The Nephilim: Sons of God, Daughters of Men

NephilimThe Biblical Truth of the Nephilim

A while ago I posted an article on the Nephilim stating that I did not believe that the Nephilim were demonic offspring.  I then deleted the article because I became uncertain if I was indeed correct.  Since then I have been searching for the truth and I am happy to say I have found the TRUTH.  The reason I am so passionate about the answer to this question is because of the rise in interest in the supernatural, i.e, aliens, trans-humanism etc.  There are stories running abound that during the tribulation demons will be free to do as they please on earth, producing offspring like the Nephilim.  The bible is very clear that we are to not let our minds be captured by occult imagination because when human minds get hold of unbiblical ideas it runs free and causes all sorts of havoc.

Permission received by Anton Bosch to re-publish his article. Thank you!  
[** Emphasis added by DTW]
[** See DTW notes at bottom of article.]

Nephilim

By Pastor Anton Bosch – www.antonbosch.org

The Hebrew word Nephilim is translated “giants” in the Old Testament. It only appears twice in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.  A whole series of doctrines have been built around this word, in spite of the fact that the word only appears rarely. These doctrines on the Nephilim are based on Genesis 6:1-4.(It must be noted that most speculators lean very heavily on extra-biblical writings for most of their information.) The theories can basically be summed up as follows:

Demons / angels (sons of God) had illicit relationships with women (the daughters of men) and these perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as Nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the angles who did this and in order to purify the bloodline of man God brought on the Flood. Through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected, one of which will be the Antichrist[i]. To these people, the Nephilim are also connected to so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life.

Since these theories are gaining ground and a number of books have been published based on this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine Genesis 6 again and see what exactly it teaches. We will discover that the proponents of these theories break every principle of hermeneutics. Here is the text:

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants 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“. (Genesis 6:1-4)

Sons of God

The first problem revolves around who in the passage are the “sons of God”. Some make the connection with Job 1:6; 2:1. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6). It is obvious, and not contested, that the “sons of God” in Job were angels. But does that mean that this term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels?

First, the normal meaning of “sons of God” is “believers”. “But as many as received him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Job 1:6 (a poetic book) is the only place where angels are called “sons of God”. It is logical and reasonable therefore that the normal meaning be attached to the term here, rather than the exception, as found in Job, unless there were something in the text that made a connection between Genesis 6 and Job 1 – which is absent.

Second Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.

So here is the problem. Genesis is obscure about who had the relations. Jesus said angels do not have relations. So either Jesus was mistaken or the “sons of God” were not angels. You choose! It is really as simple as that – there are no other options.

Some try to get around this by saying that the angels inhabited (possessed) human bodies to do this. That sounds good. But here is the question: A Christian man has the Holy Spirit in him. When that man produces a child by his wife, what is the child? God or man? Clearly, it is a man. There are multitudes of people in the world who are demon possessed and who procreate. What do they produce? Human babies or mutants? Obviously human babies. So why should Genesis 6 be any different. If demons entered into men to produce offspring the children would be human, and only human.

One of the principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is interpreted in the light of the New Testament and not the other way round. In order to say that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels (or demons) we must discard the light of the NT and that should never happen.

The nature of the relationships

The next problem is that it is claimed that the angels had illicit relations with women. Yet the text is very clear: “they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2b). The phrase “took wives for themselves” only, and always, means marriage. It never refers to casual, illicit or adulterous relationships. (See Genesis 11:29 & Ruth 1:4). To suggest otherwise is reading into the text that which is simply not there.

Giants

The theory goes that the giants were the product of these illicit relationships. We have shown that the text does not refer to illicit relationships and that the fathers could not be angels.

Genesis 6:4, again is very clear: “There were giants 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.”  Notice that it says there were giants (fact number 1) and afterwards the sons of God came into… (fact number 2). There is NO connection between the fact that there were giants and the fact that people had children.

It is exactly like me saying: “There is milk in the supermarket and eggs are $1.50 a dozen” Milk has no effect on the price, or even the existence, of eggs and the other way around. I am simply stating two facts that describe things about food in the supermarket.

In Genesis 6 Moses is describing the state of the world before the flood. He makes no connection between the Nephilim and the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sentence had been reversed as follows: “The sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore Nephilim” then you could postulate some theory about the nature of this process. But the text does not give us any room to connect the Nephilim with these marriages.

Genesis 6:4 does say that the children that were produced “were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown“. “Mighty men” is a term which is used 154 times in the OT and simply refers to powerful men, either physically or politically. Just like there are many mighty men today and some are men of God and others are worldly and unsaved, so there were mighty men in those days, of which Noah was one.

“Men of old” also holds no mystique, these were simply the heroes of bygone days.

“Men of renown” is also used in Numbers 16:2 and Ezekiel 23:23. These are famous men, or well-known men. The Hebrew term literally means “men with a name” meaning they had “made a name” for themselves.

The descendants of these relationships were not monsters, mutants, or anything extraordinary. Some were ordinary people and some were powerful, some were little known and others had made a name for themselves. Genesis 6:5 (the next verse) goes on to describe these people as wicked and worthy of God’s judgment.

Furthermore, the translation of the word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary. There are many other possible ways this word could be translated here: “Bullies”, “mighty ones” or “tyrants”.  At least one dictionary states that the Nephilim in Genesis and in Numbers were two different peoples[ii]. Once again, we cannot build an entire doctrine on a word which we cannot translate or explain with any measure of certainty.

Genesis 6:4 is simply a description of life before the flood and not a commentary on mysterious genetic mutant life forms. Jesus obviously has this verse in mind when he says: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39) (note the reference to marriage in both verses).

One of the most important principles of hermeneutics is that the verse has to be read in its context. The context is clear, that life was going on as usual, people were becoming more and more self-absorbed and sinful but judgment was coming. This is the same point Jesus was making in Matthew 24 – people will be self-absorbed and fixated on every-day life and will not be ready for His coming.

The cause of the Flood

Those who speculate about the Nephilim, connect them with the reason for the Flood. Once again, there is no connection there. Genesis 6 describes life on earth. Yes, there were Nephilim, but more significantly, people were marrying and having children and becoming more wicked. Genesis 6:5-6 cannot be clearer. God’s judgment fell because of the wickedness of man. This had absolutely nothing to do with demons, angels or mutants. Look at these verses again: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”(Genesis 6:5-7).

If the flood had anything to do with anything other than man’s sinfulness, either Moses or Jesus would have said something in that regard, but both are silent about demons, angels and mutants. The flood had nothing to do with clearing the gene pool. It was all about clearing the earth of sinful and wicked people. Even Sunday school children should be able to tell you that.

If the flood had anything to do with God wanting to destroy the giants because they were “contaminated seed” or to purge the gene pool then, Noah and his sons should have been destroyed also. Noah and his sons carried the gene from which giants were formed. This is obvious since giants (Nephilim) are born after the flood and were present in the Land when the spies were sent to scout out the land (Numbers 13:33). These giants were descendants of Noah since all of humankind after the flood descended from Noah.

Extra-biblical evidence

These speculators quote the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) in support of their ideas as though they are Scripture. Yet, Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture for obvious reasons – they are not, and have never been regarded as inspired except by apostate churches and false teachers.

Once again they break one of the fundamentals of Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics: We hold only to Scripture and do not add, nor subtract from it (Revelation 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). It is especially reprehensible to formulate an entire doctrine on extra-biblical evidence as these people are doing.

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in very old writings that the Hebrew sages never regarded the “sons of God” as angels or demons. But we dare not use that as evidence lest we sink to the same level as these speculators.

Jude 6 is quoted in support of the theories. This verse says: “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” (Jude 1:6).

Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!

2 Peter 2:4-5

Verse 4 is similar to Jude 6: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:4-5).

To those who pluck verses out of their context there appears to be a connection between the sinning angels and the flood. But look at the context:

2Peter 2:1-3 There were, and will be, false teachers and they will “bring upon themselves swift destruction“.

2Peter 2:4 Angels sinned and God “reserved them for judgment

2Peter 2:5 The ancient world sinned and God judged them by the flood but spared Noah

2Peter 2:6-8 Sodom and Gomorrah sinned and God judged them but spared Lot

2Peter 2:9 Therefore in the future, the Lord will judge the unjust and save the godly.

The angels and the pre-flood world are simply two of four examples that Peter quotes to show that God will punish sin. The connections between the sinning angels and the flood are the same connection with false teachers and Sodom – the connections have nothing to do with gene mutation but is all about sin and the consequences thereof.

Conclusion

The purpose of this brief article is not to provide answers to all the questions that surround Genesis 6. In fact, we do not have all the answers and those who claim they have a full and detailed explanation for these verses are speculating. The point of the text in Genesis 6, and 2Peter 2 is to warn that God will not tolerate sin and will judge it.

But what we are certain of is that the theories about angels producing mutant life forms are not Biblical and that the conclusions derived from this theory are fictional, at best.

“…charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith“. (1 Timothy 1:3-4).

“But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.”(1 Timothy 4:7).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)


[i] This is a very brief and highly sanitized summary of some very extreme and bizarre teachings. But it must also be noted that those who hold to these teachings differ greatly amongst themselves as to how far they take their conclusions.

[ii]Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.


[DTW notes with the help of Anton Bosch (thank you again for all your assistance):

1)  David and Goliath – 

 width=

Yes, there were giants but not in the sense of the pictures of Jack and the beanstalk. Goliath was anywhere between 6’9” to 10′ tall.  The oldest manuscripts – the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the first-century historian Josephus, and the fourth century Septuagint manuscripts – all give his height as “four cubits and a span”, about six feet, nine inches tall (two meters), but later manuscripts have it as “six cubits and a span,” which would make him almost ten feet tall (three meters). The average height of the LA Lakers basketball team is 6’4″, with a few of them at 6’9″.  Andre the Giant from the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) stood at 7’4″ while the Great Khali currently stands at 7’1″.  [Note that DTW has never referred to the dead-sea scrolls for information, but to help explain Goliath in this instance, it is very necessary.]

Saul stood “head-and-shoulders” above the rest of the people and David (it seems) could fit into his armour. David appears extra small to Goliath because he was just a youth when he fought and killed Goliath. However when David grew up he was able to use Goliath’s sword (1Sam 21). So as adults David and Saul were almost as big as Goliath! – now that’s a revolutionary thought!

The same goes for the Canaanites, they were giant men, but not from another world.  There is no possible way that these giants were of an extraterrestrial nature because the bible does not say so – the bible does say there were giants before the flood and their DNA must have been in Noah because the DNA is carried forward to beyond the flood. We need to remain silent on the things the Bible is silent on – we can’t go around and make wild speculations as many well known pastors are doing.  To again speculate that angels came down again to have relations with human women to produce more giants after the flood is just nonsense.

2)  Those giant skeletons they supposedly found in Greece and Middle East –

 width= width= width=

 width=

THERE’S A good reason we haven’t heard about this epic discovery in the New York TimesScientific American, or any other legitimate publication, and that is that these photos, like the one circulating since 2004 purporting to show a giant skeleton found in the Middle East, are fakes.

As if it weren’t preposterous enough to claim that one 15-foot-tall fossilized human skeleton had turned up without media fanfare, we’re asked to believe that archaeologists recently dug up four of them in a single location (Greece). In point of fact, each of the photos appears to have been taken at a different time and place.

So far I’ve only been able to locate the original of one of them, but it serves as clear proof that Photoshopping took place. Image #4 was created by inserting an outsized human skull into a photo of a 1993 University of Chicago dinosaur dig in Niger, Africa (see the original here). If you look at a blow-up of the doctored image, the skull appears flattened and unnatural (and one of the workers actually appears to be standing on it!).

Moreover, the same cut-and-pasted skull was used to create image #2 (see side-by-side comparison). A blow-up of image #2 with brightness and contrast enhanced reveals unnaturally dark “shadows” around the skull. The skull in Image #3 is marked by incongruously bright highlights on the teeth and around the edges of the gaping temple wound. And in image #5 the shadows coming off the skeleton fall more or less toward the camera, while the worker’s shadow falls due left, suggesting that elements of two different photos were combined.

Finally, despite frequent references to “giants” in ancient mythology and English translations of the Bible, there is no generally accepted scientific or historical evidence that such beings ever actually existed (unless you consider the Weekly World News a reliable source).

source:  http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/supernaturalwonders/ss/giants_in_greece_6.htm

NB!! See here for more giant skeletons and why they are a hoax as well:  http://yowcrooks.blogspot.com/2008/12/giant-skeleton-hoax.html

3)  Nephilim: A greater understanding of Jude 5-10:

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” (Jude 1:6)

Jude 6 is quoted in support of their theories connecting it to Genesis 6 that angels came down and had relations with women. Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!

To explain Jude 5 – 8 properly, it contains a number of separate examples of God judging  sin. Just like paprables where there is a central truth and the only connection between the parables is that truth (e.g. That which was lost is found: lost coin, lost sheep, lost son).  Here there are four examples showing the same truth that God judges sin. The examples are: 1) Israel’s unbelief in not crossing into the land, 2) angels who did not keep their proper domain, 3) Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual sin and 4) false teachers.
——
If there is a sexual connection between Sodom and the angels (the angels sinned in a sexual way) then there must also be a connection between Sodom and Israel and between Israel and the angels. But that is not the link here.  The link is sin.In the case of Israel it is unbelief (Hebrews 3 & 4), in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it is homosexuality and in the case of the angels it was rebellion when Satan was cast down from heaven and 1/3 of the angels followed.
——
Note that the text must be read in its context and we cannot simply make connections and draw conclusions that are not there. Now concerning the statement “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode”. People connect that to Sodom and say that this means angels had relations with women. But we need to examine the statement carefully. The first word “proper domain” according to Thayer means:
——
 Original: oiketerion
– Transliteration: Arche
– Phonetic: ar-khay’
– Definition:
1.  beginning, origin
2.  the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3.  that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4.  the extremity of a thing
a.  of the corners of a sail
5.  the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a.  of angels and demons
Note the word is “Arche” from which we get “arch-enemy”, “arch-rival” etc. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with primacy, authority etc. The second is “abode”. This is also a very common word: (oiketerion) which simply means house, habitation or abode.The verse then teaches that the angels did not remain in their proper authority and left their place. This could be construed to mean they had relations with the daughters of men. But it forces and construes a meaning that is NOT obvious to the sentence.
——
A more natural interpretation is that the angels rebelled against God’s authority at the very beginning when Satan was cast out of heaven and left their place in the order and hierarchy of God. The English Standard version (ESV) is one of the best translations available. The ESV has the verse as follows:  “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-
“This is supported by June 9-10 which speaks about false preachers who do not know their proper place when dealing with the Devil and demons(and yes, Satan is a “dignitary”  – powerful person ).
——
What we do not know is why some of these angels (demons) were chained in the “abyss” and others were left to roam the earth. We can only surmise that some sinned more grievously than others. But it also seems that the Lord can (and probably does) throw more of them into the abyss for whatever reason:
——
Luke 8:30-32   “30 Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.  32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them..”
——
Now for Jude 7:  The cities around them refers to Admah and Zeboim:

Deuteronomy 29:23  “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”

Hosea 11:8  “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”

The words “similar manner to these” can only refer to the most recently mentioned subjects – the cities. There is no way, at all that it can refer to the Angels. No language works like that.

When we say “Tom went to church and John went to the mall and Jerry went to the beach and he got sunburned.” The “he” can only refer to the most recent subject – Jerry.

So the meaning is very clear and obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to immorality and Admah and Zeboim did likewise. There is no other possibility.

The problem here is that it all begins with a bad exegesis is Genesis 6. If you read Genesis 6 to mean that Angels had relations with women (and reject the words of Jesus that they cannot) then you have to find further support. Once you have jumped to that conclusion, it is easy to misread and misinterpret Jude 6&7. But if you do not make assumptions about relations between angels and women, then there is no way you can read that into Jude. So, you have to force the meaning of Gen 6 and then you have to force the meaning of Jude 6 to come to a conclusion.

Please share:
guest
190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

In response to Ian

So, the holy angels have a whopping sexual appetite but they are not allowed to marry? (1 Corinthians 7:9). Has God forbidden them to marry? If so, God would be guilty of aiding and abetting the Antichrist.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1Ti 4:1-3)

Ian wrote:

If Cain was not a ‘son of God’ and Seth was, and if these two sections of society interbred, that in itself would not result in giants with 24 digits. Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage. If, the serpent possessed by satan had sex with Eve, why is it thought impossible for fallen angels to have sex with beautiful women, daughters of mankind.

Who says Satan had sex with Eve? That’s a load of baloney. If the fallen angels are the sons of God (male) why aren’t there any daughters of God (female) among them? Angels (good and bad) are spirit beings and cannot have sex and neither can they get married. The notion that they can is a filthy occult belief.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Ian wrote,

If Cain was not a ‘son of God’ and Seth was, and if these two sections of society interbred, that in itself would not result in giants with 24 digits. Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage.

The word giant (Nephilim) in Genesis 6 does not necessarily refer to a huge body build, stature, or height. Strong’s says:

נְפִל נְפִיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel’, nef-eel’
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant. He felled people (slew them) like we would cattle.

Nimrod was not a big man and yet he was a tyrant (a Nephil).

I will leave you with this.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Co 13:11)

Ian

Tom, I do not for one minute believe that Satan had sex with Eve. I do not for one minute believe that Satan had sex with Eve. But I know some people who do believe that.

There is a teaching promoted by the late William Branham which teaches that very thing. This teaching says that the result of a sexual union between Eve and the serpent was Cain.
The Scriptures say Cain was of that wicked one (1 Jn 3:12). That Scriprture is used to “prove”that Cain was the offspring of a sexual union between Satan and Eve.

The fact is that Scripture says “OF that wicked one” NOT “from that wicked one”. The Pharisees were called the generation of vipers. But this does not make them the physical seed of Satan. Jesus called many of the Jews who were out to kill Him childre of the devil. But this does not mean they were physical children of the devil. Jesus was speking about their spiritual union.

But some do believe Cain was the result of a physical union. And they say that the sons of God were of the line of Seth.
The argument that follows that idea,if I have it right, is that these sons of God – sons of Seth, and the daughters of Cain had sexual union and produced the giants that were alive in Noah’s day.

let me say it again, I do not believe that Cain was a product of Satan for one minute. But many do. I have a friend in my town who believes this teaching…which is called the Serpent Seed. And I have met others who believe the same thing.

The holy angels DO NOT have a whopping sexual appetite as you make me say. They are holy in every respect being created holy and maintaining that holiness by virtue of their submission to The Most Holy God at the time of that great conflagration, battle in Heaven, when one third of the angels fell behind Lucifer, and they were thrown out.

God in His wisdom allowed a brief moment when angels could chose to remain faithful or not, however that battle worked out.
The holy angels DO NOT not have a desire for sin of any kind. They are holy and are forever holy. The holy angels do not have a desire for sexual sin or any sin. Do I make myself plain? It is you Tom who have said I said that, or that I inferred that. This is not the case.

By the same token the unholy angelic spirits, be they demons, evils spirits, devils, or fallen angels have absolutely no desire for righteousness or holiness. None whatsoever. They forfeited that right when they fell in with Lucifer. God says that the end of sin is death. That is where these evils spirits are before God…completely dead to holiness and holy desires, being cut off from God.

This means they only have a desire for sin of every kind. And their appetite for sin can never be satisified. This is why they seek our compliance in evil. They feed off our lusts, and our evil works.

It is the evil spirits who have a whopping appetite for sexual sin, amongst every other form of rebellion, because that is all they have, having rejected God and His holiness which was at one time their blessedness.
They sowed and now they reap.
And because they have incredible powers in the spiritual realm which we know so little about, and because those powers are for the propogation of all rebellion against every one of God’s holy laws, they work their ‘magic’ and are able to perform wonders.

Some of these evils beings were around on earth during Noah’s days and were infecting the children of Adam with every perversion they could think of, and sexual perversion was one of them. If anyone thinks that these malignant beings were just standing by looking on human degradation with passive interest, then they have little idea of the nature of the work of Satan, or of his ability.
Man is accountable for his own sin. But man is not alone in his sinning. He has interested parties.

It was some of these beings who were working every kind of lust in the inhabitants of Sodom and its satellite cities, teaching them and working with them. These spirits were the ones behind the cry of the men of Sodom to lay with the those two holy angels.
The men were responsible for their own lusts but the evil one was behind it all, just like he was behind the evil intent of the religious leaders in Jesus day to kill Him.

You say Tom, “Angels (good and bad) are spirit beings and cannot have sex and neither can they get married.”

We know that righteousness breeds righteousness and unrighteosuness breeds unrighteousness. He who is holy let him be holy still. He is who is unholy let him be unholy still.
Jesus said that the ones who are worthy to taste of the resurrection neither marry or are given in marriage, but are like the angels of Heaven. Jesus is plainly talking about the angels of Heaven. He does not bring the evil spirits into that statement.

As to the unholy angels, the Bible does not put that limitation on them.

Tom, may I suggest that you have no idea what the evils spirits are capable of doing.
But we do not fear the evil spirits. But we ought not be ignorant of their devices.

Even God said of rebellious men, and “now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” Gen 11. May I put it to you that this may also be said of evil, malignant, powerful rebellious, spirits.

Once again, HOLY ANGELS HAVE ONLY ONE DESIRE, THAT IS TO TO PLEASE AND OBEY THEIR GOD AND CREATOR, IN EVERY RESPECT AND WITHOUT FAIL, IMMEDIATELY. They are not curious about sin, only to llok into the great salvation that has been porovided for us who believe wholly in Jesus Christ the Lord.

Ian

Tom , your know this, but Jesus said that when the evil spirit is cast out of a man, then they wander over all the earth seeking for a house, a human body to live in. They find none, they they decide to go back and check out their last residence. If they find it empty they go right in like a squatter and take seven other spirits worse than themselves. The last state of that man is worse than the first.

The evils spirits don’t just seek a place – person to live in. They seek to control that person, and control their desires for evil, of every and any kind. They work to that end. And that end is death or that person unless they repent or are set free by the power of Jesus Christ.
But this is only one aspect to their evil operations among mankind.

Ian

Tom, you have said…
“Were there no one in the Old Testament who received Jesus Christ and believed in Him? The Bible says we can only be saved if we have the faith of Abraham. Wasn’t he a son of God? If we are called the sons of God, why wasn’t Abraham called a son of God whose faith we have to emulate? If we are sons of God and we have the faith of Abraham, then he too must have been a son of God.”

In HINDSIGHT we of the new covenant understand that all those who have active faith in Christ Jesus are called sons of God in the new covenant, and we would think that would include old testament saints as well. All such are children of faithful Abraham.

What we need to think about is what is recorded in the Bible as to historical facts, before Christ came.

The old testament saints are called righteous, saints. But it was not until Hosea that with respect to ‘believing’ children of men are they called sons of God
…..”Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10
God is speaking about the time of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

Spiritual children of Abraham are not called sons of God until the new covenant. And this is for good reason, because Jesus had to come first, before He would bring us all to the Father, as many as believe. Until Christ came, the spiritual adoption could not take place, for Jesus was the First born of many brethren – Firstborn from the dead.

So literally, and technically, the term ‘sons of God’ as given in the early part of the Old Testament does not refer to spiritual children of faithful Abraham. Abraham had not even come into existence at the time of the outworking of Genesis 6.

If ‘sons of God’ was a legitmate term for the old testament saints it would stand to reason that God would have had his holy prophets use it just as freely as it is used in the NT. That is not the case. Its use is a very rare ocurrence in the OT.

For the above reasons, I think it is reasonable to state that the use of the term “sons of God” before Hosea 1:10 (unless the context clearly states otherwise) refers not to men but to the angelic realm.
And once again, I state here, if this is the case, then the sons of God in Genesis 6 is NOT SPEAKING ABOUT HOLY ANGELS but is referring to unholy created beings of an angelic nature.

Jude gives us some insight “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 1:6.
“Estate’ refers to position or authority, principality, power or rule. Habitation speaks of – residence, house, and is related to the word for jail.

But the next statement throws more light on what Jude has just said.

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

“Even as” is a phrase that implies “in like manner”, or “in the same way”, etc.
These ‘angels’ behaved in the same way as the Sodomites. The Sodomites went after strange flesh. The implication here is that strange flesh is a flesh different to that which the other party has. The ‘angels’ lusted after creatures not like them…earth bound creatures. Beastiality is a hideous sin and demons love that activity and l;ure men into it. There is no reason to think they would not follow that path of evil…whatever is possible they would do it.
.
The “even as” may refer to one or both… the behaviour akin to the sodomites, and the punishment. And I think the text implies both.

We know that angels don’t have a physical material body made of dust. But they do have a spiritual body of some kind. They are not gas or ether or wisps of the willow stuff.
Those angels Jude speaks about WERE NOT the holy angels who remained true to God in the rebellion of Lucifer.

Holy angels are not reserved in everlasting chains. Holy angels did not desire to sin, nor can they now. They are as it were locked in to holiness, just like we will be locked in to absolute holiness in our glorified bodies in Father’s house.
Those unholy angels which Jude is speaking of in 1:6 are those who rebelled and had been placed in a restricted zone or sphere of operation.

But in the wisdom and allowance or permission of God (for nothing can happen if God does not allow it. This does no implicate God in any sin whatsoever.), these angels (now in everlasting chains) obviously serving Satan’s purpose, transgressed even further and crossed over another boundary which brought them under a stricter punishment – God “hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

So when the text in Genesis 6 speaks of sons of God, we are forced to conclude that they were either a category of men, or a category of angelic beings – non human. Seeing that there is no consistent use of that term to describe saints in the Old Testament, we need to look for another meaning. And we find it in Job 1 and 2 and 38.

It seems a bit odd that if the term related to children of Seth or saints of God, they would all of a sudden notice beautiful women around them as if earlier generations had not. Every generation since Eve has always had many beautiful women. That is a fact of life, and it is not the fault of the women :).

It is interesting to note in Jude 1:6 that the word for “they took”, can also mean “they seized”. The text also says that they took as many as they desired, which might mean that each took many women for themselves as they chose.
If malicious spirit beings were involved they would literally be able to cart off women by sheer force. Many of them have incredible strength, as the new testament shows.

But perhaps none of this makes sense to you Tom because Angels good or bad cannot have sex. And you know this to be a fact for bad angels.

Perhaps you are right about the bad angels.

But maybe… you are wrong….???

Jesus told us that just as it was in the days of Lot so will it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. The Sodomites were going after angelic beings if they saw them. Do you suppose that the demonic realm in our time would be any less evil??
Holy angles are allowed to appear as men as they do God’s will on earth. Then unholy angels would want to break every rule in the book and appear in different forms, not just as angels of light.
I know of one old african man who lives here in my town and he has told me some instances of evil spirits appearing in half fish half man form, and he witnessed it himself. This is not an isolated account. Dagon the Philistine idol was half fish and half man.

Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah so will it be when the Son of Man comes. Do you know that it is reported of Mr Bergoglio the Vatican Head poncho, that he stated that if aliens (demons) appear the Church (of Rome) would welcome them and baptize them into the Church?
He has hinted that if aliens are found they would need to rewrite the Bible? …obviously deleting all references to Jesus Christ as Son of God, as Redeemer, as the way, the truth, and the life to God, as the only sacrifice for sins, as the Lamb of gGod, as our Judge, as our High Priest and so on. Satan would be called “God” and the antichrist would be called the son of god, and the false prophet the prophet.

We are living in evil days.
Were you aware that many Governments around the world are preparing for alien communication? It’s in the media; it’s in the movies; it’s in the comics, and games and advertizing all around us. We are being educated, prepared….

Do you realize that the end result of evolution is to become god-like? It is the end game of many cults, and various perversions of Christian teaching.

Do you realize that in every ancient religion there is this welding coming together, union of the ‘spiritual’ and the physical, of men with angels, or demi demon gods? Free masonry is loaded with this idea, and all those mystery religions.

Many world leaders and religious leaders, and the Jesuits, are all working behind the scenes to bring this stuff about, under the inspiration of the devil.

Man is producing transhuman material and is preparing to foist it onto the gullible public, all in the name of science (gnostic – knowledge), in his quest for eternal life.
But of course this is all rubbish and those who speak of it are crazy.

God said it in the beginning of the Book…now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

The stage is set….

The Lord Jesus is coming for a spotless bride who are continually trimming their lamps and making sure they have oil in their vessels.

Jesus said that when you see all these things and calamities of course, coming upon you, do not fear, but look Heavenward – look up, for your redemption draws near.

We need to repent and build up ourselves in our most holy faith in Jesus Christ, as Jude says, praying in the Holy Ghost.
We need to meet with other genuine believers in Jesus Christ, who want to follow Jesus all the way. We need to read the Bible prayefully and humbly, live in it and by it and seek the face of God daily. We need to tell others about Jesus.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Dear Ian

Please just clarify something for me:

You say: >> Satan, does not have a physical body like man. He, as do all his evil spirit followers (demons etc) are restless and they seek a physical body. When an evil spirit is cast out of a man, he wanders all over the place and not finding rest decids to go back to his previous occupancy. Not finding it occupied he just walks right in and invites even more perverse evil spirits. Things go from bad to worse for that man.

>> Abnormal defects in offspring has to come about by abnormal parentage.

Are you saying that
1) children who are born in this day and age with down syndrome, missing hand or club foot have parents who had sex with demons or
2) come from a linage of demonic people that can never be saved?
OR
3) are you saying that children born with defects are because the parents have demons in them and are not saved?

Elsje Parsons Massyn

Dear writer of this article. I so enjoyed the article about the truth about the Freemason history of Calvin and the Hugeonots but unfortunately I have to refer you to the exact same problem I have with your article. You cannot trust the compilers of the Bible under King James (who was a Freemason himself)or that the Bible has been compiled of ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION WE NEED to clarify questions we have about certain issues. In this case you cannot read Genesis six without reading The Book of Enoch. Jesus quoted from it and so are there many references to the Book of Enoch hidden in Scripture itself. The book of Enoch was once part of the Bible but removed (i.e. the Ethopian “Coptic” Bible still contains the Book of Enoch as part of the Canon”

If you don’t believe that then you must also remove all research you did on Calvin and his Freemason background, since the Dutch reformed and sister churches “made very sure that no mention is made about it in their Catechism” just as the compilers of the Bible don’t want you to have the full picture of what happened before the flood.

According to the Book of Enoch the “Sons of God” were the angels that left there station because they lusted after the “daughters of men” and had children with them. The mixture between the angelic and human caused the children to produce earthbound, giantly like their fathers and mostly evil. The Book of Enoch says the angels (sons of God) taught human woman hidden knowledge and the generations that came out of those unions did EVIL ON THE EARTH. They sinned against the fish of the sea, birds of the air (and ate all the food “acquisitions” of man). They were violent and even turned on each other, i.e. cannibalism etc. God’s judgement on the children of the angels were as follows:

“their bodies will perish in the flood”
“their spirits will be called demons and live on after the flood”
“they will harass humans as long as humanity shall live”
“they will always be hungry and thirsty but never be filled”

If you read the gospels – these demons referred to Jesus that they knew Him “before time”
That they awaited judgement to come
They harass humans by creating diseases and other ailments
They may leave the body of the human but if not filled will return with 7 worse than they (their brothers)

PLEASE READ THE BOOK OF ENOCH A-G-A-I-N WITH UNDERSTANDING AND THEN AGAIN ATTEMPT TO GIVE A BETTER ARTICLE ABOUT THE FULL PICTURE.

IF YOU DONT HAVE THE CORRECT BOOK OF ENOCH I WILL E-MAIL IT TO YOU JUST ASK.

Please also be informed that the Bible (this includes many translations) have been deducted and added so many times in so many forms that if you don’t do the study you wont notice it.

If you want proof that you cannot trust your translators (who are most probably Freemasons and untrusting themselves) – let me forward you some information about the facts.

Please check out
http://www.trumpetcall.co.za
for info about the Book of Enoch

Tom (Discerning the World)

First of all, the designation “sons of God” is a generic term and therefore not a gender issue. Had it been a gender issue, female believers would have had to be excluded from passages in Scripture like the following:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (Joh 1:12).

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Rom 8:14).

What makes one a son of God whether one lived in the Old or in the New Testaments? Well, I should think FAITH in Jesus Christ is the sole reason why anyone may be called a son of God (male and female), despite the fact that the covenant was ratified when Jesus died on the cross. If faith in Christ Jesus is the only legitimate reason for being saved, then sons of God may also legitimately make believers sons of God, whether in the Old or the New Testament.

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Gal 3:8-17)

Satan and his fallen angels may have been called sons of God before their fall but they despised and left their first estate as sons of God and became demons. They are no longer sons of God. Had they still been sons of God we will have to tear out the above two passages from Scripture. You cannot divorce what the New Testament says about the sons of God from the Old Testament. Hence my argument that Abraham and all the other saints in the Old Testament were as much the sons of God as those in the New.

You wrote:

In HINDSIGHT we of the new covenant understand that all those who have active faith in Christ Jesus are called sons of God in the new covenant, and we would think that would include old testament saints as well. All such are children of faithful Abraham.

What we need to think about is what is recorded in the Bible as to historical facts, before Christ came.
The old testament saints are called righteous, saints. But it was not until Hosea that with respect to ‘believing’ children of men are they called sons of God
…..”Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10
God is speaking about the time of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
Spiritual children of Abraham are not called sons of God until the new covenant. And this is for good reason, because Jesus had to come first, before He would bring us all to the Father, as many as believe. Until Christ came, the spiritual adoption could not take place, for Jesus was the First born of many brethren – Firstborn from the dead.

What do you mean by “active faith?” There is no mention in the Bible of an “active faith.” It is obvious that you have deliberately fabricated it to make a distinction between Abraham’s and all the other Old Testament saints’ faith and the New Testament saints’ faith. And even if there were such a thing, Abraham’s faith was more active than your and my faith put together because he sacrificed his only son, Isaac. What’s the difference between a faith looking ahead in time to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (“My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering”) and a faith looking back in hindsight to the burnt offering of Jesus Christ on the cross? There is absolutely no difference whatsoever and as such both can be called sons of God. In Fact, when the believing Pharisees in Acts 15 wanted to put an Old Testament yoke upon New Testament saints, Peter said an amazing thing. He said: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (the Jews) shall be saved, even as they (the Gentiles).” Abraham was not saved as a Jew (Law and circumcision) but as a Gentile (before he was circumcised) and therefore perfectly fit to be called a son of God and not just a righteous saint, as you forcefully make him.

Moreover, your use of the term “righteous saints” is also glaringly absent in the Bible. In fact, all saints, Old and New Testament, are all righteous. Had they been otherwise they could never have been called saints because only the righteous are set apart unto God (saints). By the way what is the difference, according to you, between a righteous saint and a son of God? The only prerequisite to be called a son of God is to believe on Him (John 1:12) and both — Old and New Testament saints — believed and believe on Him.

You wrote:

If ‘sons of God’ was a legitmate term for the old testament saints it would stand to reason that God would have had his holy prophets use it just as freely as it is used in the NT. That is not the case. Its use is a very rare ocurrence in the OT.
For the above reasons, I think it is reasonable to state that the use of the term “sons of God” before Hosea 1:10 (unless the context clearly states otherwise) refers not to men but to the angelic realm.
And once again, I state here, if this is the case, then the sons of God in Genesis 6 is NOT SPEAKING ABOUT HOLY ANGELS but is referring to unholy created beings of an angelic nature.
Jude gives us some insight “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 1:6.
“Estate’ refers to position or authority, principality, power or rule. Habitation speaks of – residence, house, and is related to the word for jail.
But the next statement throws more light on what Jude has just said.
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
“Even as” is a phrase that implies “in like manner”, or “in the same way”, etc.
These ‘angels’ behaved in the same way as the Sodomites. The Sodomites went after strange flesh. The implication here is that strange flesh is a flesh different to that which the other party has. The ‘angels’ lusted after creatures not like them…earth bound creatures. Beastiality is a hideous sin and demons love that activity and l;ure men into it. There is no reason to think they would not follow that path of evil…whatever is possible they would do it.

You are treading on dangerous ground when equating a normal sexual relationship with women in a marital situation with homosexuality. You cannot and dare not refer to a normal sexual relationship with women in a marriage as going after strange flesh. However, you don’t stop there when you also equate a normal marital situation with beastiality. Genesis 6 simply says that the sons of God (fallen angels, as you would like to believe) took unto themselves wives from the daughters of men as many as they chose. Where’s the beastiality in this? As I said, you are watching too many Hollywood horror movies. The term “strange flesh” cannot possibly refer to flesh different to that which the other party has. Homosexuals have the very same flesh as any other homosexual. There’s nothing strange about this. The term “strange flesh” simply means to practice or indulge in a sexual relationship which is abnormal and not permitted by God. It does not mean that the one party has one kind of flesh and the other party another kind of flesh. If it were true that fallen angels married and had sex with earthly women, it would mean that they had to be incarnated as human beings with the very same flesh as the earthly women. In fact, that is precisely what a marriage involves — becoming one flesh. Fallen angels could never have married earthly women if they did not have the same flesh. Do you believe fallen angels were incarnated into the same flesh as earthly women? If so, you are blaspheming the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ. Only God can incarnate. Do you really think he would have incarnated fallen angels into the very same kind of flesh as earthly women in order to become one flesh, the supreme prerequisite for a bond to be called a marriage? You must be joking. If God, the only One capable of incarnating, put flesh and bones on spiritual beings like fallen angels, He would have been guilty of sin. Is that what you want?

You wrote:

We know that angels don’t have a physical material body made of dust. But they do have a spiritual body of some kind. They are not gas or ether or wisps of the willow stuff.
Those angels Jude speaks about WERE NOT the holy angels who remained true to God in the rebellion of Lucifer.

Holy angels are not reserved in everlasting chains. Holy angels did not desire to sin, nor can they now. They are as it were locked in to holiness, just like we will be locked in to absolute holiness in our glorified bodies in Father’s house.

Those unholy angels which Jude is speaking of in 1:6 are those who rebelled and had been placed in a restricted zone or sphere of operation.
But in the wisdom and allowance or permission of God (for nothing can happen if God does not allow it. This does no implicate God in any sin whatsoever.), these angels (now in everlasting chains) obviously serving Satan’s purpose, transgressed even further and crossed over another boundary which brought them under a stricter punishment – God “hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

You address me as if I am an uneducated illiterate fool who does not understand sin and the consequences thereof. You really don’t have to tell me that holy angels are not reserved in everlasting chains, you know. My common sense tells me they are not. You are making assumptions that are never substantiated in the Word of God. You cannot assume that spiritual beings have some kind of spiritual body. God is Spirit. Does he have some kind of spiritual body?

I really wish you would quote the Bible correctly. Jude 1:6 says that some of the fallen angels are “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” That means they were not allowed to enter the earthly realm like the other fallen angels but were immediately cast into Tartarus where they are kept in chains. How could they have married and have sex with earthly women when they were immediately cast into Tartarus and only be released on the Day of Judgement to be cast into the Lake of Fire? Oh, but of course, it was the other angels who also left there first estate who married and spawned children (giants) on the earth. And yes, of course they could marry earthly women because they supposedly had spiritual bodies. You are making a mockery of holy matrimony which, as I explained to you earlier, (in case you do not know) is a bond between two entities with the same kind of flesh so that they may become one flesh, and not between one with a spiritual kind of flesh and the other with a normal earthly kind of flesh. Or can a spiritual body become one flesh with an earthly body? That’s ridiculous, to say the least.

You wrote:

So when the text in Genesis 6 speaks of sons of God, we are forced to conclude that they were either a category of men, or a category of angelic beings – non human. Seeing that there is no consistent use of that term to describe saints in the Old Testament, we need to look for another meaning. And we find it in Job 1 and 2 and 38.
It seems a bit odd that if the term related to children of Seth or saints of God, they would all of a sudden notice beautiful women around them as if earlier generations had not. Every generation since Eve has always had many beautiful women. That is a fact of life, and it is not the fault of the women.

Oh, I see, Solomon who had many beautiful women among his own people chose to marry women of other pagan nations because the beautiful women of his own people were not as beautiful as the women of the pagan nations. What kind of circular reasoning is that? At least, you are right in one aspect when you say “it is not the fault of the women” because they were seized and forced to marry the fallen angels. In that case, God would not be a just God because He wrongfully judged innocent women, have them perished in the flood and sent them to hell because they had no say in their marriage. Nice doing, I must say.

I really don’t have the time to discuss with you your belief in aliens from other planets etc. What I have said thus far is enough to refute your stance on Genesis 6. What I would like to address is your following statement.

Holy angles are allowed to appear as men as they do God’s will on earth. Then unholy angels would want to break every rule in the book and appear in different forms, not just as angels of light.
I know of one old african man who lives here in my town and he has told me some instances of evil spirits appearing in half fish half man form, and he witnessed it himself. This is not an isolated account. Dagon the Philistine idol was half fish and half man.

There are no recorded incidents in the Bible where unholy angels appeared in the same form as Jesus and the holy angels in the old Testament. Persons who are involved in occult and demonic practices (witch doctors and sangomas) do see apparitions of demons but they never do or can appear to them in the same form as holy angels and Jesus appeared to men in the Old Testament. The apparitions of Mary throughout the world are also demonic appearances and fall in the same category as the apparitions witch doctors and sangomas often see. However, what we are dealing with here is the alleged marriage of fallen angels with earthly women and the spawning of giants. Have the apparitions the witch doctors and sangomas saw also taken earthy women in marriage unto themselves and have they spawned any children? If not you cannot compare your examples with the scene in Genesis 6 to prove that fallen angels were the sons of God who married earthly women and had kids with them.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Please read this article to get some insight on the Book of Enoch.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

You wrote:

Jesus quoted from it [The Book of Enoch] and so are there many references to the Book of Enoch hidden in Scripture itself.

Neither Jesus nor Jude quoted from “a” or “the” Book of Enoch. In case you do not know, allow me to tell you a little secret. Jesus is God and as such He is omniscient. In fact, He knows everything every single human being has or will ever say and think even before they think and or say it. (Psalm 139:4). He has no need to make an effort to go to a bookstore, buy it and read it so that He may quote from it. The notion that Enoch of the Bible wrote “The Book of Enoch” is a myth, to say the least. The books from Genesis to Revelation were all inspired by the Holy Spirit and not an unholy spirit. It may be true that an unholy spirit inspired “The Book of Enoch” in the same say he inspired The Book of Thomas and The Book of Judas because God the Holy Spirit will never inspire anyone to write trash like the following. We read in chapter 7:12-15 of the Book of Enoch…

7:12 Whose stature was each three hundred cubits (450 feet). These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;
7:13 When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;
7:14 And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
7:15 Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.

In chapter 40 and verses 7 to 10 we read:

7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord
8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have
9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

Unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel who is never mentioned in the Bible … “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” you cannot be saved.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Elsje

I will just add this to Tom’s great reply to your comment…

You may as well just become a Freemason as they too trust the Book of Enoch over the bible. A simple definition for a Freemason is ‘someone that does not believe in the word of God’. You can’t serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), you either chose Satan or your chose Jesus Christ. If you do not choose Jesus Christ and His Word because Jesus Christ IS the Word of God you automatically choose Satan.

There is nothing in the Word of God that is contradictory, however the Book of Enoch totally contradicts the Bible on it’s most important factor; that Jesus Christ is your mediator between you and God not some angel.

Ethiopians are Coptic they are not Christian just as the Roman Catholic church is Catholic not Christian.

Ben

I find it laughable that so many would deny the books of Moses as anything other than the words and teachings of the God of Abraham. Amazingly concerned. Ben
Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

Bob
>> Im still confused about falling angels, giants,demons, and bizzard things
How can you be confused? I have just given you the answer, the truth. Did you even read the article properly?
This article is not denying that demons do not exist hence there is reference to Jesus casing out demons in the article and sending the demons into pigs! All this article is saying that angels did not have sex with woman and produce a mutant race of people.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Ben

You said “I find it laughable that so many would deny the books of Moses as anything other than the words and teachings of the God of Abraham. Amazingly concerned. Ben”

No one is denying the Old Testament, we are just READING it correctly. Maybe you should give it a go. Amazingly concerned. Deborah

rory

Praise be to God. I have found others that tested the fallen angels married human wives and made giant babies theory.
The Lord told me to study His Word on this about 5 years ago (2011) and write about it. What I found in a careful study of scripture mirrors what the brother wrote in the article. And like the responses here, I got the same rhetorical questions and assumptions from many that want to believe the scriptures say something that they do not say..

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Thank you Rory for your comment!

Sppage

The problem with the approach to this subject is that people tend to come at it purely from a biblical direction. The bible and many other religious texts are the diluted interpretations of real events that have been seen by ancient eyes that had never seen things like these before. There is no problem in looking at it from a scripture point of view, let’s face it, at least there is something documented therein. But all other avenues should be pursued also. Then we can truly say that we have shone our light in to all of the dark corners in search of the truth. The truth is what people want you to believe, and based merely on the evidence from one source is not adequate. There is so much literature that has been lost throughout time,. but what is left needs to be studied in much closer detail, all of it, only then can we possibly get to some where near a true understanding.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

What you are saying is that the Bible is not sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction and that we need to seek out the advice of others and their books. Really? Allow me to ask you this. We are told that fallen angels forced earthly women into marriage with them. So, apparently the women had no choice. Would a God who is just and righteous in all things punish the women for the sins of the fallen angels? The entire abominable doctrine of the Nephilim changes God into a monster who punished women unrighteously. Did the fallen angels who allegedly took upon themselves some kind of visible flesh to have sex with the women and produce the Nephilim, die in the Great Flood?

Jeroen

Wanted to add:
I don’t pretend to know the truth about this.
The article raised some reasonable doubts about the giants too.
I’ll be praying and thinking about this.
But i.m.o. it doesn’t even matter too much, i don’t see it as a potential door to hell.

God bless,
J.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Jeroen,

So, the difference between the truth and lies matter very little to you and it has no potential to send anyone to hell. Read the following article to see how dangerous the Nephilim lie really is.

https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2014/12/24/nephilim-controversy/#more-20798

Jeroen

Tom (Discerning the World) wrote:

Jeroen,
So, the difference between the truth and lies matter very little to you and it has no potential to send anyone to hell.

Tom, is that really what i said or meant?
It was in addition to my previous comment which is still waiting for moderation.
In all, not really convincing how you handle this subject.
And thatś a pity.

God bless,
J.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Jeroen,

If you want to believe that spirit beings (angels) married and had sex with earthly women, that’s OK but you will have to give an account to God one day why you believed it.

Tell me, what is God’s view of a genuine marriage> Isn’t it the fact that one man and one woman become one flesh? If so, how on earth can a spirit being like an angel become one flesh with a woman of flesh and bone? To consummate a marriage (one flesh) the angels who allegedly married earthly women and spawned children must have had become flesh and bone like us humans, not so? In that case, if it were true, then Jesus Christ’s incarnation was not unique and it puts his Gospel in jeopardy. Therefore, the notion that angels became flesh and blood, married earthly women, had sex with them and spawned children, is in essence blatant blasphemy because it pooh-poohs Jesus Christ’s incarnation.

Of course, you would not really be convinced how I handle the subject because you are bent on maligning the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ. And that’s a real pity. It’s easy to say you are not convinced without presenting me with any solid evidence from Scripture why you are not convinced. That’s not only a weak argument but falls flat on its face. to say the least. Grow up and start using Scripture to refute my unconvincing article on the Nephilim. I doubt whether you read it in its entirety.

John Baucum

Thank you fellow Christian in the Lord for your almost exhausted study on giants. I agree with your conclusion. I went to NTBI,Waukesha,WI. and graduated there in ’72’ and no one even debated the subject back then about Giants because, I believe we were only interested in learning the Word of the Lord found in the 66 books He gave us thru his servants. Today in 2016+ many unimportant subjects arise simply because most Christians are ‘CARNAL’ today. Lukewarm is another word to describe the majority of Christians in the USA today. I assume this and have seen allot of evidence of this in my travels in the USA alone. The Bible bears this out,that the Christians will fall away and not get into sound doctrine in the last days. In the days of Paul in the NT you read that the Bereans even examined Scriptures to see if what Paul said lined up with the OT texts. Today Christians are spiritually weak, bored, lazy, and usually get drawn into worthless subjects, because their flesh and demonic influence deceives them to waste their time. There are productive Christians yet serving our Lord. I’m sure the carnal Christians far out weigh the spiritual(those in fellowship with the Lord.)Jesus commended all of us then and in the future to preach the GOSPEL throughout the world. Yes, He ordered, or commanded this before He went up to Heaven to be with the Father. Satan has done his job well by getting millions of Christians to waste their time while here on Earth.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Dear John Baucum

Thank you for your comment!

Kevin Hoekman

I read the article as well and you have not convinced me of your position at all. In fact, you have only bolstered my suspicions this is true.

I have no doubt you are a true believer in Christ, but it appears you’ve dug yourself into this topic which has caused division, once again, about a 50-50 split between the literalists (for the fallen angels) and the allegorists (it’s a myth).

Your sensibilities come through in your lack of understanding angels and men for that matter. If there is any way one fallen angel was lustful, they devised a plan and made it happen.

The fact that the plain language says what the literal says, it describes them before and after the flood and provides logical reasoning why to have a flood and why the Israelites were commanded to wipe out everything in the Promised Land, men, women, children and livestock.

It also explains the countless structures built in antiquity. Humans could not. Period.

For you to say fallen angels can’t have sex, you would have had to been there. So you can never convince me of that through double talk.

I am not stupid, not that you are, but the thought of this act offends and repluses you giving you an auto bias against it for moral reasons.

The problem is, you are probably just too nice of a person to have this revealed to you. Count yourself lucky.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Dear Kevin

You said: “topic which has caused division”

The bible teaches us that there must be division, otherwise how do we know what the truth is and how do we separate ourselves from those who believe contrary to us.

    1 Corinthians 11:18-19
    18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
    Romans 16:17
    17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

You said “split between the literalists (for the fallen angels) and the allegorists (it’s a myth).”

Actually you have it the wrong way around, we are the literalists as we believe as the bible says.

    Matthew 22:30
    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    Luke 20:34-36 34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

You said “Your sensibilities come through in your lack of understanding angels and men for that matter.”

I do believe you lack understanding of scripture.

You said “The fact that the plain language says what the literal says, it describes them before and after the flood and provides logical reasoning”

It does? Really? Would you like to quote a verse to us that says fallen angels came down a second time, after the flood?

You said “provides logical reasoning why to have a flood and why the Israelites were commanded to wipe out everything in the Promised Land, men, women, children and livestock.”

Ahhh yes those little Israelites managed to wipe out an entire race of GIANT men, GIANT woman and GIANT children (Giant as in ‘the size of buildings’) – big enough to build those “countless structures built in antiquity.” as you so stated.

You said “For you to say fallen angels can’t have sex, you would have had to been there.”

You were not there either, imagine that, so explain to me how you can make the claim that fallen angels can have sex. But wait for it, not just have sex, but marry women in a ceremony. The bible is clear they married in a ceremony!

    Genesis 6:1-4
    1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

You said “but the thought of this act offends and repluses you giving you an auto bias against it for moral reasons.”

My argument is for moral reasons? Um, where did I say this? It’s not the moral implication that is the problem, it’s the fact that it never happened and people like yourself refuse to believe what the bible has to say, but prefer to believe demonic lies instead.

You said “you are probably just too nice of a person to have this revealed to you.”

Are you admitting you are morally depraved and that is why this has been ‘revealed’ to you? By whom I can only imagine.

    John 8:44 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.

Lastly please explain to me how a human woman gives birth to a GIANT baby? Or wait are you going to tell me that the baby comes out the size of a normal human baby and then grows to the size of a 2 story building or bigger?  :laugh: Gosh imagine what happens to her if she has twins…  :ohno:

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Kevin Hoekman wrote,

For you to say fallen angels can’t have sex, you would have had to been there. So you can never convince me of that through double talk.
I am not stupid, not that you are, but the thought of this act offends and repluses you giving you an auto bias against it for moral reasons.
The problem is, you are probably just too nice of a person to have this revealed to you. Count yourself lucky.

Apart from the fact that you relish in making Jesus a liar (Matthew 22:30), you don’t seem to know what marriage is. Surely you ought to know that marriage is a physical and spiritual bond between one man and one woman who become one flesh in order to be fruitful, have kiddies and replenish the earth. To whom among the angels did God say, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the heaven?” Oh, oh, I forgot, Jesus did not refer to the fallen angels in Matthew 22:30. He only referred to the angels of God in heaven. The fallen angels who were like the holy angels in heaven before they decided to follow Satan in his rebellion against God suddenly must have sprouted male genital organs so that they could lust after earthly women, marry them, have sex with them and produce children as tall as the Empire State building. Who enabled them to have sex with earthly women? In other words, who supplied them with male genital organs so that they could have sex with earthly women? Did the fallen angels themselves create their genital organs or did God, the only Creator of the entire universe, decide to supply them with male organs? The latter would put you in the class of blasphemers, for to suggest that God created their male organs to have sex with earthly women so that He may send the Flood and destroy the entire human race, except the eight souls who entered the ark, borders on blasphemy. And by the by, the Nephilim fantasmagorical stupidity promotes male-chauvinism. Why are there only male angels with male organs and not female angels with female organs? Surely, if male angels could lust after earthly women, why couldn’t there also have been female angels who lusted after earthly men?

As you can see, if your eyes are indeed open to see, none of us needed to be there to be convinced that fallen angels cannot possibly have sex with earthly women to produce the Nephilim. You only need a little bit of common sense. To quote your sarcastic remark, “The problem is, you are probably just too nice of a person to have this revealed to you. Count yourself lucky.”

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

The Nephilim hypothesis that fallen angels came down and assumed physical bodies to marry earthly women and produce giants is an outright denial that God alone is the Creator. Furthermore, it vilifies the incarnation of Jesus Christ and makes a mockery of God by suggesting that He is not a righteous Judge. Prasch uses a gnostic and unreliable source – i.e. the Book of Enoch – to substantiate his ill-founded phantasmagorical fairy tale which says that some of the Nephilim were 450 feet tall.

Enoch 7: 3

And the women became pregnant, and they bare large giants, whose height was three hundred cubits.

300 cubits are equal to 450 feet. Labour pains and giving birth is a very painful experience. Vaginal and perineal tears often occur. A site describes it as follows,

“When you are giving birth, an entirely new human is coming out of our body! So it shouldn’t surprise you that a vaginal delivery requires your vagina to stretch. Everyone who delivers vaginally (and sometimes those who have a lengthy labor before delivering via cesarean) can expect some perineal postpartum pain. And it’s common, given the pressure from your baby’s head pushing through, to experience tears and lacerations in your perineum (the area between your vagina and your anus) and sometimes your cervix as well. As many as half of all women will have at least a small tear after childbirth, and anyone delivering vaginally is at risk.”

Can you imagine what kind of excruciating pain frail women in Jared’s time experienced when giving birth to large giants? The Book of Enoch is nothing but an ancient sci-fi comic book which Jacob Prasch promotes with gusto.

Ryan

What a horrifically convoluted explanation – all in a bid to explain away the (correct) fallen angelic view of the Nephilim. While I agree with you on certain other faith issues, I find you are twisting Holy Scripture to see the Nephilim/sons of God/fallen angel narratives through your preferred lens, rather than let them contextually and collectively speak for themselves. This is done, seemingly, in your crusade to expose others who are in error for different reasons. Ironic! I agree with what you said in your link article that REMA Marketing are essentially money-loving deceivers, but you have shot yourself in the foot by going down this avenue to expose them and others who hold to what many sound Bible teachers see as the Biblical view of the Nephilim…a view derived solely from systematic reading of related Bible verses. Most of what needs to be said to correct you, has been, but I see it has been to no avail. No point wasting any of my time. I do hope you have the mettle to show this post, and perhaps reflect on your understanding of the Nephilim.

Tom Lessing (Discerning the World)

Ryan

Was Jesus a liar when he said,

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Mat 22:29-30)

Ryan

No, Tom – that’s you misunderstanding and misapplying the text. Systematic theology – it all has to make sense…not just what Jesus said. That was the sin of the angels that 2 Peter 2 and Jude mentions…as others have tried to explain to you. “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned” … “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which LIKEWISE indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” The context clearly links to pre-flood sexual sin of angels – it was as unnatural for them as homosexuality is for humans. As Jesus said, angels OF GOD aren’t meant to marry, but these ones rebelled. It’s not confusing – it’s straight forward.

190
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x