Friends, I just wanted to repost the link to the article on the SONS OF GOD, as the original link which I put up in post no. 25 does not work, here you go:

Sons Of God... Sethites Or Fallen Angels?
"The following article is only a portion of a Biblical study on Demonology: The Doctrine of Fallen Angels- Dr. A.G. Fruchtenbaum. Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Messianic Jewish believer and founder of ariel.org in San Antonio Texas. He comes from a family line of Levite Priest (father and grandfather) and has knowledge of scripture that is just uncanny, nonetheless having become a believer in Christ at a young age, his father threw him out of the house for converting from Judaism to Christianity at the age of 17 or 18..."
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/fo...er&f=23&t=1327

It's a good article Bro. Parrish other than the constant Hebrew and Greek, and the reference to the mythical LXX.

I have to disagree with him when he says that the giants were just strong and not giant in stature though. Goliath was almost 10' tall or taller. That is huge. People 7' tall look like giants to most of us, imagine 3' taller.

Yes, if you check post 25, I posted that because Bro. Tony was going on about "JEWISH fables" so I gave him a Christian JEW of Levite lineage to illustrate the point from a JEWISH perspective that the subject we are discussing is not a JEWISH fable... ;)
For an excellent "KJV based" review of this issue, I suggest the Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.

Yeah, the Bible is true no matter what the Jewish fables say. Just because the Bible says not to listen to Jewish fables doesn't mean that they don't have Bible truth in them. In fact most of them are just a perverted addition to Bible truth, at least from what I've heard and seen. Most interpretations of Genesis 6 seem to be just as perverted as any Jewish fable or wives tale and often ignore the verses that are clearly cross references.

Kevin, this is the view of the Seventh Day Adventists. And we are even: I think you have "flat" moved over into the Land Of Heresy and ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures in order to prove a point in a Bible forum.

He was tempted to sin, He was tempted as we are but the difference is that we go right ahead and steal, and break the Law which is what sin is, He didn't. He couldn't. God can't get hungry, Jesus got hungry. God don't sleep, Jesus got sleepy. God don't tire, Jesus got weary. God don't feel physical pain, Jesus endured a physical pain none of us could endure. God cannot die, Jesus was dead for 3 days. That don't give Him the capacity to sin. Jesus Christ was human, He was God also.

I know the fad in this forum has been for a number of weeks now not to quote Scripture, people have said "Yea, hath God said?" before to me and it did about as much good then as it does now:

Ro. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

What was He "obedient" to? Temptation?

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Kevin, I think you need to study to show thyself approved unto God, not me or the forum. To even hint that Jesus Christ was capable of sinning is to say He had a sin nature, and if that is not heresy, I don't know what is.

But I'm not going to tie you to a fencepost and set you on fire.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Craig, the heresy that Jesus Christ had a sin nature is found in the Ebionites for one, the followers of Arius, and the Gnostics in general right on up to Ellen White of the SDAs and I think Tony don't accept the fornicating angels of Genesis 6 because it's not sound doctrine.

Grace and peace

Tony

Brother, I know we don't mean to do things but to casual observers sometimes we do imply things by their mere existence.

The Jews picked up and integrated into their culture and faith a lot of nonsense while in Babylon: The "Lilith" fable("Lilu"), the story of the fornicating angels of Genesis 6, Cain's Daddy being Satan, and the "Talmud", the "Teachings Of The Rabbis" that Christ castigated the Pharisees for as "the doctrines and commandments of men..." It's unfortunate that a lot of Christians have fallen for it too.

I saw a thing on TV where there were some paintings from the Middle Ages had some interesting objects in them too, and there are many rock paintings in the American Southwest also that have these objects on them.

Grace and peace brother Win

Tony

Back to the question of whether Christ was born with a sin nature.


After thinking about this tonight I'm afraid I have to change my mind. Christ could not have been born with a sin nature. And there are plenty of scriptures that show there is a sin nature. Spiritual death and sin nature are taught in scripture, I don't think they are products of Calvinist teaching.

Christ is both a man and God at the same time. God CANNOT sin.
I don't accept Tony's "father's blood" theory but he is correct in saying that Christ was not born with a sin nature.

There is a sin nature. Temptation comes from outside the man but it finds a "hook", his own lust, and he is enticed. Christ was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Unlike the rest of mankind, there was no lust inside Him to draw Him away from the Law and entice Him.
John 14:30
God sent His own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. This verse I believe puts to rest the idea that Christ had a sin nature. God doesn't say He sent His Son of sinful flesh. Christ could not have a sin nature because God cannot be tempted with evil.
Romans 8:3

Sister, the father's blood thing is not a "theory", it's medical fact. And I never said the sin nature is passed on through the blood, but through the male seed, sperm. In my study of mortuary science I had to study hematology, a child in the womb receives nutrients and oxygen via osmosis and returns wastes and carbon dioxide in the same manner, but the blood system of an unborn child is the father's and in no way comes into contact with the mother's.

The father's blood thing is also a theological fact.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Sister, with that, you all have fun, I've said all I have to say and anything further would be repeating myself.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

Tony,
Is there anything you haven't done, studied or worked at? How old are you anyway!:p

I'll look into the father's blood question.

So what you are saying is that Jesus had no will of His own, that He was just a robot disguised as a man. He was tempted but it was all just a game because He couldn't give in to it anyway. Jesus was made perfect by obeying the will of the Lord. I don't think that He was bound in shackles to obey, I believe He could have done His own thing, but didn't. I don't see how perfection through automation is very significant or even worthy. From what I can tell, you think Jesus only suffered once in His entire 33 years on this Earth. I think He suffered much more than that, and I think Peter would agree. The verse says He died once for our sins. I couldn't agree more. To say that was the only thing He learned obedience from is just stupid. It's one thing for a holy, sinless God sitting in eternity telling sinners what to do and what not to do and it's another for a man down on this earth under God's laws to try and keep those laws which are holy and pure.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Gee, would you look at that Tony, He suffered being tempted. He didn't just suffer once.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

It doesn't say that He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without the ability or will to sin. There are two wills that any man can follow. The Lord's and man's own will. One will lead to sin and death, the other will lead to life. (In Jesus' case, the path of the author and finisher of our salvation.)

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Mat 26:43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

Jesus had the ability to consider both sides of an issue. He could have debated the wrong course of an action, but He never did. Temptation is not sin, but giving in to it is. Jesus just never debated to give in, but he could have.

Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

We may not have resisted unto blood, but Jesus did. He wasn't an automoton that couldn't think for Himself. He had to resist and strive. "Being tempted at all points, yet without sin."

I'm not trying to show off. I'm sorry if you were flattered. God isn't a brainless automoton that can't go against his programming. He just doesn't because he is holy.

Kevin, if you want to play Scriptural Swordfight over a Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, you have to do it with someone else, I've unsubscribed from this thread and the UFO thread, I've said all I have to say on those two topics and this SDA doctrine of Christ having a sin nature.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Tony,
Sorry to pull you back into this thread but there's another question I'd like to ask you and I'd like to comment on something you wrote, if you wouldn't mind.

I've never felt that I fully understood this verse about the seed of the woman:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I understood that the seed of the woman refers to Christ but I know I'm still missing something. I don't know how God's seed (Christ) could be called the woman's seed. Did God form Eve with His 'latent' seed inside her that He would 'activate' when the time came? Or is it called her seed as a literary device? to contrast with the norm being the man's seed? That seems like a shallow view to me. What do you think? What does anybody else think?


You said, "It tells us the Adamic sin nature of humanity is passed through the seed of the male, not the female. If these giants were the offspring of angels, then angels must have male seed and blood. Where is the sin nature if angels are not descended from Adam?
The giants then must have been born sinless, and we know only one Man was sinless."

I've wondered in the past why apparently the nephilim couldn't be saved since they were half human. Surely this wasn't your intent but you may have helped me with that question. I see merit in your view that sin nature comes down through the father. If we apply it to the giants,and for argument's sake assume they are the children of fallen angels, they didn't have a human sin nature because that comes through the father, not the mother. What kind of nature do fallen angles have? A fallen nature is an inherited thing so angels don't have it; but would their offspring, if they had any, inherit a fallen or sin nature? In my view, Genesis 6, as well passages dealing with Israel wiping out the giants, portray them as an entirely different kind of evil from what came before or after. God found it necessary to wipe them from the face of the earth by flood the first time and though Israel the second time.

Your sister in Christ,

Jennifer

Sister, I am not trying to be argumentative, that is the venue of the FFF forum. I remembered something when I was researching the Two Witnesses thread and Enoch and what an important similitude, like-figure Enoch is. My point is, on the sons of God of Genesis 6, as soon as I can see a similitude to them, or them pointing to something else as a similitude, then my position might change. I don't expect it to due to this sin-nature precept, but with God all things are possible.

Genesis 3:15 is taken and streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetched a light year to prove Cain was the product of sexual union between Eve and Satan. This provides a convenient foundation for racist bigotry against, well, what ever race a given proponent of this false doctrine may have, most notably blacks. This is part of the "christian occultism" thing we have discussed, and occultic practices manifest in the Church age you and I have a slight disagreement on. I'm not saying you beleive this particularly, I'm just saying others include it in their doctrines and intepretations, along with ghosts, demons, and possessions.

Specifically, Genesis 3:15 does not teach a race of half-Satan/half human entities, but Jesus Christ clears it up here. I included the whole passage top preserve context:

John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Yea, hath God said? Christ was born of one seed, the seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15, the liars who deny Christ, His work, His Deity, His position as Messiah to Israel and Savior of the whole world, all liars are of the "seed" of Satan.

I'll continue to address this question with you as much as you want or need. I'm sorry I cut Kevin short in the other thread but I am not repeating myself on the heresy of Christ having a sin-nature. I replied and gave Scripture for my position, it was not good enough, and I'm not going around and around about it.

Grace and peace sister

Tony

I'm not sure why you addressed this to me because I never said Jesus had a sin nature. I already knew he didn't have one because no such thing as a sin nature exists in the Bible. The term sin nature comes from reformation theology, not Bible theology. If we sin because we have a sin nature then what caused Adam and Eve to sin? Did they have a sin nature before the fall? They sinned because of the same reason we do. They chose their own lusts and desires over God's will.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

Our problem is the flesh!

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)

The virgin birth of Christ is an important, essential and non-negotiable doctrine of the faith, but the idea that Jesus had to be virgin born to avoid the sin nature is silly and a moot point. It was the only way he could be born into this world since he is God and has existed from eternity past. You and I don't have a pre-existence. Our life begins at conception as the result of the union between a man and woman (preferably husband and wife). He couldn't be conceived the same way you and I are or else he would've just been another man. He had to enter the world and take on a body like ours in order to die on a cross and pay for our sins and the only way he could be born was through the virgin birth. He took on a body just like ours EXCEPT he never ever once sinned. I know there are many deep things in the Bible that require a lot of study to understand but a lot of times it is man who complicates things with his man-made theology.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Romans 8:3)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)

As far as Genesis 6; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 is pretty clear about who these sons of God were.

Craig, as I said to Jen, I've unsubscribed from the thread, and addressed her question on Genesis 3 out of courtesy and friendship. I made my position known on the sin nature of Christ whatever theological entity may have originated the phrase and do not wish to argue the point. I've said all I know to say on the issue of the fornicating angel legend and you all will enjoy the thread a lot more without me because I am a Pauline dispensationalist and there may well be half-demon/half Satanic X-Files creatures running around with respect to Satan's war on Israel in OT times and in the Tribulation. Paul tells us that principalities and powers were shown the door by Christ's work on Calvary and that what demonic activity God has allowed is in opposition to Paul's message of Grace, his primacy as the Apostle for today; in other words, words, not Vampires & Werewolves For Lucifer. We, not me alone, we have been given the Great Commission of Acts 9:15 as chosen vessels to bear Christ's name to Gentiles, kings, and Jews as ambassadors for Christ and ministers of the reconciliation, not ministers of exorcisms, occultic studies, and angelogical anatomy.

Christ's sinless nature and the avenue of the Adamic sin nature from the seed of the male are two precepts I absolutely will not move from or compromise on. The passage of this corrupt nature from father to child is obvious. Christ was fully human and was tempted, indeed He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness expressly for that purpose according to the Scriptures and not to demonstrate to me or any of us His attributes, I believe Him without demonstration, but to fulfill the love of Son to His Father and to also demonstrate to Satan, New Sheriff In Town, your time is short.

To me, any hint that Christ had the nature and capacity to commit sin is a heretical doctrine from the bipolar mind of Ellen White of the SDA, as heretical as Bullinger's soul sleep and Universal salvation of lost sinners in hell(along with demons). As heretical as the current "original manuscript" fraud sweeping IFB and Grace churches and the "kenosis theory", that Christ "emptied Himself" of His attributes of Deity that's hovering on the edges of the Grace Movement. "Heresy" is an offensive word and at the same time one Christians are scared to death of due to the Catholic Church having associated it with killing people. "Angels in Genesis 6". Is that a heresy? No, it's like soldiers arguing over the correct color of a rifle strap in combat. Christ having the nature and capacity to sin? Yes, heresy. Not a new thing. I had Charles Finney's autobiography once, the very first sentence he wrote, "America is a paradise of heterodoxy(heresy)". That was well over 100 years ago.

Now, you all discuss the topic(s) raised in this thread to your heart's content and have fun, it's just a dead-end precept with no resolution to me personally Craig.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

Tony,
let me establish that I believe Gen 3:15 refers ultimately to the serpent's seed as the anti-christ and the woman's seed as Christ. Do you really think I am an occultist after my 100 or so posts on this board? Is that your position? Was there anything in my question that led you to suspect this or are you painting with too broad a brush? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

I understand the need to see how the Son's of God in Gen 6 being fallen angels mating with human women could have any place in God's plan; and that you would need an answer to the sin nature question before that.

For arguments sake can we assume for a few moments that the nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels. I've wondered in the past why the nephilim couldn't be saved since they were half-human. Surely this wasn't your intent but you may have helped me with that question. I see merit in your view that our sin nature comes down through the father. If we apply this same principle to the giants, we can see they wouldn't be born with a human sin nature but with a sin nature passed on from a fallen angel. I think a sin nature is an inherited thing so fallen angels wouldn't have it but would their offspring inherit a sin nature? The nephilim would have inherited not a human sin nature but a fallen angelic sin nature. In my view, Gen 6, as well passages dealing with Israel wiping out the giants, portray them as an entirely different kind of evil from what came before or after. Christ died for human sinners with adam's sin nature. He didn't die for offspring of fallen angels with a sin nature inherited from their fathers the fallen angels. There is no propitiation for sins for them just like there is none for their fathers the fallen angels. God found it necessary to wipe them from the face of the earth first by flood and second through Israel.

As far as a similitude for the son's of God fathering the giants like I believe Enoch is a type of the church, the only one I can come up with is the beast of rev 13 which I'm sure is no revelation to you. Rather than requiring that fallen angels mating with human women producing the giants as offspring be a type of something, I would rather try to put it in a broader context.

Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Satan got his first hint that God's plan to redeem man somehow involved lineage so he plotted to destroy the messianic line throughout history. I believe what is related to us in Gen 6 is Satan's first attempt to do so. He managed to corrupt all flesh on earth through his fallen angels mating with women. Only Noah was perfect in his geneology.

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Another thought I had was that there were ever only males in the angelic order. What makes a male a male? It is an interesting question. I can only speculate that all of the angels were amazed when God formed woman out of Adam's rib. No one had ever seen a woman before. Isn't it possible that fallen angels would begin to lust after woman that God had made for man?

Your sister in Christ,

Jennifer

Jesus did not have a sin nature. The Bible (KJV) mentions no such thing. It is in the NIV, but I'm not going to insult you by implying that you give any kind of credence to the NIV because I know you don't even though you've tried to insult me by connecting what I've said with various heresies that's come down the pike.

Once again, our problem is the flesh.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)

Jesus did not have a sin nature, but he did take on a body of flesh and blood like ours. He was God before he took on flesh, he was God during his time on earth, he was God after his ascension. He always has been, now is and forever will be God. Why did he take on a body of flesh and blood?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

*********************

The Bible makes reference to 4 persons or groups as the son of God or sons of God.

1. Jesus - Mark 1:1, John 20:31
2. Adam - Luke 3:38
3. Believers - John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2
4. Angels - Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7

I think it's safe to say you can eliminate the first three as having reference to Genesis 6. That leaves number 4. I personally do not believe the events of Genesis 6:2 will happen again.

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. (Jude 6)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)

CKG,
These verses indicate to me that the events of Genesis 6:2 will happen again unless there are giants who survived being wiped out by Israel. The days of Noe are distinguished by the corruption of human flesh by fallen angels. Why would Jesus liken the last days before His second coming to the days of Noe if the events of Gen 6:2 and I assume you also mean on through 6:12 don't happen again? Do you think Jesus is only referring to the quick destruction, every imagination of man's heart being evil continually, the earth being filled with violence but not the other defining aspect of Gen 6 and Sodom and Gomorrah, namely going after strange flesh? It's true that Satan doesn't need to try to corrupt the messianic line in the last days so that much is different.

Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Those who support the "sons of God" not being human (Seth's decendents) cannot duck out on the required follow-up that this type of union must be possible throughout the rest of history, including today. I know that there are those who teach this, but most who claim that these were "fallen angels" or some other spirit being shy away from this necessary corollary.

It seems that most who are of this position also have some difficulty reading the plain chronology of the verse.

Bro Tim, a couple of thoughts...

1. You are projecting a requirement that it "must" be still possible, but keep in mind there may have been vast differences not only in the atmosphere but also in the physical abilities and DNA of early humans, for example in Gen. 5 we see that people lived 800, 900 years. That's a long time. Clearly this has CHANGED, and those life spans are not possible today—so who is to say that the interaction of Genesis 6 between the Sons of God and females did not change as well, perhaps God prevents it now? Either way I don't think we can claim it's a "necessity" to think that it can still happen today. We just don't know.

2. This is an interesting verse below, it would seem that there is a concern over how women dress and appear to angels, even in N.T. churches...

1 Cor. 11:10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

Matthew Henry:
"She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God."

Brother Tim,
where does your necessary corollary come from? God's Word tells us why we don't see fallen angels producing offspring with human women today:
There is no difficulty reading the plain chronology of this verse Please refer to post #28 by kevinvw regarding the chronology of 6.4:

I agree with kevin here.
Jennifer

The necessity is to consider it a possibility, since there is no evidence other than pure speculation*** that something intervened to stop the activity prior to the flood. The age argument doesn't work because that continued past the flood for a number of generations.

*** Of course, the whole angels-mating-with-women is speculation based on a phrase, "sons of God" which we have seen may have several meanings, although NO SCRIPTURE equates the phrase with angels.

Ahhh Bro. Tim you rascal, perhaps it is you who is ducking, I provided the CLEAR SCRIPTURE back in post 23, then I provided it AGAIN in post 25. Since you won't believe the Bible you are holding, at least read this, the author may not be KJV only but I think gives each interpretation a fair shot, including the Sethite error...
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=67

I personally lean toward the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 being angels which kept not their first estate (Jude 1:6).

As others have written, perhaps Satan was trying to corrupt the "seed of Eve", so as to prevent Jesus from coming. I think it is pretty safe to assume that Noah and his three sons were not of this corrupted seed. But perhaps the wife of Ham was of this corrupted seed. From Ham we have;

Gen 10: 6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.
15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.

I think it was Bro Parrish who sometime ago showed that Ruckman teaches that those tribes with "im" on the end were giants. Here we have Mizraim, Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim, Philistim, and Caphtorim. I think it is significant that Nimrod also has "im" in his name.

I think it is also significant that Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in vs. 19, cities known for their wickedness, especially fornication and going after strange flesh.

I have posted this before, but here is a site that claims that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. You can find several sites with information on this, but this is a good one with photos.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

I don't know if this is the specific site, but awhile back I did a study on this, and it was written that the doorways and rooms found here were very large, tending to imply that the residents of these cities were much larger than ordinary people, in fact, giants. I will try to find that site and post here.

And of course we know of giants such as Goliath, so giants persisted some time after Genesis.

Maybe the sons of God knew that God was going to save men and that they Angels could not be forgiven their sin. so by becoming men they could find a way to enjoy the salvation that men can get from God.
Just a thought

Okay folks, this has to be explained... No more skipping around the words...

Verse 1 "sets up" verse 2. In verse 2, the union is first described which is between either some type of spiritual beings and human women or between the Godly seed (Sethites) and non-Sethite women.

NOW verse 3... What offended God? The deeds of MEN! Fleshly men, not angelic "men".

THEN we come to verse 4. It begins with a NEW SENTENCE! No linking words exist that connect back to either verse 3 or verse 2! It is a statement. Following it is the phrase "and also after that," a phrase which separates the topic. It does not provide a link between "giants" and the offspring of the offending union. The offspring become the "men of renown", not "giants".

FINALLY, verse 5 AGAIN enforces that God is offended at MANKIND!

- Where is the judgment against some kind of spiritual beings? If these creatures have some kind of power over women, why is God offended at MAN (verse 3 and 5)???

- Why is NOTHING said ever again about these half-breeds?

- If the union was possible, and I can see no evidence anywhere else in the Scriptures that it is, then it must still be possible today as well as throughout history. Where are the giants?


This is a difficult passage of Scripture. I will readily grant that. The absence of any other observable evidence of the capability of some type of spirit beings to go around gathering harems of beautiful virgins screams out at me that this interpretation is very flawed.

Bro. Tim, how did Jesus get on Earth as a human child?

Brother Tim

You know from scripture that angels can take on the form of men.

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

They ate food.

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

They looked like men.

Gen 19:10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door

They physically pulled Lot into the house and shut the door.

Gen 19:16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

Once again, they physically laid hold of Lot, his wife, and two daughters.

So, to insist angels cannot assume the physical characteristics of men does not agree with the Bible.

Now if angels could take on a physical body as these two angels did, it is also completely possible that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were also angels that took on the physical form of man and mated with women. The children born would be flesh, they would be men.

That said, if this indeed did happen, I agree with you that normal men were also very wicked, and that God did indeed flood the world to kill them. It's not like man needs any help being wicked. In this, I agree with you.

But notice this, Genesis speaks of the serpent's "seed"

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Perhaps this is only speaking of spiritual seed, or perhaps it is speaking of physical seed, I do not know. But the Bible says the serpent will have seed. But in the geneologies of both Joseph and Mary in the NT, it is physical seed that is described to trace both back to David, and in Luke 3 back to Adam (and Eve).

Hello??? I'm feeling invisible here. Have I been blocked?

Brother Tim, you said:
The Bible says:
Jude
1 Peter
2 Peter
God hasn't allowed it to go on!!! He locked the offending angels in prision unto the day of judgement. There is no necessary corollary!!!

Why would Jesus liken the last days before His second coming to the days of Noe? If you read what it says, the attitude of the people in light of the coming judgment is the context of Matthew 24:37-41 and Luke 17:26-30. That is what Jesus is telling us and nothing else. They continued their lives with a "business as usual" mentality and ignored the coming judgment. This is the point Jesus is making.

Matthew 24
37. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Luke 17
26. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29. But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed

.

To say this is referring to another occurrence like the angels that sinned in Genesis 6 is to read something into it that is not there. The angels that sinned in copulating with women have been dealt with.

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. (Jude 6)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)

Tim, I sort of hate to leave you alone in the thread as the sole dissenter, would you like me to return brother? I have a few roadside bombs to set off.

Grace and peace

Vo Nghuyen Giap

CKG,

You make a valid point. I'll have to think about that.

.................................................. ..................................................
Nevertheless what saith the scripture?

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
These thirteen words prove there is a sin nature.

God says Eve transgressed because she was deceived.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Paul says we have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Eve was deceived but Adam's eyes were wide open. He knew what he was doing. Adam is a son of God, a direct creation of God, like the angels who rebelled. He was not conceived in sin or shapen in iniquity. His descendants are, though.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Adam and Eve didn't have a sin nature when they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve was deceived and Adam decided to follow his wife. God said they would die in the day they eatest thereof. Clearly, something happened immediatley after they disobeyed God's only commandment for them. God wasn't just speaking of the physical death of the body but also spiritual death. They knew they were naked; they were ashamed and they hid from God that day. They knew they needed a covering so they sewed aprons of fig leaves. 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. The coat of skins is typical of the Jewish sacrificial system and ultimately the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sins of adam's descendants. There is such a thing as a sin nature passed down to adam's descendants.

Genesis
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Adam's offense put the curse of death upon all of his descendants.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Mankind has no power to keep from sinning. If we only had to deal with the same circumstances that Adam did perhaps we would make the decision to obey God? We're not in the same situation that Adam was in. God says we are helpless to cease sinning

5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

It seems to me that the idea that sin is in the flesh, flesh being defined as purely physical , is not of christian origin. I think there is some connection to the manichaean view that sin is of the physical realm. When Adam sinned he died spiritually. Sin is a spiritual, not a physical, thing. This idea that there is no sin nature seems dangerous to me.

I just now read George's post on women teaching men that he posted yesterday on a woman's place thread. I think my preceding post is true but I don't know if I should post doctrinal stuff. I don't want anyone to think I am trying to be offensive. I'll stop posting for now.

Greenbear, we're not in a church service in Corinth, I think you are free to state your opinions on the Bible here. If you get too "bossy" we can always have Bro. Tim beat you about the head. :)

She has a point Tim... of course the "offense" in this passage could be merely the fact that they left their "first estate," but still it could be the sexual interaction as well. Like I said we just don't know for sure, but let's face it; there remain some salient facts in this discussion that are still standing like 800 lb. gorilas in the room:

1. The word Nephilim means "fallen ones."

2. The Bible itself clearly defines who the "sons of God" are.
(see scripture in post 23 and 25)

3. To my knowledge, the Sethites were never called the "sons of God."

Well...O.K. I'm getting very confused. :confused:

Not only did the angels leave "their first estate" they also left "their own habitation". I'm tempted to do a word study. Sons of God=fallen angels naysayers please explain what else these verses could mean? Doesn't scripture always define/interpret itself?

Habitation is defined as:

1) a dwelling place, habitation

a) of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit

So, Jude 1:6 could very well be saying they left their spiritual body.

1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

To refute the "godly line of seth"

i) There is no such thing as a godly line of anyone. Jesus genealogy was not godly - it included murderers, adulterers and harlots.

ii) A "saved", "righteous" or "godly" person does not have gigantic children, anywhere in scripture. The opposite is true. Goliath, had four brothers and all of them were his sons. He committed incest with his mother. Not a godly act.

iii) If seth is so godly, why did he do this thing, and why is everyone judged for it?

To me it's simple. I think you are correct in this point about the sons of God, it is defined in scripture as we already showed.