Aliens

[Guest ReflectionsofHim]

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.

So Nephilim doesn't mean giant?

Yes it does mean indeed mean/transate giant, but what he is basically saying is that it doesn't end there....it means much more than JUST that. And the whole point of God telling us about all of this was so we would know and understand that this all had and has a profound rippling effect that lasts right up to today. The gene pool was grossly and blasphemously contaminated. Here's a really fascinating fact (wowzers I just love studying God's Word!)....

....From the git-go (southern expression, lol) Satan was trying to prevent the birth of a Savior!!! And he was doing anything and everything he could. He, too, knew that the gene pool had to be pure!!! Boy, did God have the last laugh on him in that situation, eh?!!! While the fallen angels weren't wiped out in the flood, their offspring WERE!!!

Is God just incredible or what?!!!!

It's late and I've not been to bed or had any sleep (except for a 1-2 hour nap Wednesday evening) since I got up Tuesday morning at 7 a.m. and that is almost a full 48 hours!!! Lil' man was sick all night Tuesday night and I stayed up with him the whole night, but he is just fine now, Praise Jesus!!! So, I'm just answering this one part that I felt needed to be addressed right now. Pardon any typos and such and I hope what small input I added here makes sense and is clear If not, we can pick up with it next time!

Why some think/say the Bible is boring and/or not fun to read and study is just beyond me!!!! Amen? AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! It's so totally awesome and fun and blessed to learn about the Lord and all that He has done!!! All of this sure brings "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:37 new perspective on God's Word and Truth!!! Until next time!!!

Love to you and to all of you through our Precious Jesus!!! Woohoo indeedy!!!

Ref

:hug:

[refugepsa91]

:il: Wow great topic you guys...keep going please I am learning sooooo much...

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[Guest ReflectionsofHim]

:il: Wow great topic you guys...keep going please I am learning sooooo much...

Love and Blessings,

Angel

I'm so in awe of our Lord God. He truly, truly does reveal His mysteries to one if they seek Him with the passion of the spirit that lives in them...the Holy Spirit. You see...I'm passionate for selling the Gospel of Christ and His love and salvation to all that will listen. Just when I think I couldn't possibly be more in love with Jesus...I fall even harder at His feet and worship and adore Him. When one comes to live solely to love and serve Him and just crave with all ther being to do that and that only? Nothing else matters. You see, Angel, it doesn't matter as long as I can serve Him and teach others about Him. That is my first love...Him and telling others about that love of Him and that He has for us. I know through and through that He calls me to do this just as He calls all of us. And when one is walking in obedience to Him, it doesn't matter what others say or think....only what God says and thinks. And one huge desire of anyone that is truly seeking the face and heart of God is to see others come to accept and know Jesus in that same intimate way. You see, Angel...it's about love.

The love of Jesus in my heart for Him and for others through Him is what I live and breath to live. I'm passionate about teaching others what God's Word says about this subject here because I know with all that I am and all that I live for that the things He's revealed to me are straight from His Word and His desire for me to run the good race. I know what God has revealed to me to be accurate and I know this for many reasons, but the main reason is because of people like you that He uses to confirm that through. There is a peace that surpasses all human understanding and argument when one knows they are right where God wants them to be and are walking in the Truths that He has so unmistakably revealed to them. To say or do anything to hurt God or alter His Word is not within one that has reached that level of intimacy with His Son, Jesus. I walk and serve Him in that passion and will continue to for as long as He allows me to draw a breath. For He alone is God and if He brings you to it? He is sure to bring you through it and He is sure also to let you know when you are in His perfect will.

When one submits to their calling and special service for their Lord? Nothing distracts them because they cannot take their eyes off of Him. He has so blessed me and I deserve nothing He has done for me and continues to do for me. To anyone that is passionate about being obedient to the calling Father has for them...means He alone prepares the way and all that is needed to for His will to be carried out through His child. How do you stand up against the enemy when he pulls out all the stops and uses anyone and anything he can? You keep your eyes focused on the blood stained face of Jesus and you stand firm in that love He has for you and the love you have for Him and passionately go forth no matter what the obstacle. I stand firm in His Word, His Truth, and His LOVE.

The passion of the Christ is YOU (us). It's that same passionate love one has for Him and what He did for them that drives a simple, plain, nobody-to-the-world sinner like me to see through what He's called them to do. It's not about being right. It's about being that intimate with Him that brings you to know that you are doing exactly what He's called you to do. He reaffirms it with you over and over again and it's that simple faith and trust that brings you to know this through and through. How can one be discouraged then?

Can you tell I love Jesus just a little tiny bit? Walk in faith and in confidence in whatever He calls you to do...it is the most precious part knowing that you are indeed answering His call. He gives you all you will need to do what He calls you to do. God gives us the seeds of His Word and then He follows right along with and behind you with the watering can.

Thank you, Angel, for allowing God to use you here today; for once again He's confirmed to me that I am right where He has called me to be in my journey with and towards Him and planting those seeds He entrusted me with. I thank everyone here actually for in each's own way God has used them to show me this...and my passion in continuing on with the great race has only strengthened and become more passionate. I don't even regret the length of what I say here for I can never praise Him enough or plant enough seeds of God's Truth and love!

Love to you through our Jesus!!!

Ref

Never grow weary...no matter WHAT!!!

Praise BE to You, Lord God! Use me, Lord!!!

[Guest LCPGUY]

WOW!!!

Ref it

[refugepsa91]

WOW!!!

Ref it

[other one]

You guys are so frustrating....... I'm so far behind both at work and at home from vacation and you do these totally awsome threads..... I am missing sssoooooo much sleep.

Sam

[Guest dustycanvas]

I know it has almost been a year since the last post but, I'd like to restart this topic if anyone is interested. What I believe is that Satan and his demons/minions are getting careless as the day approaches to the return of God. They are frantically trying to get there business done before their time is up. So, people even those that aren't believers are seeing strange things and claiming they are aliens from other planets. They are aliens in the matter that they are "strangers" from another place but the only other "planet" they are from is from the spiritual realm. Particularly, Hell. Anyways, that is my view on the subject.

Sabrina

[Rick]

No, its not what Im trying to do. I explained that I was offering a parallel line of reasoning and used John wesley and other sources as an example of that reasoning.

Well, I don't understand his line of reasoning at all. Sons of God mingled with daughters of men. I don't know why he thinks the sons of God is from one human line and daughters of men are from another earthly line in particular.

I get the impression that you don't know what idea I am trying to put forth here. Please, try this again and get rid of any ideas that you THINK I am trying to put forth and start all over again.

You presented three in the OT that you are aware of and state that one particularly " seems " to imply no earthly father.

First off, we aren't speaking of the definition of 'son' or sons'. We are trying to figure out what 'sons of God' and "son of God" mean, in the OT. Now, since there are only a few references to these exact words, we should be able to figure this out. We can look at each and every reference and decipher what they mean. They seem to mean different things - three different things. There might be 3 definitions then. Here they are: Definition 1) Adam (obviously human, but had no earthly father.) Definition 2) Those who approach God alongside satan 3) those who seem to be rejoicing in the heavenlies with God.

The 'seems to' I was referring to is this. It 'seems' that since there are three different scenarios given to 'sons of God' or 'son of God' in the OT, as stated above. So, let's look at what all three have in COMMON. They were all created by God, and none had an earthly father. Therefore, 'sons of God' or 'son of God' is probably a definition encompassing anyone and anything created by God, having no earthly father. Especially since Adam is referred to this way, and that he is the ONLY human given this title, it SEEMS that, the meaning of sons of God means that God directly created them and that they had no earthly father. Understand?

Whats so hard to understand about offering another point of view?

And yes I do understand what you are trying to convey. As for sons of God encompassing anyone created by God, that is not so. Unless once again you choose to disregard that God has never called an angel his son. Angels are created beings. But they are not sons. The problem seems to be that Heb. 1:5 is going to be totally disregarded in this respect. If God's word is going to be used to search out who the sons of God are, then dont disregard what it says concerning the subject at hand. It being disregarded as a source of clarifying who these are, is what I do not understand.

Rick

[Rick]

" Lk:3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

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

[Rick]

Anybody know the exact translation of 'sons' from Hebrew?

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: