Days of Noah/sons of God

[Guest shiloh357]

I started to write a saga about Genesis because you said for the sake of arguements let say that all we have is Genesis. Well after considering this statement and writing about Genesis and a bit of study I come to the conclusion that to dilly dally around is rediculous if I had Genesis is a silly statement, childish if you ask me. We have the Bible and you want to skip around the truth.

This strikes me more as cop out for not being able to support your position. Yes, we have the entire Bible, but those people in living in Moses' day did not have the entire Bible. They had the first five books of the Bible. Yet, they were just as responsible for understanding it correctly as we are. So, if you were a person living in Moses' day without the benefit of being able to read the book of Job, how would you set about demonstrating that the "sons of god" mentioned in Genesis 6 are angels? What biblical references would there be in only texts available to living at that time that would bring you to that conclusion?

Each time sons of God is mentioned here it is speaking of angels as in Genesis 6.

Revelation is progressive and if "angels" is what is meant in the text of Genesis six, then you should be able to find this exact account of history mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and the Bible specifically referencing these "sons of god" as fallen angels. However, the Bible does not offer that. You are taking verses out of Job and assuming that the phrase "sons of god" mean the same thing in both Genesis and Job, and you have yet to establish that. You have not laid the necessary groundwork to justify that assumption.

Now let's have a look at your statement here, where you have gone wrong is you think they were placed in chains under darkness after their fall. This is wrong, they were cast out of heaven to the earth with Satan. They roamed the earth just as Satan roams the earth. When were they placed in chains in darkness reserved for judgment?

Many believe the fallen angels are what we now call "demons." What this tells me is that the fallen angels are under chains awaiting judgement and "demons" must be some other kind of spiritually evil beings. I don't believe God wasted any time putting those angels under lock and key.

You have still not provided any biblical evidence that angels, fallen or othewise are capable of procreation and sexual intercourse.

God's word is truth and scripture interprates scripture and it is not for private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-21

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Yeah that is usual canard people run to in discussion like this. When it is something YOU disagree with it is a "private interpretation. You don't even understand the verse you quote. Peter was talking about the OT prophets. He was simply saying that their words were not their own and not the product of their own private imaginations. The prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit and by the motivations, intellect, or impulse of the prophets themselves. The verse does not disallow us to think for ourselves and search the word on our own. The Bible applauds those who are self-studiers.

No my friend you believe the story of Gilgamesh and dispute the truth of God's word.

I do not "believe" the story of Gilgamesh. I simply offered it as one example of how people in the days contemporary with the book of Genesis used the term "sons of god." The concept of human "god-kings" is all over the history of the Middle east, and was quite common among virtually pagan societies at that time. That is documented historical fact.

God reveals the truth through the Holy Spirit and to me my friend by your words you tell a story of unbelief. You can not understand the truth when you live in the fantasy world of gods and their sons and the mythological side of things.

I have news for you, Isa. Disagreeing with you is not tantamount to unbelief in God's word. You do not corner the market on truth and so you can drop that arrogant little rant. I simply use the mind God gave me and I have the temerity to disagree with you. If that is problem for you, then you need to learn a bit more spiritual maturity and come to grips with the fact, that I know what I believe and why, and I am not going to be manipulated, condemned or guilted into submitting to your view.

[Isa]

I started to write a saga about Genesis because you said for the sake of arguements let say that all we have is Genesis. Well after considering this statement and writing about Genesis and a bit of study I come to the conclusion that to dilly dally around is rediculous if I had Genesis is a silly statement, childish if you ask me. We have the Bible and you want to skip around the truth.

This strikes me more as cop out for not being able to support your position. Yes, we have the entire Bible, but those people in living in Moses' day did not have the entire Bible. They had the first five books of the Bible. Yet, they were just as responsible for understanding it correctly as we are. So, if you were a person living in Moses' day without the benefit of being able to read the book of Job, how would you set about demonstrating that the "sons of god" mentioned in Genesis 6 are angels? What biblical references would there be in only texts available to living at that time that would bring you to that conclusion?

Each time sons of God is mentioned here it is speaking of angels as in Genesis 6.

Revelation is progressive and if "angels" is what is meant in the text of Genesis six, then you should be able to find this exact account of history mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and the Bible specifically referencing these "sons of god" as fallen angels. However, the Bible does not offer that. You are taking verses out of Job and assuming that the phrase "sons of god" mean the same thing in both Genesis and Job, and you have yet to establish that. You have not laid the necessary groundwork to justify that assumption.

Now let's have a look at your statement here, where you have gone wrong is you think they were placed in chains under darkness after their fall. This is wrong, they were cast out of heaven to the earth with Satan. They roamed the earth just as Satan roams the earth. When were they placed in chains in darkness reserved for judgment?

Many believe the fallen angels are what we now call "demons." What this tells me is that the fallen angels are under chains awaiting judgement and "demons" must be some other kind of spiritually evil beings. I don't believe God wasted any time putting those angels under lock and key.

You have still not provided any biblical evidence that angels, fallen or othewise are capable of procreation and sexual intercourse.

God's word is truth and scripture interprates scripture and it is not for private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-21

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Yeah that is usual canard people run to in discussion like this. When it is something YOU disagree with it is a "private interpretation. You don't even understand the verse you quote. Peter was talking about the OT prophets. He was simply saying that their words were not their own and not the product of their own private imaginations. The prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit and by the motivations, intellect, or impulse of the prophets themselves. The verse does not disallow us to think for ourselves and search the word on our own. The Bible applauds those who are self-studiers.

No my friend you believe the story of Gilgamesh and dispute the truth of God's word.

I do not "believe" the story of Gilgamesh. I simply offered it as one example of how people in the days contemporary with the book of Genesis used the term "sons of god." The concept of human "god-kings" is all over the history of the Middle east, and was quite common among virtually pagan societies at that time. That is documented historical fact.

God reveals the truth through the Holy Spirit and to me my friend by your words you tell a story of unbelief. You can not understand the truth when you live in the fantasy world of gods and their sons and the mythological side of things.

I have news for you, Isa. Disagreeing with you is not tantamount to unbelief in God's word. You do not corner the market on truth and so you can drop that arrogant little rant. I simply use the mind God gave me and I have the temerity to disagree with you. If that is problem for you, then you need to learn a bit more spiritual maturity and come to grips with the fact, that I know what I believe and why, and I am not going to be manipulated, condemned or guilted into submitting to your view.

Hi Shiloh,

I know what I believe and why

So tell me what do you believe?

[Guest shiloh357]

So tell me what do you believe?

With respect to what? What do you want me to do, write out everything I believe so you can sit in judgment on me?

I have stated what I believe unambiguously on this thread with respect to the topic at hand. That is the only issue I will address here.

Like I said, disagreeing with you is not tantamount to disagreeing with the Bible, so you can drop it. You are trying to assign values and motives to me that I do not possess and that is an unfair, petty and dishonest debate tactic. You cannot answer my questions, so your only recourse is to imply that I am not a Christian and that I am living in unbelief.

You are trying to change the subject by making me the issue in order to detract attention away from your utter inability to provide requested manuscript evidence, and I am simply not going to play into that. You are not genuinely interested in what I do or don't believe. You are simply looking for something to bludgeon me with so that you don't actually have to engage in intelligent debate and answer the questions that have been put to you.

When you have something intelligent and of substantial value to offer the debate I might engage you further, but I am not going to waste my time with someone who is only looking to pick a fight.

[Isa]

So tell me what do you believe?

With respect to what? What do you want me to do, write out everything I believe so you can sit in judgment on me?

I have stated what I believe unambiguously on this thread with respect to the topic at hand. That is the only issue I will address here.

Like I said, disagreeing with you is not tantamount to disagreeing with the Bible, so you can drop it. You are trying to assign values and motives to me that I do not possess and that is an unfair, petty and dishonest debate tactic. You cannot answer my questions, so your only recourse is to imply that I am not a Christian and that I am living in unbelief.

You are trying to change the subject by making me the issue in order to detract attention away from your utter inability to provide requested manuscript evidence, and I am simply not going to play into that. You are not genuinely interested in what I do or don't believe. You are simply looking for something to bludgeon me with so that you don't actually have to engage in intelligent debate and answer the questions that have been put to you.

When you have something intelligent and of substantial value to offer the debate I might engage you further, but I am not going to waste my time with someone who is only looking to pick a fight.

Hi Shiloh,

There was and is no hidden agenda behind my question of what you believed about the subject we are discussing. You can disagree with me that doesn't worry me either it is a free country, just as I don't have to agree with you.

O kay let's look at the topic at hand sons of God in Genesis were they fallen angels I believe so. Why do I believe this, I believe they took on human form and took wives from the daughters of man and the daughters of man had children to these fallen angels.

Is it possible for angels to have sexual intercourse with mortal man, I believe so if they take on human form.

You say all I have to prove this point is the book of Genesis well then let's look at Genesis 19

Genesis 19:4

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him,

[Isa]

Hi Shiloh,

When you have something intelligent and of substantial value to offer the debate I might engage you further, but I am not going to waste my time with someone who is only looking to pick a fight.

I feel this statement was uncalled for, one is treating a brother in Christ as a dog the way one speaks to them.

The word of God is not based on my intellegence it is based on my faith and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am sorry my intellegence isn't at the level of your understanding but as I have said to others I am only an Anglo Saxon after all.

I do not fight with brothers in Christ, if you feel that the discussion is a fight well it is only that on your behalf for the house is not divided on my part.

I find the challenge to explain the sons of God only from the book of Genesis wonderful, for it makes me do hard ground work in the word of God, isn't that what this is all about, to study and understand why we believe what we are talking about and to be able to give an answer why we believe.

God Bless

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

When you have something intelligent and of substantial value to offer the debate I might engage you further, but I am not going to waste my time with someone who is only looking to pick a fight.

I feel this statement was uncalled for, one is treating a brother in Christ as a dog the way one speaks to them.

I would remind you Isa, that what I said was in response to you accusing me of having a position based on unbelief. You accused me of not believing the Bible and being in state unbelief simply for disagreeing with you over the identy of the sons of god in Genesis 6. You needn't act like you were attacked. You decided to challenge my faith and I responded to it. You dish it out and when I get offended you have the audacity to try and play the persecution card. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your contribution to the problem.

Is it possible for angels to have sexual intercourse with mortal man, I believe so if they take on human form.

Taking on human form is not the same thing as being or becoming genuinely human.

You say all I have to prove this point is the book of Genesis well then let's look at Genesis 19

No that is not what I said. I said you have demonstrate from Genesis six that "sons of god" can only mean fallen angels, and that the text of Genesis 6 leaves us with no other possible conclusion.

As for angels having sex, well to do that, you will have to produce a scripture where an angel, identified specifially as an angel is having sex AND producing children.

I believe it was possible for these men to have sex with these angels

That is nothing but pure conjecture. You believe it based on what? Do you have any biblical accounts of angels (spedifically identied as angels) having sex and procreating either with each other or with humans?

I believe if it is possible for Jacob to fight against an angel then it is possible for fallen angels to have a sexual relationship with mortal woman.

That is an irrational stretch of logic. That would be like me saying my 71 year old mother can play the piano; therefore, it is possible for her to get drafted into the New England Patriots next year.

Angels do not eat in heaven there is no need to, yet when they came to earth with the Lord in human form they ate. There are many places in Genesis where angels have come in human form and done as human do, so I can't see why it would be so difficult to believe that fallen angels took wives of man and had children with them.

Well here we go, even though you don't have any direct statements form the Bible, you will believe it anyway.

The Bible doesn't say it, but you think it is still biblical. What if I said that God up in heaven is married to a goddess? What if I said that sitting next to him one side or the other, is a female version of God and they were married and God the father and this goddess had sex and produced Jesus?

Would you believe it? My chief problem (and there are others) in trying to form a doctrine would be the complete absence from the Bible of any such "goddess" much less any record of God procreating. It isnt in the Bible, so my theory is shot down before it even leaves the ground. That is how I view your take on Genesis six. Genesis six does not say anything about angels.Yet, you are willing to believe something based on nothing.

You have not got ONE clear statement from the Bible relative to Genesis chapter six that specifically identifies the sons of god in Genesis 6 as "angels" fallen, or otherwise.

The irony is that you have nerve to challenge my faith as if I am in unbelief. You call MY faith into question because I refuse to accept as "biblical" a position you hold to, which is not even in the Bible to begin with. You are trying to get me to believe in somehthing the Bible doesn't say and when I refuse, you accuse me of not believing the Bible.

I am sorry, but your theololgy at least in this area is a trainwreck.

[humanoid]

the "sons of god" in the bible pertain to different entities depending on the context, if im not mistaken. in genesis 6 however i believe it is referring to the fallen angels which "left their previous estate" to indulge in various forms of mischief.

im a firm believer that when jesus said "as it was in the days of noah, so shall it also be at the coming of the son of man" he is, among other things, predicting that the activities of the nephilim are going to be present once again in the end-times. personally im convinced that the ufo/alien abduction phenomena is evidence of this.

alien abduction researchers (such as david jacobs) have come to the startling conclusion that the "alien agenda" is to produce alien/human hybrids (nephilim). ive been researching this subject for quite some time and i must say that it is all a very complicated mess, but if we (as christians especially) can get to the bottom of this, we wont be deceived as a result of their activities.

-humanoid

Edited February 1, 2008 by humanoid

[Treasure]

I read through this entire thread for the first time last night. At that time I had some questions that I wanted to ask but am not sure now how to even ask a question.

I had a friend (who was also a member here) that "introduced" this line of thinking to me a few years ago. It was so strange to me when I first heard it that I didn't give it any relevance. Her arguement was compelling but I'm still not sure what I believe about fallen angels/demons/Nephilim........

I want to be sure that my beliefs aren't simply based on someone else's assumptions and interpretations of what God says but on His Truth alone. That being said, the idea that the Nephilim were created by the sinful actions of man seems at least possible, as does the idea that the word "giants" simply refers to Kings with, shall I say, over-inflated egos.

Having said all of that, I want to learn the Truth (as much as we can know it) about what the Bible says concerning this. I know almost nothing about the history or the context in which passages were written but am eager to learn. I've heard what I consider to be valid teaching about fallen angels, but it still doesn't all make sense to me. I want to not only learn for myself but also be able to articulate what I learn in order to teach others who may have similar uncertainties.

If anyone has the time and patience to teach me Biblically, I would appreciate it.

[Isa]

the "sons of god" in the bible pertain to different entities depending on the context, if im not mistaken. in genesis 6 however i believe it is referring to the fallen angels which "left their previous estate" to indulge in various forms of mischief.

im a firm believer that when jesus said "as it was in the days of noah, so shall it also be at the coming of the son of man" he is, among other things, predicting that the activities of the nephilim are going to be present once again in the end-times. personally im convinced that the ufo/alien abduction phenomena is evidence of this.

alien abduction researchers (such as david jacobs) have come to the startling conclusion that the "alien agenda" is to produce alien/human hybrids (nephilim). ive been researching this subject for quite some time and i must say that it is all a very complicated mess, but if we (as christians especially) can get to the bottom of this, we wont be deceived as a result of their activities.

-humanoid

Hi humanoid,

The only aliens on this planet are God's chosen people. God only created life on this earth, nowhere else but here.

im a firm believer that when jesus said "as it was in the days of noah, so shall it also be at the coming of the son of man"

Jesus is not refering to Nephilim here, Jesus is saying that people will be just as wicked going about their own business and not worried about Godly things, they will be mocking Christians in unbelief of the word of God right up until the Lord returns and wipes them all out.

The only ones left from this will be the Christians who will go into the millennial kingdom to reign with Christ.

There are no aliens, not in Noah's days, not today, not ever, I think the alien researches are the only aliens here on this planet other than Christians but we are a different sort of alien.

The Bible states God created life here on the earth no other planet has life, and they can not retain a life system.

[humanoid]

Hi humanoid,

The only aliens on this planet are God's chosen people. God only created life on this earth, nowhere else but here.

The Bible states God created life here on the earth no other planet has life, and they can not retain a life system.

i dont want to go completely off topic (not to mention i wouldnt have the time/space to elaborate), but i will say that nowhere in the bible does it say god only created humans in this mind-boggingly infinite universe. also, i forget the scripture, but essentially what it implies is that the universe it teaming with life (angels, creatures, organisms, etc.). besides, when we say there cant possibly be other life in the universe we are fatally underestimating god's capabilities and more importantly, his nature to create.

Jesus is not refering to Nephilim here, Jesus is saying that people will be just as wicked going about their own business and not worried about Godly things, they will be mocking Christians in unbelief of the word of God right up until the Lord returns and wipes them all out.

yes im aware this is what jesus was referring to; that people would be "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" and business would be as usual until the end of the world. however there are many scholars who believe the text implies even more. to find out what this may be, we need to look at genesis chapter 6 and see exactly what the days of noah were like. clearly (among other things of course), the activities of the fallen angels (sons of god) and their supernatural offspring (the nephilim) were present.

like i said in my previous post, this subject is really quite complicated. however, with some persistent research and the help of the holy spirit, the puzzle pieces should start falling into place. here's some good places to start...

books:

alien encounters by chuck missler

the threat by david jacobs

video:

ufos angels and god(s) documentary (highly recommend watching this as it covers the subject of this thread in its entirety)

-humanoid