Nephilim article at Answers In Revelation

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
PeaTearGriffin	Nephilim article at Answers In Revelation	Lead	[-]
Posts: 37 (08/20/08 15:16:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Hi, I just read the new article at Tim's site http://www.oasischristian...The%20Sons%20of%20God.pdf It was a very interesting read, probably the best view I have read that supports the non-angel view of the "sons of God" of Genesis 5. I have a couple questions though... Why were giants produced between the sons of God and the daughters of men? I mean, when an unbeliever and a believer procreate today, there are no monstrous 14 foot tall children born. Why little reference to what the ECFs believed about this issue? Is it because the reason that they all believed the "sons of God" refers to angels due to the Book of Enoch? An interesting thing I noticed once while studying this issue is that in this verse from Jude, And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day The word that is used that for "abode" is oiketrion and is used only one other time in the New Testament. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, (2Co 5:2) The other time it is used is in that passage where it is translated as "habitation." So whatever "abode" that the angels left is something akin to the "habitation" that we desire to be clothed with (which I think according to the context of that passage is our heavenly body, the "building from God.") Obviously that is not evidence in itself, but I find it interesting. Anyway, I will have to print that article out and give it another read later. BTW, thanks for another interesting article PFRS :) edited - Last Edited By: PeaTearGriffin 08/21/08 13:31:22. Edited 1 time.
DayOfTheLord		#1	[-]
Posts: 1519 (08/21/08 09:17:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, I share your questions and have a few remarks of my own. Though most of the paper can be debated, I'll focus on just a small portion of what I believe are serious errors. The Early Church Tim states that a few opposed the view. How many and when was their work written? I only know of one. Why have you not named who was for and against, as you typically do? sons of God men? Tim insists that the sons of God are men, and that the text states this, but is this clear cut? Genesis 6:1-4 (1) Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, (2) that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. (3) Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (4) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. It starts by saying when MEN (Adam, human kind) began to multiply; the sons of God (not Adam) saw that the daughters of men (Adam, human kind) were beautiful. So were the daughters of the sons of God ugly? (little humor). In fact there are Septuagint readings that say angels, and Hebrew readings that say divine beings, a fact Tim failed to mention. The second disagreement is that the Nephilim are because of the union of the sons of God with daughters of Adam (men). Who are those, and why would Moses put this here if not to indicate, through context, that these mighty men were from the union of the daughters of Adam and the sons of God. I think it also important that we see that when God speaks of flesh, perhaps He is making distinction between the sons of God and the fleshly Adamic daughters, or even their offspring. This borders on textual criticism, imho. Where does the text distinguish that the daughters of men are from Cain's line and are all ungodly? The text clearly says they are from Adam, which includes all daughters. Where does the text say that all of Seth's line was godly? Further what doesn't make any sense, is they, men, were already multiplying, but then they all of a sudden recognized some beautiful women? No, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful. Also, if the giants already existed, where did they come from? What explains their special mention, as if this was another race altogether or derivative group? The "spirits in prison" in 3:19 are the "sons of God" who did not listen to Noah's warnings about the coming flood, and consequently died along with the wicked in that judgment. This is an utterly ridiculous statement, and would have the righteous judged with the wicked!!!! So how righteous were they? Only Noah and his house were saved? This is your blameless 144,000? Come on, the angel had to wait for Lot and his family to leave first, and at that when Lot's wife disobeyed she was judged, and Jesus says we are not to be like Lot's wife at His Appearing. Genesis 6:8-9 NASB (8) But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. (9) These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. Genesis 7:1 NASB (1) Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time. 2 Peter 2:4-5 NASB (4) For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (5) and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; This pretty much sums up who was righteous and blameless, Noah, and him alone, all others are called "ungodly". "…while the ark was being prepared, in which [ark] a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." Salvation from physical death was secured only by entering the safety of the ark. Was Ananias and Sapphira only physically judged? How about Sodom and Gomorrah? This is compared to our Salvation from Death, Hell and the Grave, not from physical death only. Does baptism save us only from physical death? The whole section for Peter could be speaking of "righteous men" from Noah's time, but this doesn't mean they were the sons of God. This is all speculation. Is there any historical evidence for this view at all? Or is the saying from Wesley what is new is untrue and what is true is not new, simply mistaken. Paul informs us in Romans 11 that for the sake of the patriarchs "all Israel will be saved," even though at the present time they are enemies of the Gospel. If everyone hasn't caught on thus far to Tim's article about all this, he seems to be saying there is a special relationship with covenant people and God, and just as they were saved pre-flood, and all Israel will be saved, these two go together, so I suppose now Judas will be saved, having been a covenant person? How about Christians, we are under a better covenant; surely we will get a second chance too? Doesn't this lead to Universalism? Being enemies of the Gospel isn't enough to send you to hell, I suppose nothing is. Is being struck down from God not a judgment? Were the spirits in prison in hell or hades? Where do disobedient covenant people go? Are the enemies of the Gospel, also in this place awaiting their second chance? What is the only group in the Bible that could fit all four of these identifying markers? It is the faithful tribe of Seth through his son, Enos. Except that they were judged in the flood while Noah was saved, this is your 144,000 who are blameless? Final thoughts It seems the Early Church Writings have become a bit of a problem lately... in fact this view is ancient, and I mean ancient, there are Septuagint readings that actually say angels and Hebrew texts that say the divine beings, a fact Tim left out, and there are many apocryphal books (Jubilees, Book of Giants (dead sea scrolls), The Watchers (dead sea scrolls), etc...) that also say they were angels. The Early Church believed they were angels. I can assure you that this argument isn't over, whether it be angels or not. I'm not saying there is no merit to this view (some of it), but I think mostly that the detail in this presentation is very presumptuous. It also seems like this view leaves open some loose ends, such as what happened to the people Tim use to believe were the 144,000? Does Tim now believe that all Israel, including Judas, Pharisees etc… are going to be saved? What about disobedient Christians? Where do they go when they die? Scripture nowhere states that the 144,000 are pre-flood peoples of God, who obviously were judged and executed in the flood! Yep, that makes for a great 144,000 righteous standing with Jesus. Revelation 14:5 (5) And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless. Blameless doesn't seem to go with executed by flood and disobedient to God's preaching through Noah for 130 years no less. The haphazardness of this paper puts me in shambles about where PFRS is heading, and their future stance concerning the Early Church Writings and their importance to help bring us back to the "pristine faith". Brian Last Edited By: DayOfTheLord 08/22/08 18:36:23. Edited 1 times.
PeaTearGriffin		#2	[-]
Posts: 38 (08/21/08 13:30:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I read the article again today carefully (instead of the skim read I gave it yesterday). The main reason I never believed in the "sons of Seth" theory was because I could never see how the text inferred a seperation between the descendants of Cain and Seth. But I believe that Tim's argument for this was very good. But as DayoftheLord has just mentioned, I think that a major shortcoming of the article was the lack of reference to Early Church writings, as well as that supposedly the angel view was an ancient view in Judaism and did not originate with the Book of Enoch at about 200BC. And I am still confused as to why giants would result from the sexual union of the goldy Sethites and the ungodly Cainainites. I thought Tims view regarding the 144000 in Revelation was completely original and the view on those passages from 1st Peter was interesting.
DayOfTheLord		#3	[-]
Posts: 1520 (08/21/08 17:56:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	MORE What Scripture Says Concerning the Pre-Flood World 2 Peter 2:4-9 (4) For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (5) and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (6) and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; (7) and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (8) (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), (9) then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, There are several things we can get from this passage of Scripture. 1. "the ancient world" refers to everyone except Noah and his family, and the others are described as ungodly. 2. This is in contrast to Sodom and Gomorrah, as examples for those who would live ungodly after that. 3. The Lord knows how to rescue the godly. 4. The Lord knows how to reserve the ungodly for punishment. This passage alone puts serious doubts and practically dismembers the view that there were godly enough people (Sethites) who got a second chance. Everyone besides Noah is described as ungodly. And lets not forget that God, prior to the flood, said that He was sorry for ever creating man. None of this evidence bodes well for the pre-flood disobedient Sethite view. Brian Last Edited By: DayOfTheLord 08/21/08 18:00:13. Edited 1 times.
jiminc		#4	[-]
Posts: 67 (08/22/08 11:02:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi all, Another thought provoking article by Tim re the Sons of God vs daughters of men. Great job, Tim. My main concern is the identity of the 144000 of Rev 14. For many years, I've been personally satisfied that these "firstfruits unto God" were those resurrected just after Jesus in Mt 27:52&53. "And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many". (KJV) It makes sense to me that Jesus himself was the first fruit and those raised immediately after him (Mt 52&53) were ".....redeemed from among men being the firstfruits unto God and the Lamb" (Rev 14:4). Firstfruits implies an early harvest which typifies resurrection in the scriptures. Of course, these could have included pre-flood righteous men, but they would have to have been virgins (undefiled by women whether or not daughters of men whether or not descended from Cain or Seth) and deceased prior to the days immediately preceding the flood, as it is clear that there were none righteous save Noah during that time. Am I way off? In Christ, Jim
DayOfTheLord		#5	[-]
Posts: 1521 (08/22/08 18:19:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Jim, Could you please explain how the first fruits were all the OT saints, if you mean all, or just some Who was included if just some? but explain how Peter said we still have the body of David, and yet they were all resurrected? I've always understood this to be people who resurrected and then died later. Paul doesn't seem to think anyone was resurrected (in a glorified state) at that time, and also note that they were resurrected at Christ's death, making them FIRST! Paul 1 Corinthians 15:23 NASB (23) But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, Paul seems to be saying that the first or next group to be resurrected in a glorified sense will be at His coming! Christ never once promised to resurrect anyone before the last day. Those resurrected at Christ's death Matthew 27:50-53 NASB (50) And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. (51) And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. (52) The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. These people resurrected at His death, but didn't come into town until after His resurrection. I think this makes the 144,000 view difficult to sustain in light of this evidence? Peter Acts 2:29 NASB (29) "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Peter's whole argument rests on David's body being still there and in decay. Brian
jiminc		#6	[-]
Posts: 72 (08/23/08 06:56:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Brian, First of all, understand that my conclusion about the 144K being the resurrected of Mt 27 is not scripturally flawless, but I feel is the most likely of all the alternatives. If i'm correct, then the 144K are all saints who died pre-Christs resurrection, and no, they are not all the old testament saints, they are 144000. As to the question of David, he could not be in that resurrection, simply because he was not a virgin. Concerning the timing of these saints resurrection related to Christs, it seems to be dependent on the translation. KJV says ".....arose and came out of the tombs after his resurrection...". See Gill. I'm not good at Greek grammar, maybe Tim or Roger could help here. Regardless, they would not have ascended to heaven and been presented as first fruits to God and the Lamb until the Lamb was there Himself. Brian , we can do a lot of speculating, as you have done in assuming they subsequently died again, but that will prove nothing. What we know of the 144K of Rev 14 is the following: They have the Fathers name written on their foreheads, they are harpists and singers before Gods throne with a unique song that only they know, they were redeemed from the earth (past tense), they were virgins (not defiled with women), they follow the lamb wherever He goes, they were redeemed from among men, and they are firstfruits to God and the Lamb. (Note that Jesus is the firstfruits to God, and the 144K are firstfruits to God and the Lamb ) What we know about the raised of Mt 27: They had died prior to Jesus' resurrection, they were many, they were saints, they came out of the graves, They arose bodily, they came out of the graves after Jesus arose, and they appeared to many in Jerusalem. To add anything beyond these facts is speculation. However, none of the facts presented above preclude the two groups from being one and the same. It is significant that this is definitely a resurrection, where bodies were "redeemed" from the grave. It was certainty an act of God. If these are not the 144K of Rev 14 then what is it? Brian, who do you think the 144000 are? In Christ, Jim
FredOrtegren		#7	[-]
Posts: 112 (08/24/08 04:41:02) PFRS Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Jim and Brian and all! I think the best explanation to who this first group of 144000 saints are is in the explanation given by Tim Warner in his article here, http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/rev_8.html Chapter fourteen begins with 144,000 people worshipping God. They are in heaven during the tribulation, since they were redeemed "from the earth," [vs. 3]. They are not the same 144,000 in chapter seven. The other group is saved at the end of the tribulation. This group is already in heaven. Verse four says they are the "firstfruits" to the Lamb. James gives us some insight here. James 1 1 James, a servant of God, and of the Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Both John and James are referring to one of the Jewish Feast days. The Feast of "Firstfruits" took place on the Sunday following Passover. This occurred at the beginning of the wheat harvest. Males were required to come to Jerusalem with a token sheaf of wheat to be offered to God before they partook of their harvest. It was called "Firstfruits" because the very first bundle of wheat was given to God. When they returned home they reaped their fields for the next seven weeks. After this period of harvest, they appeared before the Lord at the Temple to give another offering to thank God for a good harvest, on the fiftieth day, the Day of Pentecost. When John calls the 144,000 of Rev. 14 the "Firstfruits"unto God and the Lamb, he is saying that they are the elect Jews who believed the Gospel when Christ came. James confirms this for us in the above verses. They were the first offering to God of the harvest of this age. The other group of 144,000 Jews are the "Pentecost" offering at the very end of the harvest. It is no coincidence that at the end of this chronological sequence Christ's coming is compared to a harvest. The fall of Babylon occurs in Rev. 14:8. According to Rev. 16:19-19:3 Babylon falls immediately before Christ returns. This indicates that the seven vials do not follow the two harvests of chapter 14, but precede them, unless Babylon is destroyed twice. The alternative is that the accounts are parallel. Shalom! Fred
DayOfTheLord		#8	[-]
Posts: 1526 (08/24/08 05:37:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I feel is the most likely of all the alternatives. Ok... but I don't see how so... If i'm correct, then the 144K are all saints who died pre-Christs resurrection, and no, they are not all the old testament saints, they are 144000. Is this not a contradiction? or are all who are saved not saints? As to the question of David, he could not be in that resurrection, simply because he was not a virgin. But who said the "many" were virgins? Concerning the timing of these saints resurrection related to Christs, it seems to be dependent on the translation. Matthew 27:52-53 Geneva (52) And the graues did open themselues, and many bodies of the Saintes, which slept, arose, (53) And came out of the graues after his resurrection, and went into the holy citie, and appeared vnto many. Matthew 27:52-53 Bishops (52) And graues dyd open, and many bodyes of saintes which slept, arose: (53) And went out of the graues, after his resurrection, and came into the holy citie, and appeared vnto many. Matthew 27:52-53 KJV (52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, (53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Matthew 27:52-53 NKJV (52) and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matthew 27:52-53 ESV (52) The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, (53) and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. It seems commentators seem to think this occurred after His resurrection, but I don't know... perhaps the greek specifies this more than the english, but I've always understood this otherwise, that they arose at Christ's death, and only after His resurrection then went into the city. Brian , we can do a lot of speculating, as you have done in assuming they subsequently died again, but that will prove nothing. Isn't it even more presumptuous to teach that those who arose equaled 144,000, which it does not say, that they all were virgins, which it does not say, that they all lived forever, which it does not say, that they were taken to heaven, which it does not say, that they all were resurrected in glorified bodies, which it does not say? and that these are the 144,000 in Revelation? which it does not say. Some or all this may be true, but is this not much more presumptuous and aiken to a theory more than a teaching? It is significant that this is definitely a resurrection, where bodies were "redeemed" from the grave. It was certainty an act of God. If these are not the 144K of Rev 14 then what is it? Redeemed? Where does it say they were redeemed, this is you reading that back into Matthew, it says no such thing. This is what I'm getting at with both this position and the "sons of God" position, it is not based on any real facts... only assumptions. Brian, who do you think the 144000 are? Well lets look at Revelation and see who they are. Ok, just after John relates the breaking of the 6th seal, which brings in the Secod Coming.... we have this... Revelation 7:2-4 NASB (2) And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, (3) saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads." (4) And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: I believe this takes place just piror or during Christ's decent, or possibly sometime in the not to distant past of the Second Coming. Then we have this vision... Revelation 7:9 NASB (9) After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; Revelation 7:13-17 NASB (13) Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" (14) I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (15) "For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. (16) "They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; (17) for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes." This is clearly all from the First Resurrection at the Second Coming during the Millennial Reign, the details strongly suggest and leave no wiggle room otherwise, imho. The point of me bringing this up is to show that a scene can span alot of time... that being that in this scene it explains that they came out of the tribulation, pre-second coming, but the scene itself is on into the mellinial Reign with its detailed descriptions of only Millennial events. Revelation 14:1 NASB (1) Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. What do we know of both groups in Revelation given as 144,000? They are sealed in the forehead to God. BOTH groups are said to be as much, and BOTH groups are 144,000, SO why would we think otherwise that BOTH groups are not the SAME group? I believe they are. This scene is probably the rapture of these 144,0000 that were sealed during the tribulation just prior to the Second Coming, I think this scene in full, shows them with Christ on Mt Zion during the millennium, when they follow Him wherever He goes. I just simply cannot see why these 144,000 must be divided into two different groups? Why can't this just be different scenes of the same group during different phases of the future? Some pre-Second Coming, some post-Second Coming and some definitely on into the millennium? Is there some major flaw I've overlooked? Does it take alot of presumptions to come to my view, or that the 144,000 are Sethites or the "many" raised at Christ's death/resurrection? I could have went into great detail concerning some of the scenes showing their relation to the millennium... if I need to just say so. Brian
DayOfTheLord		#9	[-]
Posts: 1527 (08/24/08 06:14:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Fred, I disagree with Tim's viewpoint. Here is why.... Chapter fourteen begins with 144,000 people worshipping God. They are in heaven during the tribulation, since they were redeemed "from the earth," [vs. 3]. They are not the same 144,000 in chapter seven. The other group is saved at the end of the tribulation. Where does one get the view that they are in heaven? They are on Mt. Zion and the scene is clearly Millennial. There are things heard from heaven, mid heaven and on earth. I don't think it is clear that these are in heaven at that very moment, and redeemed among men is past tense because the scene is future tense compared to when the 144,000 were sealed, during the tribulation. When there is NO other reference to a 144,000 group of believers, why conclude that they are different than the ONLY 144,000 mentioned in Revelation? Redeemed from the earth could be in reference to their having been sealed prior. James 1 1 James, a servant of God, and of the Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. When John calls the 144,000 of Rev. 14 the "Firstfruits"unto God and the Lamb, he is saying that they are the elect Jews who believed the Gospel when Christ came. James confirms this for us in the above verses. They were the first offering to God of the harvest of this age. The other group of 144,000 Jews are the "Pentecost" offering at the very end of the harvest. It is no coincidence that at the end of this chronological sequence Christ's coming is compared to a harvest. Well first, I must say that this must not be all THAT relevant or important since Tim has NOW changed his view on this. So how relevant can the article be at this point? Second how does one go from twelve tribes of those who had the gospel first preached to them to 144,000 who are "blameless" and "virgins"? Further James seems to be pointing out their sin and rebuking them, and these are blameless? Perhaps through repentance one can see this, I'm not so sure. James also says "kind of first fruits", not very emphatic. Does the historical grammatical method allow for reading into James what is in Revelation? I believe that it is possible and probable that this second view or scene of the 144,000 is during the millennial. Am I missing something? Brian
Tim		#10	[-]
Posts: 1530 (08/25/08 14:03:47) Guest Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have added a significant amount to the article in question, including a section dealing with Josephus, and the early Church Fathers. The other questions asked here are dealt with in the article. Tim
crazy mark		#11	[-]
Posts: 249 (10/19/08 15:55:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hey fellas, I've always wondered about the "Sons of God and Daughters of Men" thing. I've felt a little uncomfortable when looking at bible translations, like the Living Bible, that just come out and say that the Sons of God were Angels. I can definitely see where one could be led to believe this, but I thought it could be just as well that the Sons of God could be the godly line from Adam. My own thoughts led me to believe that there had to be something to the off-spring being the "mighty men of old". I thought there must be something physically unique to them. What would make them reknowned? Genetically speaking, we know that the Sons of God( the godly line from Adam) were about as humanly pure as they could be. If the Sons of God came unto the Daughters of men ("regular" humans) then what would be so special about that? Surely the Sons of God came unto the Daughters of God their off-spring would be mightier than would be the off-spring of genetically inferior line of Cain. But, what if the emphasis has been on the "wrong" line? What if the emphasis should be on just who the Daughters of Men were? What if they were Neanderthals? Then you would have the super genetics of the line of Adam mixing with a sub-human species and what kind of off-spring would that result in? Neanderthals were known to be brutes and known to be hunters. If mix in a genetic code yet to be corrupted would it produce super- brutes? super-hunters? giants? Maybe the Neanderthals figure in. They are known not to have belong to the human species. Thoughts? Mark
Tim		#12	[-]
Posts: 1555 (10/19/08 17:46:23) Guest Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mark, I am not saying that your theory is impossible. But, the text says that there were "nephilim" BEFORE the sons of God took wives from the daughters of men. So, whatever "nephilim" means, it was NOT exclusive to the offspring of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men." Tim
VincentLerins		#13	[-]
Posts: 64 (10/21/08 08:08:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tim, Fantastic article as usual! I must admit upfront that I subscribe to the fallen angel theory as well as their connection to UFO's. I believe that real UFO phenomenon is related to fallen angel/demonic activity. Also, I believe this is an integral part of the plan to unite the world into a one world government and one world religion. Furthermore, I believe that an "Independence Day" experience will most likely facilitate all of this. Just imagine the paradigm shift an 'Independence Day' event would cause. Since most religions discredit UFOs, what better way to undermine all world religions and create a new religion? The world has already been preconditioned through the movies and television. God as the three major faiths teaching don't exist in sci-fi movies! I'm interested in some of the 'gurus' that you were making reference to in your paper. I reached this opinion independently of modern prophecy teachers, simply from reading the scripture, early church fathers and making connections with ancient historical and mythological writings. Then in researching on the internet if others had a similar theory, I discover men like Tom Horn and Lynn Marzulli. This is similar to how I discovered your website years ago when I was researching the timing of the tribulation and the millennium. I do have a couple comments and questions that remind unanswered in by your paper. 1. How do you account for the origin of demons? Some ancient Jews and early Christians taught demons were the offspring of the fallen angels and human mothers. 2. How do you account for the worldwide prevalence of ancient tribal myths of gods coming from the heavens and fathering children? Ancient American indigenous tribes, African tribes, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Asian cultures all have these myths as well as ancient European cultures (like the Greeks). This is very similar to the ancient flood accounts in these cultures. 3. As for the book of Enoch, it is not inspired; however, it is a part of the religious writings of Ancient Judaism and early Christianity. This is no different than non-religious historical writings that give insight into a particular time period. The book of Enoch isn't the only ancient religious writing that mentions angels fathering children on earth. You also have the book of Jasher and Jubilees. 4. How do you explain 1 Cor 11:8-12, where Paul says: "For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. *For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of* authority on her head, because of the angels.** Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Why does Paul mention angels in the context of women being create for men? In addition to this, I find it interesting that Eve is called the mother of all living. However, is Adam the father of all living? 5. Here is picture of Lam.http://aftermathnews.word...-the-impending-something/ height=128 alt=http://aftermathnews.word...-the-impending-something/ src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nN1pVSrqt0UJ::aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/lam.jpg" width=95 align=middle border=1> He was a spirit that Aleister Crowley communicated with in his occult activities. This picture from the early 20^th century before we had mass dissemination of the stereotypical alien appearance. Also, many occult schools teach the gods are returning soon (not only for 2012) for a final battle between good and evil (they believe Lucifer, the light bearer, is good). Some even teach that these gods have been imprisoned and that the world messiah (we know him as the Antichrist) will be some sort of superhuman or an angelic hybrid. 6. I had to chuckle when I read the section that angels cannot reproduce because they are not given in marriage. There are a lot of humans that aren't given in marriage but that doesn't stop them from reproducing. Humans are created a "little lower than the angels." Humans can eat angels food (manna) and angels can eat human food (visitors to Abraham or those who entertain angels unaware). Also, the man of Sodom wanted to have relations with the angelic beings and apparently they appeared no different than regular men. Where did the angels who appeared to people in the Scriptures receive their bodies? I find it interesting that occult lore has stories of Atlantis and a world that was destroyed by a great cataclysm during a time of great scientific experimentation with human, animals and plants. That's exactly what is occurring today with GMO food, chimera (part animal/part human hybrids), cloning, transhumanism, etc. Many of the top leaders in these fields are occultists. Could cloning be a way of producing bodies for demons or fallen angels to inhabit? Vincent
Tim		#14	[-]
Posts: 1556 (10/21/08 12:32:56) Guest Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Vincent, You claim that you came to your view based on the Bible. But, you did not address a single one of my biblical arguments. 1. How do you account for the origin of demons? Some ancient Jews and early Christians taught demons were the offspring of the fallen angels and human mothers. Demons are fallen angels. Angels are "spirits" and so are demons. In fact, Revelation says that Satan has "angels" just as Michael has "angels." (Rev. 12:7). Just as there are several classes of angels of God, there are most likely similar classes of angels of Satan. If "demons" are the spirits of these mythological hybrid offspring, some serious theological problems arise. First, God did not create them (although He has created all men and angels). Therefore, these supposed "demons" seem to have been both created and condemned, through no choice of their own, outside of God's creation, and apparently outside of His mercy. 2. How do you account for the worldwide prevalence of ancient tribal myths of gods coming from the heavens and fathering children? Ancient American indigenous tribes, African tribes, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Asian cultures all have these myths as well as ancient European cultures (like the Greeks). This is very similar to the ancient flood accounts in these cultures. How do you account for the rest of the myths that many of these cultures have in common? Are you going to propose that all of the myths are based in actual history? It is evident that many such myths were wildly exaggerated historical narritives, where people were viewed as "gods." Many of the myths were also perversions of prophetic oral tradition passed down by Noah from pre-flood days, regarding prophecy. Regardless of the source, the logical answer is that they myths were generated before the confounding of the languages at Babel, just as with the Nimrod cult, and spread all over the globe. 3. As for the book of Enoch, it is not inspired; however, it is a part of the religious writings of Ancient Judaism and early Christianity. This is no different than non-religious historical writings that give insight into a particular time period. The book of Enoch isn't the only ancient religious writing that mentions angels fathering children on earth. You also have the book of Jasher and Jubilees. All of the ancient Jewish sources that mention this myth come from the inter-testamental period, right after the Jews had spent 70 years in Babylon, living amongst the pagans. Nothing written prior to the return from exile even remotely suggests such a thing. Furthermore, I showed in my article that the LXX translators COULD NOT have embraced this idea, since that translation makes it an impossible interpretation of Genesis 6. The LXX clearly identifies the "sons of God" as MEN, when it record's God's reaction to this intermingling, "My Spirit shall not remain among these men forever..." Based on the LXX, it is very apparent that this theory was NOT "mainstream" in Judaism in the inter testamantal period. Jubilees and Enoch were NOT considered Scripture by the Jews. Both books are the works of fringe apocalyptic groups within Judaism. It is much easier to explain how this pagan mythology spread into Jewish apocalyptic literature through pagan influence, rather than the other way around. The absurdities of the Book of Enoch virtually rule out it having been an authorative source of information. 4. How do you explain 1 Cor 11:8-12, where Paul says: "For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Why does Paul mention angels in the context of women being create for men? Because humanity, in particular God's working out His plan through the family, marriage, and the church, is all a demonstration for the benefit of the angels (cf. Eph. 3:10 & Eph. 5:22-32). In addition to this, I find it interesting that Eve is called the mother of all living. However, is Adam the father of all living? Are you suggesting that Eve the "Mother of Demons?" I think you are grasping for straws, Vincent. Eve was named by Adam BECAUSE she was the "mother of all living." Adam's name was given by God BECAUSE he was taken from the dust. Adam means "of the ground." Besides, if Eve is the mother of all living, including MALES who were the fathers of the women mentioned in Gen. 6, then so was Adam the "FATHER" of these women, and consequently they offspring (in the same way that Eve is their "mother"). 5. Here is picture of Lam...He was a spirit that Aleister Crowley communicated with in his occult activities. This picture from the early 20^th century before we had mass dissemination of the stereotypical alien appearance. Also, many occult schools teach the gods are returning soon (not only for 2012) for a final battle between good and evil (they believe Lucifer, the light bearer, is good). Some even teach that these gods have been imprisoned and that the world messiah (we know him as the Antichrist) will be some sort of superhuman or an angelic hybrid. I hope you have a better source for truth than this! Besides, angels can appear as real substantial people. That was clearly true in the OT. The two angels that visited Lot appeared as physical beings. Yet, I don't find anyone trying to dream some absurd mythology of gods mating with human women to explain them! Furthermore, the Man of Sin is a MAN. Yes, he will be "demon possessed" by Satan Himself. But, that does not require that he arrive in a spaceship from the planet Vulcan, or be the offspring of some woman abducted by aliens, who impregnated her! 6. I had to chuckle when I read the section that angels cannot reproduce because they are not given in marriage. There are a lot of humans that aren't given in marriage but that doesn't stop them from reproducing. Humans are created a "little lower than the angels." Humans can eat angels food (manna) and angels can eat human food (visitors to Abraham or those who entertain angels unaware). Also, the man of Sodom wanted to have relations with the angelic beings and apparently they appeared no different than regular men. Where did the angels who appeared to people in the Scriptures receive their bodies? Jesus statement, that "in the resurrection" they neither marry or are given in marriage, had to do with procreation, as I pointed out in that article. I don't know what is funny about that. The context is pretty plain that the question before Jesus was whose wife she would be in order to procreate and raise up children to all of these seven brothers. Jesus' reply clearly rules out procreation in the resurrected state, and he likens that to the angels who do not procreate. Furthermore, the Bible is clear that God created every species to reproduce "after its kind." Even similar mammals CANNOT reproduce unless they are of the same "kind." We have both Scripture and science to back that up. The passage in Hebrews has nothing to do with similarities between angels and humans. It is about RANK. While at least SOME angels have the ability to APPEAR in a human form, that does not mean they are physically similar. They are NOT of this creation. I find it interesting that occult lore has stories of Atlantis and a world that was destroyed by a great cataclysm during a time of great scientific experimentation with human, animals and plants. That's exactly what is occurring today with GMO food, chimera (part animal/part human hybrids), cloning, transhumanism, etc. Many of the top leaders in these fields are occultists. Could cloning be a way of producing bodies for demons or fallen angels to inhabit? Lots of things are "interresting," Vincent. But, that is a far cry from being solid evidence for this theory. Why do you need "cloning" to produce bodies for demons to inhabit when they have had no problem in the past inhabiting willing subjects? Remember Legion? Jesus cast out a multitude of "demons" from human hosts. Were those people "clones?" Were those people's mother's abducted by aliens? Were they the product of scientific experimentation? I must say that I have a hard time understanding the facination Christians have for a Jewish - pagan myth, and the lengths to which they will go to defend them! Where is the biblical scholarship on this subject???? Where is the solid exegesis of the relevant texts???? Have we been reduced to parroting pagan mythology, and extra-biblical apocalyptic texts, and conspiracy theories now? No wonder the world thinks were are fools! We fit right in with the guests on the Art Bell show! Tim Last Edited By: Tim 10/21/08 15:20:28. Edited 1 times.
rhawes73	The 144,000 in Revelation	#15	[-]
Posts: 80 (03/05/09 12:35:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tim, After listening to last night's lesson in Revelation, and scanning your Nephilim article again, I think I've found a problem that precludes an interpretation of the second 144,000 as being the Godly line of Seth. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Here's the relevant passage from your translation: Revelation 14:4 - "These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins..." I think your interpretation may be focusing too much on the first part of that parenthetical reference in 14:4. Not only were these men not "defiled with women," but John tells us that they are virgins. If John means that they are literally virgins, then not only can these men not have had relations with wicked women, they cannot have had relations with any women; but if that is true, then they cannot have sired children, and there would be no "line" at all. This could be a figurative reference of course, along the same lines as what Paul said in II Corinthians 11:2, regarding how he wanted to present the Corinthian believers as a "chaste virgin" to Christ, but then the same could just as easily apply to the first group of 144,000. My opinion is that the reference to the men being virgins is literal, and that they have not had relations with women because they've dedicated themselves solely to Christ, just as Paul did. Now why it would refer to their not having been "defiled" with women is an odd statement, given that "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled," (Hebrews 13:4). For that reason, I think this reference to defilement may mean that the men are under a vow of some type, something akin to the Nazarite vow, the breaching of which would defile them. I'm reminded here of Samson. It's certainly not a sin for a man to cut his hair under ordinary circumstances, but in Samson's case it was, due to his vow. The same may be true for these men where relations with women are concerned. The above makes think that these men are indeed the same as the first 144,000 that John mentions. They are set apart to God, wholly, in both body and soul. As for their being the "firstfruits to God and to the Lamb," could this simply mean that they are the first to be reaped at the harvest at the end of the age? This would seem to account for why they appear to be alone with Christ on Mount Zion (14:1). Anyway, I may be wrong, but those are some thoughts for your consideration. Thanks for the great series of lessons. - Robert

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Nephilim article at Answers In Revelation

Nephilim article at Answers In Revelation

Quick Reply