to be too long.  

Let me see if I got it.  They believe that the children of Cain mixed with the children of Seth and giants were created.  They don't believe it was fallen angels because of the not taking and giving in marriage.   

They didn't get to have relations with the angels in Sodom,  they were blinded instead, right?  

And I was talking just the other day because I noticed I don't hardly like food anymore.  I noticed I don't buy hardly any meat anymore because I just don't like it.  I am not and never have been a vegetarian ON purpose but it is all so blah.  Almost all food is  blah.  Not even Ice cream tastes like it once did.   I just thought I was getting old.  Not a bad time for it though.  

Thank you for the answers.  Much appreciated.....   d

Rereading one of my posts, it didn't sound right. I should have said, "trying to have relations" with the two angels. No, they didn't succeed, and yes, they were all blinded, and still didn't give up. What depraved minds?

[AdHoc]

7 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Well said. I apologize for not reading your post first, before I posted. I almost parroted you, please don't think it was plagiarism 

I too was going to mention:

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

But, the length of my ramblings was already so long, no one will have the endurance to read through it the way it is. We know for a fact; Noah was not sinless or spiritually perfect. That leaves only one alternative, his flesh, his DNA and genetic makeup was still intact as God created man. 

God has always saved a remnant, and Noah, his sons and wives were just that. That remnant was lifted above and carried through global judgment. Almost sounds like the 1/3 remnant of Israel being protected through, not from the next coming global judgment.

Hey! If every body repeated the truth more than once we would have a far better Christianity today. Repetition is the mother of learning. Repeat on. There is no copyright.

As to Noah, I see him as fallen in his humanity - since he came for Adam. But the way he was "generated" was in accordance with God's plan. It was the angles "who kept NOT their first estate" who caused the corruption. The same with sodomy. It nullifies the seed. But heterosexuals are still fallen men. It is just that they do the pairing the way God ordained.

I don't know if I read things correctly, and I know that the Law of Moses required the death penalty for adultery, but God has never corporately judged adultery. But he rained a flood on the mating with angels, and he rained fire on cities for sodomy. I do not wish to lessen the severity of adultery, but it's an interesting observation. Adultery adulterates "what God has joined together", but there is no attack on the seed.

[AdHoc]

7 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Lost me. How could He avoid it?  He had no choice but to come from Adams seed.  If Adam didn't sow there would be no bloodline, right?  I am stopping there for now so I don't get more confused.  Except for IF HE didn't have any sin nature then how could He relate to us?  Wasn't it so He could totally understand the 'lusting's' of the flesh, wasn't NOT SINNING when the body lusts after it that was the BIG accomplishment?  d

Hi D

May I refer you to my forth posting on this page - second section of "Christ's blood line". If you still have questions I'll be happy to try to answer them.

I will agree with you that our Lord was, in certain aspects, very different to us. But you must remember that to relate to us, he only had to be TEMPTED like us.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The relation to us was how weak He was in temptation RELATIVELY compared to us. That is, what were the stakes. You and I are tempted and our lusts win (Rom.7, Gal:5:17). Eve was sinless but the stakes overwhelmed her. Jesus was tempted and the stakes were so high that His RELATIONSHIP to us is established above all other men. He was Creator and Heir of the earth. Why should He pass through any suffering for it? When he was tempted by Satan, the Kingdoms of this world were of His making and lost by Adam. Why should He go through such suffering to get them back?

I actually think that you and I both have no RELATIONSHIP to Christ. We have never been sinless, the son of God and worshiped by the angels. This must all be put aside for God's righteousness to be fulfilled. You and I have never faced this. We both have never sweated blood. Remember - our Lord Jesus did NOT want the cross. He asked for God to pass on this THREE times. Have we yet been so tempted and still done the will of the father?

Edited January 25, 2022 by AdHoc

[DeighAnn]

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

How does this advance the gospel? How does this help the unsaved? How does my speculation glorify God? How does this help me or others live a more holy life? Etc. Then I shake my head and move on to things to which I can answer those same questions more confidently.

Because until we can get comfortable with the effects of heaven upon us we can't get to the first age which is well, the key that turns the lock on understanding Gods Plan of Salvation and answers the question of Satan in the Garden, fore knew, pre ordained how judgment will by Just when some live a minute and others 100 years etc.  There is so much confusion because of everyone trying to make fit into a 6000 year period not one but two ages.  Who ever heard of God doing things in 2?  Only with three can a sure and Just choice be made.  5 would be better but I only know of 3.  

So if we can ever get to the point of that discussion it WILL ADVANCE THE GOSPEL immensely and our understanding and it will help dispel false teachings.  

When that happens we can truly unite and SAVE those who can't find a way in the middle of all the confusion being put forth now. 

All of it always is for the desire of GOD and that is for ALL TO COME TO REPENTANCE.  

IF that isn't possible then LET'S KINDLE A FIRE FOR HIM TO FIND WHEN HE RETURNS.  Sure it could cost me my life but what a way to go!!!  

Any ways, that's my spin on it all. Even explains those fallen angels knowing so much evil. 

WHICH finally brings me to my point and that is I AM THINKING (Praise ye the Lord)  that the flood was necessary NOT just because of the genetics but because of the ADVANCEMENTS the fallen angels would have brought with them and that it would have sped everything up to a place that the rest of 'the whole host' needing to be born couldn't accommodate SO EVERYTHING about them needed to be 'GONE' completely.  

I say this because we know and are living 'knowledge'  increase.  The fallen angels would have brought that with them knowing both heavenly and evil things.  

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

[Starise]

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

If it is "away from the public eye" then how do you know about it, how will you provide evidence of it here, and how will you prove its relevance to this op? 

How does one study any subject? I might not convince you and that's ok because that isn't what I'm trying to do.

I'll tell you how I come to my conclusions.

- We can see what 'they' , being those who are heavily into genetic study and manipulation are doing and have done. This is what they're allowing the public eye to see.

- We have precedent, especially in the US and Chinese governments of other programs in the past that were covered up and later disclosed as experimental programs which harmed the citizens and had no regard for human life.

-We have the whistle blowers. Those persons who leaked information that was supposed to be secret. Often this doesn't happen until years later, but it happens.

-We know that much of what any government does is often for defense purposes and is for that reason top secret.

The rules of genetic research are similar to the green rules, countries say they are following them, but as soon as you close the door they go back to what they were doing before everyone one smiled for pictures while signing green initiative documents.

[Starise]

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

The point I was endeavoring to make is that angels and humans are completely different types of created creatures and they are not sexually compatible. There's nothing explicit in scripture stating angels mate with each other, let alone with humans. Our maleness and femaleness is part of what constitutes our bearing the image of God. The belief angels can sexually mate with humans assumes angels have sexual organs with which to procreate, and that they can do so in a manner that sexually engages the image of God! 

I can fully understand why you would go this route. Because it makes a lot of sense to categorize everything and it doesn't seem either possible or probable that these things could take place. But remember this is our limited knowledge of angels and what they are capable of doing.

When angels come into our dimension they can be easily confused for humans and probably are more often than not. They aren't posing as humans, they can have human like bodies.

The sexual perverts in Sodom didn't run from the angels with fear or try to find out what they were. Wouldn't this have been the first consideration if we come across a being so odd that we are beside ourselves? No. Instead these people wanted them for sexual activity. Doesn't this also tell us something else? They must have looked desirable for such purposes.