Visitors from around the World

Translate blog:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Announcements

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

facebook: Discerning the World

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent Comments

General Comments Section:

Click here for the General Comments Section Discerning the World - General Conversation Section

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Article Archive

Click here to find a List of all Articles List of all Articles
Click here to find a List of all Categories to search by Categories / Keywords

Website Stats

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Nephilim Controversy

The Nephilim Controversy

Book of Enoch

The Nephilim Controversy

Very few people seem to realize that the Nephilim theory is a Neo-Gnostic, New Age teaching and an emphatic denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ’s incarnation.

Genesis 6:1-7

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

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.

Please note that the words “men” and “man” appear no less than ten times in this passage. That alone indicates that we’re dealing with normal human beings and not fallen angels.

Nonetheless, some venture to call as witnesses Job 1 verse 6, 2 verse, 1, Jude 1 verse 6 and even Genesis 18 to prove that the sons of God were not human beings but fallen angels who entered into a marital relationship with the daughters of men and spawned children of flesh and blood (Nephilim; giants).

Pastor Steve Cioccolanti of Discover Ministries who says he is a great admirer of TD Jakes is an avid promulgator of the Nephilim theory and has made several YouTube videos on the endtime. Here’s  one of them.

BushObama Hybrid

WARNING: The compiled photograph of Bush and Obama is NOT an example of an Hybrid – the offspring of cross breeding or the mixing of the DNA of two different entities. It is a very clever manipulation of two different photos – the one of Bush and the other of Obama – with the help of Paintshop.

 

The Nephilim Doctrine Blasphemes God and His Son

Nephilim amopng usThe argument that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were fallen angels who took to themselves wives, had a “normal” sexual relationship with them and produced an offspring of giants in the time of Noah, is not only completely unbiblical but illogical. In fact, as we shall see later, this doctrine is pure blasphemy.

The reason why I dare to come down so hard on this doctrine is because it provides unbelievers and especially atheists an opportunity to blaspheme God and his Son.

What they usually say, is, “OK, You say that fallen angels were able to marry and have sex with women to produce offspring who were gargantuan giants.

To have done this the fallen angels must have become flesh and blood because a spirit cannot possibly have sex with a woman. Where does your doctrine on the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ leave you? You no longer have a foot to stand on when you claim that He was the only one who had been incarnated supernaturally.”

Let’s assume it was fallen angels who saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and took unto themselves wives as much as they chose. It is imperative that we look at the word “chose” for a brief moment.

The word “chose” is very important because it tells us what Genesis 6 is really all about. From the very outset God’s choice for man (not angels) was that a marriage should not be an unequally yoked relationship between believers and unbelievers.

The inevitable question is: why was it then and why is it still now not God’s will that believers marry unbelievers?

The main reason is that God intended the marital relationship between one man and one woman to reflect Christ’s relationship with his bride (the entire body of believers).

The most obvious reason why God wanted believers to marry among themselves and not to tie the knot with unbelievers was to stem the tide of sin and rebellion among the believers themselves.

One of the most common consequences of a marriage between believers and unbelievers is that the believer usually begins to compromise his/her faith and holy lifestyle – presumably for the sake of love, peace and harmony – and very often become lukewarm in their love for and obedience to God.

There are many examples in Scripture that attest to this unfortunate phenomenon.

I have heard many a young woman say: “As a Christian I will be able to change my fiance or husband for the sake of Christ.” Forget it! You will never change him. If you were able to change him/her in a marital bond God would never have commanded you not to marry an unbeliever.

The most important reason why a believer should only marry a believer is the following.

The marriage is supposed to be a microcosm of God’s relationship with believers and not unbelievers. Paul describes the purpose of a marriage between believers in his epistle to the Ephesians.

Ephesians 5:21-27

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

The Old Testament expression to “cleave unto his wife” (Genesis 2:24) is another way of saying that the husband should love his wife as God loved the church.

This love is the highest and most magnanimous expression of love. It is the “agapao” or “agape” love which only a believer is able to express for his/her spouse.

An unbeliever cannot express the “agapao” or “agape” love for his/her spouse. An unbeliever’s love is limited to the “eros” and “ phileo” love. And this is precisely the reason why a believer may not marry an unbeliever.

Genesis 6 depicts the lust-fulness of man and his rebellious wantonness to satisfy his own carnal desires when he took unto himself beautiful and desirable women as many as he pleased. They did not only lust after women but also lusted after absolute power and expressed it in unmitigated violence. (Genesis 6:11).

When Jesus said “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man” (Luke 17:26), He was not only referring to daily human activities such as eating, drinking and marriages. He was referring also to the extreme violence in those days.

It was probably also the time when harems were first instituted and men began to fill them with as many women as they wished, as a token of their power, pride and reputation (renown).

It was customary in the ancient Near East – even in the times of King David – for a conqueror who wished to indicate his succession to the king, to usurp the king’s harem and to lie with his concubines. (2 Samuel 16:21-23).

As far as this is concerned, King David was no better than his Son Absolom.

Wasn’t it this sin of wantonness and power that led him to lie with another man’s wife and eventually have the man killed?

These particular sins of wantonness, pride, renown, reputation and aggrandizement (in their wanton desire to expand their power, wealth, rank and honour) all started in Genesis 6.

It was never God’s will for man to have many wives, let alone a whole harem full of concubines.

It has always been his will, from the creation, that he should have one wife to whom he should cling and become one flesh in marriage. Instead, the sons of God (the believers) took wives from the ranks of unbelievers as many wives as they pleased and began to rebel against God.

There are several examples of how this sin continued to devastate the lives, not only of kings but of the peoples’ they ruled over. We only have to mention two examples.

The one is King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Despite God’s stern warning and command that he may not marry women from other nations, he rebelled against God and was eventually enticed into idolatry by his many wives and concubines.

The other example is Esau.

When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;

And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram;

And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;

Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife. (Genesis 28:6-9)

Some may argue that Esau was an unbeliever and was therefore free to marry whomsoever he pleased. Not so. God forbade the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to marry the Canaanite women.

Nonetheless, let’s assume it was fallen angels who saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took for themselves wives of all which they chose.

Such a notion is absurd to start with because women of flesh and blood cannot marry invisible spirit beings, let alone have sexual intercourse and procreate offspring with them . . . or can they? We will deal with this alleged phenomenon a little later.

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself said in Matthew 22.

Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

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. (Matthew 22:28-30)

Chuck MIsslerIt is obvious that once individuals have received glorified bodies they are no longer subject to death and therefore the need for procreation – one of the main purposes of marriage – will no longer be necessary.

If the holy angels in heaven do not marry and procreate why would anyone in his right mind believe that fallen angels are capable of marrying earthly women and having kids with them?

For spirit entities like fallen angels to have had married and cohabited with earthly women of flesh and blood to produce the Nephilim (giants), they would have had to become flesh and blood themselves.

For argument’s sake let’s assume the invisible spirit beings (fallen angels) had partaken of flesh and blood to marry and cohabit with the daughters of men.

The question we ought to ask then is WHO INCARNATED THEM? Did they incarnate themselves or did God incarnate them? Someone had to incarnate them.

It is obvious that they could not have miraculously turned themselves into flesh and blood. Therefore, only God remains as the One who must have incarnated them so that they could marry and cohabit with the daughters of men.

He alone is capable of incarnating spirit beings.

The next important question we need to ask ourselves is: WOULD GOD HAVE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WHY WOULD HE HAVE WANTED TO INCARNATE FALLEN ANGELS? – unless, of course He created all the angels, including those who fell into rebellion and sin with Satan, with the ability to procreate but forbade them to marry. We will deal with this a little later as well.

If God – the only Person who has the power to incarnate invisible spirit beings – incarnated fallen angels, He would have been an accomplice or partner in their sin as it is depicted in Jude 1 verses 6 and 7. (We will come to the true meaning of this controversial section later).

This brings us now to several blasphemous abominations of this doctrine.

The Nephilim Doctrine implies that Jesus Christ’s Incarnation was not Unique

Elizabeht Clare-ProphetHad it been true that fallen angels became flesh and blood so that they could marry and cohabit with the daughters of men to produce children of their own (how else Origins of Evil Clare Prophetwould they have been able to marry and cohabit with women of flesh and blood if they had not become flesh and blood?), then Jesus Christ was not the only Person, who – like the angels pre-existed as an invisible Being – was incarnated by the Holy Spirit.

Do you see how this infamous doctrine attacks and derides one of the essential doctrines of Christianity, i.e. the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

It opens wide the door to MOCKERS who believe that Jesus Christ’s unique incarnation is questionable. “Do you see? Jesus Christ was not the only One who was incarnated. Countless fallen angels were also incarnated so that they could marry and have sex with earthly women,” is what they throw at you.

The Nephilim Doctrine Implies that God Spawned His Son With Mary in the Very Same Way Human Beings Produce their Offspring

In one of my Internet debates on the Nephilim in Genesis 6 a woman who clearly was inspired by a demon (1 Timothy 4:1) wrote the following blasphemous comment.

Thomas, I must say I find you very amusing because you apparently believe that people have to be married to procreate?

Sadly it’s a state of affairs that occurs on a daily basis whether it was God’s intended purpose or not.

Even God had a child out of wedlock. In fact he had a child with a woman who was engaged to and then married another man.

Now I will admit that the bible does not say that Mary had INTERCOURSE or even SEX with God, but it does very clearly state that she became pregnant with Jesus through/from/by/of the Holy Spirit/Ghost (Matthew 1:18) depending on which version you read, pretty much leaving the reader/interpreter to draw their own conclusions.

Then you question why people believe that angels had sex with humans? Maybe they didn’t have SEX or INTERCOURSE with them but conceived children in the same manner that God conceived a child with Mary and people just assumed they had sex because, well by gosh, that’s how they would do it!

How do you answer someone who divulges in drivel and blasphemy like this? You trust the Holy Spirit to lead you in the whole truth (John 16:13) and to give you the answer.

Take note that the woman said “Maybe they didn’t have SEX or INTERCOURSE with them but conceived children in the same manner that God conceived a child with Mary and people just assumed they had sex because, well by gosh, that’s how they would do it!”

If it had at all been possible for fallen angels to produce offspring without having to have intercourse with the daughters of men, they would have had to spawn children in the very same way God incarnated his Son.

This again would mean that we must attribute to fallen angels the very same power God alone possesses to incarnate a spirit being without having to marry and have intercourse with a woman.

Her choice of words in the sentence “Even God had a child out of wedlock. In fact he had a child with a woman who was engaged to and then married another man” suggests that God committed adultery when He willfully and illegally took another man’s wife to bring forth his Son.

Needless to say, this is the kind of blasphemy you spread when you believe in the Sci-Fi nonsense that fallen angels married the daughters of men and produced Nephilim (giants) on the earth.

How did God Incarnate His Son?”

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (Hebrews 10:5).

God prepared a body for his Son in Mary’s womb as He had done for the first Adam when He created him. It is one of the reasons why Jesus is called the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Note carefully, God did not force Mary to present her womb as a vehicle for the incarnation (the preparation of a body for Him) and the birth of his Son.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

For with God nothing shall be impossible.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:31-38).

God is almighty. Nothing is impossible with Him. Therefore, He was able to use a young woman’s womb to prepare a body for his Son without having to use a man of flesh and blood to spawn his Son in the usual manner.

I am not saying that God created Jesus in the same way He created Adam. Jesus has always been the uncreated eternal Son of God. He is God, equal to his Father and the Holy Spirit who has no beginning and no end.

That is why God only needed to prepare a body for Him in the womb of a woman who was willing to be used as the vehicle for his incarnation.

I mention these things to demonstrate how easy it is to fall into error when you believe a lie and eat it like cake. The first lie bakes its own lies and so it goes on until you have become a full-fledged apostate.

The Nephilim Doctrine Implies that Jesus was not Crucified for All Men Only but also for The Angels Who Supposedly Became Flesh and Blood

Let us once again argue from the hypothesis that fallen angels became flesh and blood, married the daughters of men and produced the Nephilim (giants) with them.

If this were true, it would of a necessity mean that the incarnated fallen angels and their offspring with the daughters of men whom they ostensibly married, could be saved and inherit God’s Kingdom in heaven. How do we know this?

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. (Hebrews 2:14-15).

Surely, the children of the incarnated fallen angels and the women they married according to Genesis 6 were all partakers of flesh and blood and as such Jesus must have had become flesh and blood and died on the cross in their behalf as well.

Do I hear a loud “NO! That’s impossible. Jesus did not die for them.”? Guess what? They’re quite right. Jesus did not become flesh and blood to die on a cross for demons.

And yet they believe that demons became flesh and blood to marry the daughters of men and produce children (Nephilim or giants) making them legitimate candidates for the same salvation bestowed on mankind.

Their entire premise is an outright denial of what Paul wrote in Hebrews 2: 14-15 and of what John wrote in John 3:16 which very clearly states that God so loved the entire world (all the partakers of flesh and blood) that He sent his only begotten Son to pay the penalty for their sins on the cross.

It follows that even the fallen angels who allegedly became partakers of flesh and blood so that they could marry and have kids with the daughters of men, had the same opportunity as their wives to repent and be saved. As you can see, this infamous doctrine derides the entire doctrine of salvation and sanctification.

This is the absurd conclusion one will have to come to if you believe that fallen angels became partakers of flesh and blood to have intercourse with their earthly wives and have kids of their own.

The most common assumption among Christians is that fallen angels cannot be saved despite them having been incarnated to marry the daughters of men because God “has reserved [them] in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6).

This only elaborates the absurdity of the belief that fallen angels married the daughters of men and had sex with them. Jude verses 6 and 7 completely debunks the view of any marital bond between incarnated demons and earthly women.

How could they possibly have been incarnated to marry earthly wenches when they were immediately cast into the deepest and darkest abyss when they left their first estate in heaven and will have to remain there until the final Day of Judgment? That’s ridiculous, to say the least.

If we approach Jude verses 6 and 7 in strict chronological order, then the fallen angels mentioned in Jude who left their first estate in heaven were immediately cast into a place (generally believed to be Tartarus) under darkness (not in darkness) – which is worse than darkness itself – and will remain chained there until the Day of Judgment.

Therefore, they never had a chance in hell to ever put their filthy feet on earth, let alone indulge in pleasurable sexual flings with many earthly wenches. Instead they are being tortured in Tartarus right this very minute and will remain there until the final Day of Judgment.

Nevertheless, doesn’t Jude tell us that these fallen angels, just like the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah who lusted after strange flesh – i.e. flesh that was forbidden to them – allegedly lusted after the daughters of men and in stark rebellion against God took unto themselves wives as many as they chose?

The mistake the Nephilim/Giant adherents make is to suppose that sexual intercourse is the common denominator between these fallen angels and the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah.

If sexual misconduct was the theme Jude deals with in finding a common denominator between the fallen angels and the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah, to prove that their extraordinary sexual offenses were the reason why God cast them under darkness until the final Judgment Day, then it is indeed a very poor argument.

Why would Jude compare a bunch of macho fallen angels who allegedly married the daughters of men and had children with them to a bunch of homosexual men whose gay relationship with other men cannot possibly spawn offspring? It just doesn’t make any sense.

The term “strange flesh” is just another way of saying that the men left their natural relationship with woman and in their lust burned (lusted after) one toward another. (Romans 1:27).

And this is precisely where Jude draws the connection between the fallen angels and the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Note the word “left” in both Jude verse 6 and Romans 1 verse 27. Both the fallen angels and the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah abandoned their first (original) estate (position) for which God created them. They turned their back on their godly given original estate and fell prey to their own desires.

The fallen angels left their first estate in heaven – to love, obey and extoll their Creator – when they followed Satan in his rebellion against God.

Similarly, the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah left their first estate – to marry the opposite sex, love and cherish them and produce offspring in the fear of the Lord – and instead burned in their lust one to another of the same sex.

The fact that the Holy Spirit inspired Jude to associate the sins of the Sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah with the sins of the fallen angels shows how utterly abominable the sin of homosexuality really is in the sight of God.

Therefore, the connection Jude draws between the fallen angels and the Sodomites has nothing to do with the physical act of intercourse but lies in the fact that both abandoned their original Godly given estate to do the will of Satan.

In order to sustain their view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were fallen angels who married the daughters of men and spawned the Nephilim, they refer to the contemptible occult Book of Enoch. They assert that the apostle Jude used it as one of his most important sources.

Besides the fact that Jude never mentions any external or extra-biblical sources he used to write his epistle, some of its contents is so blatantly anti-biblical that no Christian in his right mind would use it to interpret Genesis 6’s sons of God.

The doctrine that fallen angels allegedly married and had sex with the daughters of men to spawn the Nephilim is a pagan, Neo-Gnostic, New Age teaching.

The New Age and the New-Gnostic Book of Enoch Teaches The Doctrine of the Nephilim

It is not only misguided Christians who are bewitched by the Book of Enoch. New Agers are equally thrilled by it.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the New Age founder of the “Church Universal and Triumphant” wrote a book called “Fallen Angels and the Origins of Evil: Why Church Fathers Suppress the Book of Enoch and its Startling Revelations.”

She writes

“The question that has become the subject of my research is this: If evil angels used to be around on earth and, as Scripture seems to indicate, and wore the guise of men, why couldn’t they still be around? Given the state of affairs on planet earth, where would we find them today? Do they manipulate our government? Mismanage the economy?”

“Therefore, I am prepared to prove and document that they (Nephilim) are with us today in positions of power in church and state as prime movers in matters of war and finance, sitting in the banking houses and on policy-making councils that determine the actual fate of mankind by population control and genetic engineering, the control of energy and commodities, education and the media, and by ideological and psycho-political strategies of divide and conquer on all fronts.”

“The untold story of men and angels is a crack in the door of the full and final exposé of the Manipulators and the manipulated, the Oppressors and the oppressed.

When I shall have penned the last word of the last volume of my on-going essay, it will be clear, by the grace of God and his Holy Spirit — my Comforter and Teacher — that the embodied fallen angels, who are the main subject of Enoch’s prophecy, have been from the beginning the spoilers of the dreams of God and man.”

If, as Elizabeth Clare-Prophet alleges, fallen angels are still living among us in the flesh and is in charge of every human enterprise from politics to banking to the church, then it follows that they must have been incarnated.

This, as I said earlier, blasphemes Jesus Christ’s first advent in the flesh and suggests that his incarnation was not unique and just one of many among other incarnations.

Furthermore, it undermines the doctrine of the Fall when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and dumped the entire human race into sin.

Fallen angels who supposedly are living among us in the flesh are now to blame for the injustices, chaos and sins in the world and not the personal sins of every individual human being.

In chapter 7 verses 11-15 in the Book of Enoch it is written . . .

11. And the women conceiving brought forth giants,

12. Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labour of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;

13. When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;

14. And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.

15. Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.

Are Christians really so naïve and gullible to believe that fallen angels had intercourse with the daughters of men and produced monsters as tall as 442 feet?

No wonder Paul wrote:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. (Ephesians 4:14)

If the Sons of God in Genesis 6  Were Fallen Angels, Who Were They?

Two passages in Scripture are often put forward to substantiate the notion that the sons on God in Genesis were fallen angels. They are Job 1 verse 6 and Jude verse 6.

In the next section I want to sketch two scenarios or presuppositions by using the “if” argument which are – “If the sons of God in Job 1:6 were believers then so and so follows” and “If the sons of God in Job 1:6 were fallen angels, then so and so follows.”

Let’s begin with the presupposition that “If the sons of God in Job 6 were believers . . .”

Before we continue it is of the utmost importance to identify the condition for anyone to be called a son of God.

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

The majority of English Bibles, including the KJV, use the word “son” and not “children.” The word “son” is a generic term and refers to both male and female children of God. Thence the declaration: “For as many . . .”

The word “son” refers to the most intimate spiritual and moral relationship with God and not to gender.

Therefore, male and female genders and genderless beings such as holy angels are called sons of God. We have become so accustomed to associate the word “son” with the male gender that we have forgotten what the biblical use of the word is.

As a consequence the biblical sense of the word cannot possibly be used to describe fallen angels, for the simple reason that they are not governed or led by the Holy Spirit. The expression “led by the Spirit of God” simply means to obey God’s sovereign will in all things through the power of the Holy Spirit.

In no circumstances whatsoever can sonship be ascribed to fallen angels who followed Satan in his willful disobedience and rebellion against God. At best they can be called sons of Satan. If Jesus called the Pharisees the sons of Satan (John 8:44), it follows naturally that fallen angels are also the sons of Satan. They can never – unto all eternity – stand in a reciprocal relationship of eternal love with God. Anyone who has the audacity to ascribe sonship to fallen angels should carefully consider the following warning in Scripture.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20).

Aha! But what about Job 1: 6 and 2:1?

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (Job 2:1-2).

First of all, if the sons of God in Genesis 6 and Job 1 were fallen angels, Satan could have been charged with the destruction of his own kingdom and his followers (1 Peter 5:8). What did Jesus say?

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? (Matthew 12:26).

1 Peter 5:8 – describing Satan as a roaring lion going to and fro in the world to see who he can devour – is a direct reference to Job 2:1-2. Peter addresses believers, not unbelievers or fallen angels.

Satan is not going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it to accuse and devour his own kind – the fallen angels and unbelievers. Indeed, he is evil through and through but I doubt whether he would want to devour his own kingdom and followers. Remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:26?

Please bear in mind, the first scenario I am painting here is that if the sons of God in Genesis 6 and Job 1 were believers then so and so would logically follow.

To present Themselves Before The Lord

To understand the expression “to present themselves before the Lord” we need to look at a specific custom in the Old Testament and especially since the time of Seth and his immediate descendants.

All the men of Israel had to appear before the Lord thrice a year (Exodus 34:23). God never issued such a command to the angels – neither holy nor evil angels.

The reason why the men had to appear before the Lord thrice a year was to worship and thank Him for their great deliverance out of Egypt and their inheritance of the Promised Land, and above all to serve as a very serious reminder not to marry or intermingle with the women of the surrounding nations. (Exodus 34:11-17).

Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

Their appearance before the Lord involved sacrifices, contrition, thanksgiving and worship. None of these things can be associated with fallen angels in the very least.

Why would the fallen angels have wished to present themselves before the Lord in Job 1 verse 6 – to worship Him, beg for mercy, offer to Him their thanks for his great mercies and above all to be reminded that they were forbidden to marry the women of the nations in Canaan?

Or perhaps the fallen angels (the alleged sons of God) appeared before Him for some other reasons. Perish the thought.

Do you see how imprudent it is to believe that the sons of God in Genesis 6 and Job 1 were fallen angels? It just makes no sense.

To see whether this custom was already in use in the time of Seth, we must for a moment go back in history. A very important verse to consider for our purpose is Genesis 4:26.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (Genesis 4:26).

To call upon the Name of the Lord is another way of saying that Seth and his descendants began to present themselves before the Lord (sought the face of the Lord) with contrition and supplications for the forgiveness of their sins.

From thence onward it was customary for believers to present themselves before God and to beseech Him for mercy and the forgiveness of their sins. That’s what the expression “call upon the Name of the Lord” means (Acts 2:21) and this is precisely what Job 2 verses 1 and 2 describe. How do we know?

The view that Satan no longer has the right to accuse the brethren since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is not in accord with Revelation 12.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. (Revelation 12:7-11).

If Satan no longer has the right to accuse the brethren they would have had no need to overcome Him with the blood of the Lamb.

An Old Testament example of Satan appearing before God to accuse a believer is in Zechariah.

And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. (Zechariah 3:1-5)

No believer will present himself before the Lord without any reason, that is if Job 1:6 and 2:1 refer to believers and not fallen angels.

Indeed, had it been fallen angels who presented them before the Lord. It would have been without any specific reason. Why would the fallen angels have done that when the devil appeared with them before God?

Could it be that the devil appeared with the fallen angels before the Lord because he wanted to accuse them of rebellion, evil intent, malevolent behaviour or deceit before God? That’s just sheer nonsense.

To appear and present oneself before the Lord has a specific purpose and to say it was fallen angels who presented themselves before the Lord with a specific purpose in mind is untenable.

What is this specific purpose? The High Priest of Israel had to enter the most holy enclave of the tabernacle and temple once every year – and that not without the blood of a sacrificial animal – to make atonement for the sins of the entire nation of Israel (Hebrews 9:7).

The fact that Satan is called the accuser of the brethren indicates that what we have here is a high court case. Jesus Christ is the Advocate, the devil the accuser and the sons of God the accused.

Bear in mind that the devil will do everything in his power to accuse the children of God of sin and guilt (the Holy Spirit never accuses them but convicts them – cuts them to the heart – and points them to the cross for forgiveness). The devil will always try to rob believers of the wonderful gift of forgiveness.

This we can see very clearly in the Book of Zechariah that connects so beautifully with Romans 8:33-34.

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

The only remedy is to enter into the most holy of holies in heaven with full assurance and boldness by virtue of the blood of Jesus (to present themselves before God) and to beg and receive forgiveness for their sins. Not only that, their consciences which the devil accuses with precision clockwork is also cleansed.

having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

And having an high priest over the house of God;

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:19-22).

The accusations the devil hurls at believers usually settle in their mind (conscience) and it is here where only the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus can reach to rid you of his accusations. It is the blood of Jesus that rebukes Satan so that his accusations no longer have any effect on the children (sons) of God.

This is a joyous fact that every child of God should appropriate for him or herself with much thanksgiving and reverent worship unto the Lord.

The point I’m trying to make is that the specific purpose of the appearing or presentation of the sons of God before the Lord, is/was first and foremost to receive the forgiveness and cleansing of their sins which cannot in all eternity be attributed to fallen angels. Fallen angels, like their master the devil, cannot receive forgiveness or the cleansing of their sins for all eternity.

Is there any solid proof to substantiate the link made between Job 1:26, Zechariah 3:1-5 and Romans 8:33-34, with regard to the notion that the sons of God were not angels but believers who pleaded for the forgiveness of their sins?

Voila! The two verses immediately preceding verse 6 – which incidentally the Nephilim preachers never mention – confirms without any doubt that the purpose of presenting oneself or appearing before the Lord was to bring burnt offerings and to beseech Him for the forgiveness of sins.

Can fallen angels or even holy angels bring burnt offerings or any other kind of offerings when they allegedly present themselves before the Lord? The burnt offering was the most important offering one could bring in the Old Testament.

It was the only offering that was burnt in its entirety and represents Jesus Christ’s complete surrender and submission to the will of his Father.

Did Jesus offer Himself completely for and in behalf of the fallen angels and even the holy angels? Perish the thought!

Let’s now look at Job 1:4-5.

And his sons went and feasted in their houses, everyone his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

Seen in the context that Satan appeared with the sons of God to accuse them before God, we can assume with reasonable certainty that the sons of God were not angels but believers.

As we’ve already seen earlier, verses 4 and 5 of Job chapter 1 clearly affirm that the sons of God was a gathering of believers – including Job’s children and perhaps some of his friends, Eliphas, Bildad and Sophar and most likely some other friends who regularly convened to present themselves before God and to bring offerings for the atonement of their sins.

The second scenario or presupposition I would like to present is that if the sons of God in Job 1:6 and 2:1 were angels it follows that . . .

Walfoord and Zuck say the following in their “Bible Knowledge Commentary.”

1:6-8. When the angels (lit., sons of God”; unfallen angels are God’s “sons” in the sense that they are his creation; cf. 38:7) came to present (lit., “stationed”) themselves before God to report on their activities, Satan (lit., “the accuser” was with them.

Several things in their interpretation has a discordant ring to it. If the holy angels who allegedly presented themselves before God are called the sons of God because He created them, it follows that the fallen angels should also be called the sons of God because they were also created by Him.

This is inconsistent with Romans 8:14 which says: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Some would probably argue that this New Testament truth cannot be applied to the Old Testament. If it cannot be applied to the Old Testament, the burden of proof lies on those who promulgate the Nephilim theory to show when this truth changed from not being the sons of God to being the sons of God.

According to Walfoord and Zuck the holy angels presented themselves before God to report back to God and to give an account of their activities.

If God Himself gives the holy angels specific orders and if every one of them perform his instructions one hundred per cent in obedience to his will and in the face of Him who is almighty and sees, hears and knows everything before it is even done, why is it necessary for the holy angels to present themselves before Him to give an account of their activities?”

Did the angel Gabriel, after he had appeared to Mary and told her that she would bear a Son and should call Him Jesus, return to God to give an account of his successful mission? There is not a single instance in the Bible where holy angels present themselves before God to report back to Him on their successful missions.

Is it necessary to report back to God when He Himself gives the orders and knows before it is even done that his holy angels will do everything one hundred per cent according to his sovereign will? Surely we know this from Jesus’ prayer “Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Let’s assume one of the holy angels who allegedly presented himself before God to report back to God on his mission, said: “I am so sorry my Lord but I have failed to accomplish what you commanded me to do.” It would have been an embarrassment to Jesus Christ who taught us to pray “Let Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10).

Everyone in heaven does the will of God one hundred per cent. There are absolutely no failures in heaven and therefore there is no need to report back to God on any mission accomplishments or failures.

Arguments Put Forward to Prove That Fallen Angels (Nephilim/Fallen Ones) Married the Daughters of Men and Had Offspring With Them

Those who believe in the Nephilim theory and their alleged illegal marriages with the daughters of men conveniently circumvent Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:30.

Some interpret Matthew 22 and verse 30 as God having created angels with an ability to fall in love with women, marry them and have intercourse with them but forbade them to tie the knot with them. Needless to say, this is very dangerous because it puts God in league with Antichrist as we shall see a little later. Hence the very blasphemous remark of a woman who once wrote:

“Thomas, I must say I find you very amusing because you apparently believe that people have to be married to procreate? Sadly it’s a state of affairs that occurs on a daily basis whether it was God’s intended purpose or not. Even God had a child out of wedlock. In fact he had a child with a woman who was engaged to and then married another man.”

She clearly believes that angels were created with the capacity to have sex. David Pawson believes the same heresy as we shall see later.

What the wise lady seems to have forgotten is that the Bible very clearly says the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair and that they married them, as many as they wished.

They actually took upon themselves the moral duty and responsibility to marry them and to cherish them and care for them in a legal bond of matrimony.

If it’d been fallen angels who first had to take on flesh and blood (an invisible spirit being performing the duties of a husband isn’t so very kosher, is it?), then these fallen ones were morally more upright than today’s couples who live together and have sex out of wedlock.

What this person actually suggests, is that God created the angels with the ability to have sex with women but flatly denied them the privilege to have sex with them in a legally bound pledge of holy matrimony.

Therefore, God created them with an ability to work themselves up to a whopping big appetite for sex but out of sheer spite forbade them to marry. Such a perverse decree fits the Roman Catholic doctrine of celibacy like a glove (1 Timothy 4:3).

Even more, it places the most holy and almighty God in the same paddock as the devil and his antichrist, i.e. if it were true that he made them with male sexual organs but strictly forbade them to marry. (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

Perhaps this was the reason why the fallen angels rather listened to Paul and was promptly cast under the thick darkness of Tartarus instead of obeying God who forbade them to marry.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Corinthians 7:7-9).

David Pawson seems to suggest the very same thing, i.e. that God created angels with an ability to have sex with women but forbade them to love and marry them. We are going to listen to an extract of his Bible teaching on Genesis 6.

But before we do that, let’s ask ourselves again what Jesus meant in Matthew 22:30. Did he mean the angels in heaven are genderless without them ever having the ability to procreate? Or did He mean they do have genitalia but are forbidden to marry the opposite sex.

Let’s assume Jesus was correct in his ruling that the angels in heaven “neither marry nor are given in marriage,” and that it was a more civilized way to say they do not have genitalia and therefore incapable of having sex and producing children.

In the light of his words in Matthew 22 and verse 30 and the bizarre belief that fallen angels had intercourse with the daughters of men to produce the most horrendous monsters 450 feet tall, it would mean that,

  1. after the fallen angels had abandoned their first estate in heaven, they themselves suddenly and miraculously developed genitalia or
  2. God Himself provided them with genitalia so that they could have sex with women.

The question we need to ask, is why would God do a silly thing like that? Why would He want to provide fallen angels with genitalia – since Jesus the Creator of all things had already made it clear that they do not have genitalia because He did not create them with sexual organs?

If it were true that the fallen angels themselves had developed genitalia or that God provided them with genitalia subsequent to their fall, it is very odd that all the fallen angels received male and not female genitalia. Genesis 6 very clearly states that it was the sons of God (males) who entered into the daughters of men (females).

Did He provide them with genitalia after their great fall into sin because He Himself wished to be part of their sin? Individuals and pastors of churches who teach this are blaspheming Jesus and his teaching in Matthew 22:30.

If God did not create the angels with genitalia, it follows that they themselves miraculously developed genitalia after their fall into sin when they followed Satan in his rebellion against God. It is equally blasphemous because it suggests that fallen angels have creative powers.

Nonetheless, could it be possible that spirit beings like fallen angels can copulate with women without genitalia? Some seem to think so. They assert that people in cultures where witchcraft abounds and especially in Satanism actually do have sex with demons and even Satan himself.

Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries, writes as follows regarding the Nephilim:

Jacob Prasch

Jacob Prasch

“Now, most of the popular “deliverance ministries” going around today is a lot of Ghostbusters-type nonsense with no Scriptural basis; I would seriously question whether most of these people could handle real demon possession if it ever faced them – it’s no joke.

But I once cast a demon out of a black necromancer who was having sexual relations with demons.

There was a witch in England on television in America, who gave her testimony when she got saved and told of having intercourse with a devil; people witnessed this.

This kind of activity was around in the days of Noah, and it will be around again in the Last Days. Somehow demonoids – they were virtual monsters – will exist on the earth again, as they did in Noah’s day.

We will see an increase in occult activity, but particularly in this kind of high Satanism; even to the point of people having relations with demons. It already goes on, but it’s going to increase.”

The question we need to ask, is: Did the black necromancer and the witch in England have sex with Satan and demons, even to the point where they married them and had children as tall as 450 feet? Please remember, the point made in Genesis 6 is that the alleged sin of the demons were that they married the daughters of men as many as they wished and had offspring with them. We need to compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges or anything else.

So, the bottom-line is that we cannot compare Prasch’s examples of the necromancer and the witch with the doings of evil spirits in Genesis 6. If their sexual relationship with the devil and demons did not produce any children, why would they spawn monster-like demonoids in the last days? That’s ridiculous.

We ought to remind ourselves that the devil is a liar (John 8:44) and that everything he says and does are but lies. He cannot speak the truth and when he allegedly tells the truth (something he can do with vigor), he only does it to camouflage his lies.

As such, he is indeed capable of simulating the sexual act with women, especially when the women are steeped in the occult, witchcraft and Satanism. His simulation is so malevolently perfect that the women truly experience it as the sexual act.

About sixteen years ago Coetzee Zietsman, one of the cameramen of the series, “What does God think of us?” on SABC2, produced a similar program for SABC TV. It was probably one of the most shocking programs ever to hit the TV airwaves in South Africa.

It showed in graphical detail how South African sangomas (witchdoctors) are initiated into the occult practice of communicating with their dead ancestors.

One of the methods used to appease the ancestral spirits and to determine whether they approve of the candidates who have been chosen to become sangomas is the following:

The candidate must lie on the ground, usually on her left side opposite a goat which is lain down in a similar position on its right side.

Both are covered with a single animal skin that serves as a blanket. The focal point in the ceremony is the goat because it allegedly functions as a medium through which the ancestral spirits communicate their wishes.

The candidate must then simulate sex with the goat (without touching it). If the goat reacts in a positive way, so to speak, it is a sign that the ancestors are pleased with the candidate and that she may proceed to the next part of the ceremony.

The goat’s jugular vein is then slit and while a gush of blood spurts out freely the candidate puts her mouth to the gaping wound and starts to drink the blood. Sometimes the blood is caught up in a beaker for her to drink.

This is a classic example of how Satan and his demons can simulate the sexual act with women. However, there is again absolutely no possibility and no proof that it can spawn offspring, which once again is at variance with what Genesis 6 teaches.

God never commanded the angels to be fruitful and to fill the earth. It was given to Adam and Eve and their descendants and not to the angels and least of all the fallen angels.

The moment God spoke these words, Adam and Eve immediately received the ability to produce offspring in their likeness. Spirit beings like angels could only have received this ability if they too had been given the command to be fruitful and fill the heavens and the earth.

The fact is, He never issued such a command to the angels and therefore they cannot possibly be fruitful and fill the earth.

Modern-Day Virtual Sex

If modern-day computer technology is able to entertain men and women with virtual sex, Satan and his demons have a far better ability to simulate sex in an occult or satanic virtual environment. The following extract is from an article that appeared on the Internet on 14 February 2014.

In the future, some people will choose to spend Valentine’s Day alone, having virtual sex with a 3D avatar with the help of a fully responsive robotic assistant.

And by the future, I mean maybe next year. Intrepid horndog hackers can do it right now. . .

At a tech conference last fall, Tenga unveiled a crude contraption that allowed volunteers to participate in a simulation wherein they received sexual favors from an anime character through virtual reality goggles.

Since then, they’ve updated the software and the graphics of the simulator, and are continuing to promote robot-assisted virtual sex.

“I think in the future, the virtual real will become more real than actual real sex,” Tenga CEO Tsuneki Sato told me.

Did you hear that? If mortal man is capable of simulating virtual sex in a digitally generated virtual environment, then the devil must be equally or even more capable to simulate sex in an occult environment by means of demon possession.

The insurmountable problem, however, is that just as much as computerized simulated sex cannot produce children, the devil’s and his demons’ simulated sex cannot spawn children until the cows come home, which again completely disqualifies it as a valid example to substantiate Genesis 6.

And yet they dare to try and talk a hole in our head and tell us that demons spawned children on the earth during Noah’s days?

The sad reality is that some of the most influential evangelists and preachers believe and teach this very dangerous lie.

If marriage in its most deepest sense is the becoming of one flesh between one man and one woman (which God Himself ordained), of which the sexual act is the physical confirmation of this oneness, it follows that the fallen angels must have had become flesh and blood (incarnated) before they could marry the daughters of men and have children with them.

Anything that does not abide by God’s ordained will for a marriage – the oneness in flesh – is not a marriage. Therefore, a spirit being like a fallen angel cannot possibly become one flesh with a woman of flesh and blood unless it becomes flesh and blood itself.

To reiterate with profound solemnity: this amounts to the blasphemous notion that Jesus Christ’s incarnation was not unique but just one of many incarnations. It also follows that God Himself must have incarnated the fallen angels because no one else – including the demons – have the power to incarnate spirit beings.

Furthermore, if the Nephilim (the fallen ones) were to be identified and verified strictly according to what Jude verse 6 teaches, then those particular demons cannot possibly have had intercourse with women, let alone get married to them.

The passage says without any vagueness or ambiguity that those fallen angels were immediately cast under (not in) darkness (Tartarus) and will remain there until the final Day of Judgment.

It follows that we may under no circumstances associate Jude verses 6 and 7 with the sons of God in Genesis 6.

The Doctrine of the Nephilim Side Tracks the Actual  Reason why Satan and the Fallen Angels Were Cast Out of Heaven

The general assessment of the Fall in heaven and on the earth among the Nephilim theorists, that it is the marital bond between fallen angels and the daughters of men that angered God so much, is not only anti-biblical but it also side-tracks the actual reason why the fallen angels were judged so severely.

Listen to this garbage. It comes from Chapter 15 of the Book of Enoch.

1. Then addressing me, He spoke and said, Hear, neither be afraid, O righteous Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness: approach hither, and hear my voice. Go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to pray for them, You ought to pray for men, and not men for you.

2. Wherefore have you forsaken the lofty and holy heaven, which endures for ever, and have lain with women; have defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; have taken to yourselves wives; have acted like the sons of the earth, and have begotten an impious offspring?

3. You being spiritual, holy, and possessing a life which is eternal, have polluted yourselves with women; have begotten in carnal blood; have lusted in the blood of men; and have done as those who are flesh and blood do.

4. These however die and perish.

5. Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth.

6. But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.

7. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.

Poor women. Must they always bear the brunt of unjust condemnation whether they like it or not? The author of the Book of Enoch suggests that it was not Satan’s pride to become like God that brought him and two thirds (or was it one third?) of the host of angels down from their lofty place in heaven. (Isaiah 14:12-16; Ezekiel 28:13-17).

No, you female scoundrels, it was you. Your beauty, your sensual allurement and your irresistible and devious tactics were the death knell of some of the former holy angels. You defiled them, you . . . you . . . you . . . witches who bewitched the angels.

What utter, utter nonsense! Let me repeat that: WHAT UTTER, UTTER NONSENSE.

As I said earlier, Satan and his fallen angels were judged because the devil wanted to be like God and to exalt him above God. In fact, and I think I mentioned it earlier, the belief that the angels’ defilement with women was the prime reason for their downfall undermines the Fall of Adam and Eve in a very big way.

It suggests that the fallen angels are to blame for all the sins, chaos and mayhem in the world and not the personal sins of every individual human being. May I remind you that Adam and Eve fell into sin the very same way Satan and his demons fell into it? They too believed that they could be like God.

It was this and nothing else that caused the Fall of Satan, his demons, and Adam and Eve as well as the Great Flood. It had nothing to do with alleged marriages, sex and corruption between fallen angels and their many wives.

David Pawson is another deceived evangelist who partly blames the daughters of men for the whole mess on earth. Note carefully that he also regards the alleged marriages between fallen angels and the daughters of men as the most evil and appalling event that ever happened.

Really? Wasn’t it Satan’s attack on God’s holiness, his awesome uniqueness and his very character when he wanted to be like Him and exalt himself above Him that was the most evil and appalling event that ever took place in the entire history of the universe, and which angered God so much?

It is obvious that Satan wants to divert the attention from this evil to an allegedly more evil thing imaginable – i.e. the alleged Sci-Fi marriages between fallen angels and the daughters of men. Pawson says:

David PawsonIt is vital to see what was happening before God sent the Flood. Why did He do it – the only time in history God has ever done such a thing and the only time in history He ever will do such a thing?

What was it so terrible about that society that caused God to do it?

The answer is that evil had taken a perverted form that had stepped beyond all previous bounds and right beyond the limits that God had set to human behaviour.

And there is something so evil, so appalling happening in the first few verses of this chapter that it makes you shudder.

(Thomas says:  Pawson suggests that their are different levels of sin. There are those that are most appalling and then there are those who are merely petty sins and not so appalling. Sin is sin, Mr. Pawson, whether big or small. Even the very smallest of sins that are not so appalling and horrid sends you to hell. Don’t you know that? You should, you know! You are supposed to be a pastor and a man of God. And allow me to remind you, the horrid and appalling thing about all sins is not that the one is more horrid than the other. The appalling thing is that the unrepentant sinners who never sinned as grossly as the alleged Nephilim in Genesis 6 are going to spend an eternity in hell, like the alleged sons of God (fallen angels) who forced the women to marry them. The most appalling thing, Mr Pawson, was that these giants of renown who believed they were gods and immortal refused to repent. And another thing, your Nephilim nonsense belittles the blood of Christ because you suggest that those who married the sons of God (fallen demons) were irredeemable.  The blood of Christ was unable to cleanse the women who were forced into a marriage with fallen demons? Really? Your shenanigans sounds so much like the horrid and applling Calvinist doctrine that Jesus only died for the elect.).

God’s longsuffering endured their sins for 120 years and if they had repented of their sins – as the great city of Nineveh had done many years later – God would not have destroyed them with a flood. There is not a single sin how ever horrid and appalling that cannot be forgiven, except, of course, the sin against the Holy Spirit).

Verses 1 to 4 describe the expression of the evil that had invaded society by this time. We started in Genesis 3 with sin in an individual, then in a marriage, then in a family, then in a society, and now we see sin on a world-scale.

Now what form was it taking? How was it being expressed? The answer is that certain marriages were taking place of a particularly horrible kind.

And we must ask what was so horrible about them? We are told first of all that they were marriages based on physical attraction alone. That in itself is an inadequate marriage in God’s site.

And to marry on the grounds of physical attraction alone is not what God intended. But that is not what is horrible about these marriages.

The horrible thing is that the sons of God were entering into union with the daughters of men. That’s what is horrible. Now what is so horrible about that? What does it mean?

You’ll find that many people have given different interpretations to this. First of all there are those who say that the people of God were marrying people who didn’t belong to God, or to put it in Genesis terms, that the sons of Seth, God’s line, were marrying the daughters of Cain, the evil line.

Now while there is a truth here I don’t think this expresses the horror of the situation. I know perfectly well that God’s people must marry within God’s people. You must not destroy the boundary of God’s people in your marriage.

A believer must marry a believer. That is laid down in the New Testament. It is our Lord’s word. . . But that was not what made God do as He did here.

There was an intriguing suggestion made on Thursday evening in our workshop which I since found in another book. And that was, was this a marriage between men made in the image of God and anthropological species, animals in other words

(Thomas says: To even mention such a horrendous situation as being a marriage, is a very serious affront to God) and certain it is that the Bible condemns as obscene and vile unions between men and animals in which men have engaged from time to time.

But that is not quite horrible enough yet. I’m going to suggest and ask you to check up in the rest of the Bible whether this doesn’t make sense that the phrase sons of God refers to angels.

Everywhere else in the Bible that phrase when it’s not defined refers to angels. Read the early chapters of Job for example.

Now if that’s what it means, we had a most extraordinary departure from God’s ordered world in which animals were at this level, and were to mate among themselves, men were at this level and were to marry among themselves.

Angels were in the heavenly realm and were not to marry at all for the angels in heaven neither marry not are given in marriage.

But we are told in the New Testament that angels stepped out of their proper order – that’s the literal word – and fell. And I take it that that refers to Genesis 6 in which we have the most extraordinary occurrence of union between spirits and men. (Thomas says: That’s not what the Bible says. It says that the marital union was between flesh and blood and flesh and blood – not between spirits and men – but between men and women.)

Now some years ago I wouldn’t have credited that as possible until I came across a case with which I had enough connection to know the situation of a woman who was regularly having such relationships with demonic possession, and the horror of it struck my soul.

Here were angels who left their proper station and entered into union with men or rather with women (Thomas says: Thanks for the correction), with the daughters of men. Nothing could be more . . . horrible . . .

And you can begin to see now how utterly horrible a result would be in God’s site. Here were women who were now physically possessed by evil spirits, the fallen ones and the Hebrew for fallen ones is Nephilim, Nephilim, wrongly translated in the Authorized Version, giants.

Apart from the fact that this is a perfect script for a Hollywood Sci-Fi movie, there are several serious blobs in Pawson’s eisegesis of Genesis 6.

If this horrible sin was limited only to “certain marriages” and not the entire human race of women, as Pawson said, why would a God who is perfectly just and righteous cause a world-wide flood to destroy all flesh?

God who is the essence of perfect justice and righteousness would never destroy Mrs. X who was lawfully married to another human being together with Mrs Y who was demon possessed and married to a fallen angel (Nephilim).

Surely a God of perfect justice and righteousness would not judge the entire world when only some women indulged in this allegedly horrible sin of marrying evil spirit beings.

There were probably more cases of demon possession in the time of Jesus and even much more nowadays than in the time of Noah. There is nothing peculiar about demon possession so as to persuade God to destroy the entire world, especially when it was limited to only “certain marriages.”

If this was the reason why God sent a Flood He would have been unjust in his dealing with humankind.

Have you noticed that Pawson suggests that the angels in heaven (as he stressed it so carefully) were quite capable of marrying women but were forbidden to enter into a marital union with the daughters of men, and that the Nephilim (fallen ones) overstepped the boundaries set for them in heaven (i.e. not to marry but left their first estate of celibacy) and fell into a horrible and heinous sin when they defiled themselves with the daughters of men?

How else can he and others who hold to this abominable doctrine sustain their Nephilim theory if Jesus meant that the angels in heaven were altogether sexless and therefore unable to marry or be given in marriage?

Therefore, their misinterpretation of Matthew 22:30 and their forced explanation that the angels are quite capable of having intercourse with women but were forbidden to marry is unavoidable.

As I said earlier, this puts God squarely in league with Satan and his Antichrist who forbids anyone to get married. (1 Timothy 4:3).

The question we need to ask is whether the scene described in Genesis 6 was the most horrible thing to befall man or was there something more horrible than that?

To answer this question we must briefly look at the sin that caused Adam and Eve to fall into disrepute with God and consequently dumped the entire human race in the horrible position of rebellion and utter lostness in the sight of an awesomely holy God.

The core element of this most horrible and heinous sin ever to plague humankind since the beginning of time, lies in Satan’s lie: “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Was this not the very same sin that caused Satan and his minions to fall into sin in heaven? (Isaiah 14:12-16; Ezekiel 28:13-17).

But what has this got to do with Genesis 6 and the sin of a marital union between the sons of God and the daughters of men?

First of all, we need to remind ourselves that Satan’s lie “You will surely not die” (gain immortality) and therefore be like God, was perpetuated in a very big way in the time of Noah prior to the Great Flood.

To understand the vast impact Satan’s lie had on society in those days we also need to remind ourselves why God forbade believers to marry unbelievers.

It is a known fact that children usually adopt the religion of their mother rather than that of their father. The reason, I believe, is because the children spend most of their years of upbringing with their mothers and grandmothers (2 Timothy 1:5).

Protestants who marry Roman Catholics will soon find their children following their mothers to become Catholics themselves.

This, I believe was the main reason why God forbade the Israelite to marry the women of other nations who worshiped other gods.

And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:

And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves. (Judges 3:5-7)

They were also strictly forbidden to marry many wives.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:17).

Marrying many wives, especially from the nations of women who worshiped idols, was a sure recipe for disaster. Look what happened to King Solomon.

Paul’s succinct description of idol worship in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 demonstrates how dangerous heathen idolatry is to believers who marry unbelievers. They open their offspring they’ve spawned in their marriages with unbelievers to devil worship and demon possession.

This is precisely what happened in Genesis 6. Walfoord and Zuck describes this passage as follows

It is known from Ezekiel 28:11 and Daniel 10:13 that great kings of the earth have “princes” ruling behind them—their power is demonic. It is no surprise that in Ugaritic literature (as was other nations’ literature), kings are described as divine, half-divine, or demigods.

Pagans revered these great leaders. Many mythological traditions describe them as being the offspring of the gods themselves. In fact bn’lm (“sons of th gods”) in Ugaritic is used of members the pantheon as well as great kings of the earth. In the Ugaritic legend of the Dawn, the chief god of the pantheon, El seduced two human women.

This union of a god with human women produced Shr (“Dawn”) and Sim (“Dusk”) who seem to have become goddesses representing Venus.

Thus, for the pagans, gods had their origin in copulation between gods and humans. Any superhuman individual in a myth or any mythological or actual giant would suggest divine origin to the pagans.

Genesis 6:1-4, then, describes how corrupt the world got when this violation was rampant. It is also a polemic against the pagan belief that giants (Nephilim; cf. Num. 13:32-33) and men of renown (Gen. 6:4) were of divine origin, and that immortality was achieved by immorality.

The Canaanite cult (and most cults in the ancient Near East) included fertility rites involving sympathetic magic, based on the assumption that people are supernaturally affected through an object which represents them. Israel was warned to resist this because it was completely cor­rupt and erroneous.

The passage, then, refutes pagan be­liefs by declaring the truth. The sons of God were not divine; they were demon controlled. Their marrying as many women as they wished (possibly this is the origin of harems) was to satisfy their baser instincts.

They were just another low order of creatures, though powerful and demon-influenced. Children of these marriages, despite pagan ideas, were not god-kings. Though heroes and “men of renown,” they were flesh; and they died, in due course, like all mem­bers of the human race.

When God judges the world—as He was about to— no giant, no deity, no human has any power against Him. God simply allots one’s days and brings his end.

As you can see the abominable doctrine of the Nephilim being fallen angels who married the daughters of men is not merely a myth but a pagan myth to its very core and anyone who believes this garbage makes him or herself guilty of sheer unadulterated paganism.

I am of the opinion that when Noah began to preach and warn the ancient world that God was going to send a flood to destroy them, they must have said something like the following.

We don’t know your God who says He will destroy us. We are gods ourselves and immortal. He can’t kill us.

This is precisely what Pharaoh said when Moses and Aaron appeared before him and demanded to set his people free.

And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go. (Exodus 5:2).

The Egyptians also believed that Pharaoh and his firstborn were gods. Because God hates the arrogant seizure of his godhood that belongs to Him and Him alone, He slew all the firstborn of Egypt because He will never tolerate the lie that man is a god and therefore immortal. Claiming godhead in the site of an awesomely holy God – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – is the most horrible sin anyone can perpetrate.

The alleged sin of fallen angels marrying the daughters of men is not the most horrible sin imaginable, as Pawson and his fellow Nephilim theorists say. In fact, it is nothing but a ploy of the devil to divert the attention from the greatest sin man can do and that is to claim godhood and say – I AM.

Allow me to indulge in a wee bit of fantasy. I think I am entitled to do so seeing that the Nephilim theory itself is but a fantasy (2 Timothy 4:4).

David Pawson said “And I take it that that refers to Genesis 6 in which we have the most extraordinary occurrence of union between spirits and men.

MR. SPIRIT, YOU MAY NOW KISS THE BRIDE

Now let’s be naughty and invite ourselves to a wedding between a spirit and a woman of flesh and blood. The conversation between two enthralled wedding guests would probably go something like this.

Mr. spirit, you may now kiss the bride

Mr. spirit, you may now kiss the bride

“Oh, doesn’t she look so awesomely adorable and gorgeous? She’s so beautiful.

Who designed her dress?

Silly you! I did.

Wow! That surely is something to admire. Congrats!

Thanks!

But where’s the groom? How did she meet him?

Don’t you know? Haven’t you heard? She’s marrying a spirit. He’s standing right next to her.

A spirit? WOW, how awesome! How do you know?

David Pawson told me and Jacob Prasch and Chuck Missler and Steve Cioccolanti confirmed it.

What? A spirit? (giggle). How are they going to make it in bed when she cannot feel and touch him?

Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that if I were you. He’s quite capable of appearing and disappearing at will and he has already learned to do so when he’s in bed with her.

Wow! That’s a relief.

(The pastor pronounces them husband and wife and family and friends start to sob louder – without getting the slightest glimpse of the groom).

Jokes aside. The Nephilim theory is arguably one of the most dangerous doctrines in the church these days. Stay away, brethren. Here now follow the reasons why.

Concluding Remarks

It is rather conspicuous that many preachers who believe the Nephilim nuptial relationship with the daughters of men also believe in cosmic phenomena like the Niburu (also called Ison) that was supposed to cause havoc on a cosmic scale on earth in 2012. Nothing happened. ITherefore, it is no surprise that they also believe in aliens.

What does the Word of God say?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:22).

Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. (Jeremiah 14:14)

Soothsaying (false prophecy and teaching) is mentioned in the same breath as persons who allow their children to go through the fire, diviners, prognosticators, charmers and consulters of familiar spirits.

When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

Therefore it is intensely dangerous to declare unequivocally that the Nephilim who allegedly once appeared on earth in Genesis 6 to marry the daughters of men, will again appear on earth in the last days to spawn monsters so evil the imagination cannot even remotely contemplate.

There are many evangelists, televangelists preachers, pastors and Christians who have adopted this foul doctrine of which Steve Cioccolanti, Chuck Missler, Jacob Prasch, David Pawson and New Ager Elizabeth Clare Prophet are the best known.

Some of them may be saved, others not. The bottom-line is that they are misleading thousands if not millions of Christians and they will have to give an account to God one day.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3).

More...

39 comments to The Nephilim Controversy

  • Edmund

    In the genealogy of Jesus in the book of Luke it is written that Adam was the son of God.
    If Adam is God’s son then his descendants are the sons of God.

    Luke 3:38

  • Edmund,

    You are right in saying that it is the genealogy of Jesus and not Adam.

    Contrary to Matthew’s genealogy, Luke’s genealogy begins with Jesus and works back to God. If, as you’ve admitted, it is the genealogy of Jesus, Luke is saying that Jesus’ genealogy goes right back to God of whom HE is the Son.

    In any case, I distinctly said that only those who do the will of God are called his sons (male and female) (Romans 8:14). What does that mean? It simply means they had repented of their sins and believed in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. (John 6:40).

    Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God. I too made special mention of Seth of whom it is said “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (Genesis 4:26). The phrase “calling upon the Name of the Lord” refers to salvation (Acts 2:21: Romans 10:13), and is associated with offerings, contrition and worship.

    The physical sons of Adam didn’t naturally make them sons of God. If that were true, you would only need to be the son of a believer in order to be saved. That’s rank heresy. There’s a great difference between being the physical son of a father and a spiritual son of God.

    At any rate, you are missing the point. My entire post revolves around whether the fallen angels were the sons of God and not particularly about whether believers and unbelievers are sons of God just because they are all his creatures.

    I suggest that you read my post again.

  • Martin Horan

    I found a site promoting this Nephilim belief as giants being descended from angels and women. When I kept replying with biblical facts, a woman correspondent accused me of only wishing to argue. A male one told me to stop confusing him by quoting Scriptures!

  • Marie

    Thank you! God bless you.

  • Marie wrote,

    Thank you! God bless you.

    Thanks for your thank you but what is your thanks and blessing for? I’m a little confused?

  • Kate E

    You use harsh words for anyone with the opinion that fallen angels took wives of the daughters of men and produced offspring of giants calling it “unbiblical”, “totally illogical”, and “pure blasphemy”, however you haven’t provided a very strong argument as far as I am concerned.

    You criticize using Jude 1:6 for support but don’t analyze this verse to comprehend what it is saying. In this verse it refers to the “angels who did not keep their own domain [arche], but abandoned their proper [idios] abode [oiketerion]”. The Greek arche is defined in HELP’s Word-studies to mean “from the beginning (i.e. the initial starting point)”, idios means “uniquely one’s own”, and oiketerion means “dwelling place or habitation”. It is clear that this verse refers to angels that left their original purpose – their role as messangers, and their unique habitation – heaven. There is no other biblical indication of this occurring other than in Genesis 6:4 leading me to conclude that these are the angels being discussed. Consider 1 Peter 3 when Jesus “went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison” (v19) “who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah” (v20) which clearly refers to these fallen angels. Consider also 2 Peter 2:4 where it says “if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment” again clearly referring to these fallen angels. This leads me to the conclusion that it was angelic beings referred to in Gen 6:4 that fathered the Nephilim who were destroyed in the flood along with the rest of sinful mankind, and more angels “abandoned their proper abode” after the flood creating more giants as confirmed in Numbers 13:33.

    You state that because the words men or man appear no less than ten times in Genesis 6: 1 to 7 it indicates we’re dealing with “normal human beings” and that the word “chose” indicates these verses were referring to relationships between believers and unbelievers but clearly this mingling was something new that occurred “when men began to multiply on the face of the land” (v1) that made God shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years (v3), and created “Nephilim”, “mighty men” (v4) so this rules out normal male – female relationships. You go into a lengthy discourse on relationships between believers and non-believers but that isn’t what these verses in Genesis 6 are about.

    You fail to address the word Nephilim which occurs 3 times in scripture – 1 in Genesis 6: 4, and 2 in Numbers 13:33. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines Nephilim as being from the Hebrew word naphal which means “a feller (i.e. a bully or tyrant – giant)” and NAS Exhaustive Concordance defines it as “giants, names of two peoples – one before the flood and one after”. The Nephilim were “mighty [gibbor] men, the heroes of old, men of renown [shem – a name]”” Gen 6:4. The Hebrew gibbor means strong, mighty which may be partly or wholly due to the physical size of these men. We see their reputation in Deut 9:2 where it says “a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard [it said], ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’”

    You indicate that where it is prophesied that the last days would be like “the days of Noah” means normal activities like eating, drinking and marriage as well as violence and sin, but don’t accept that there will be more fallen angels creating Nephilim. You state that only God can cause spirit being to become human (incarnate) but there are examples throughout scripture of spirit beings interacting with mankind. Jesus is one example – when he was raised from the dead he offered that Thomas could “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side”(John 20:28) proving that he was materially present even though he was spirit. Paul tells us in Hebrews 13:2 “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it” showing us that angels can materialize in the flesh. In Genesis 19 the two angels that were sent to save Lot (v1) from destruction “reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door” (v10), and in the morning “seized Lots, his wife and daughters hands and brought them outside the city (v16). I believe that scripture supports that angels are able to materialize and interact with mankind and presents us with the possibility of angels mingling with mankind in the last days when Satan is released to deceive the nations as prophesied in Rev 20: 7 & 8. Consider in Ephesians 6:12 where we are warned that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”. I would not be so bold as to discount the possibility of more intermingling or spirit and flesh, and more Nephilim.

    The term “sons of God” is used in reference to angels in the Old Testament – Job 1:6, 2:1 , & 38:7, but is also used in reference to the Israelites in Deut 14:1, and born again believers in Galatians 3:26 where Paul states “For you are all sons [huios] of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” All Bible versions translate ben as son in Gen 6:4, and either son, angels (NIV) or members of the heavenly court (NLV) in the verses in Job which clearly refers to angels because it takes place in heaven. The Hebrew word ben and its Greek equivalent huios can refer to children or mature adults and for each verse in question different Bible translations pick either son or children depending on their contextual interpretation of the scripture. Through an in-depth analysis of scripture we can confirm that the term “sons of God” refers to spiritual beings – angels or redeemed mankind.

    I believe the confusion comes from translating these words as son in verses that are clearly referring to spiritual children. The fact that while we are flesh and blood we are not yet adopted sons of God is clearly taught by Paul in Romans 8: 14 to 24 and we can see in verse 14 that the more appropriate translation of huios is children because the spiritual condition described is unredeemed, and in verse 21 which is referring to the revealing is appropriately translated as son because the adoption is complete. Huios in Galatians 3:26 is more appropriately translated as children as it is in many Bible versions (NIV, NLT, KJ etc.). We receive the spirit of God as a guarantee and a seal of ownership as stated in 2 Cor 5:5 “God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit”, and 2 Cor 1:22 that he “set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come”, also called “the Spirit of adoption” in Romans 8:15. In Luke 20:35 & 36 Jesus stated that “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”.

    In conclusion while you use strong language that I consider to be nothing short of bullying to dissuade readers from interpreting scripture to support the fact that angels mingled with mankind in the past and may again in the last days, you have failed to convince me. I recommend you revisit your understanding of these scriptures so you aren’t taken completely by surprise if we do see Nephilim living among us.

  • Kate E wrote:

    You state that because the words men or man appear no less than ten times in Genesis 6: 1 to 7 it indicates we’re dealing with “normal human beings” and that the word “chose” indicates these verses were referring to relationships between believers and unbelievers but clearly this mingling was something new that occurred “when men began to multiply on the face of the land” (v1) that made God shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years (v3), and created “Nephilim”, “mighty men” (v4) so this rules out normal male – female relationships. You go into a lengthy discourse on relationships between believers and non-believers but that isn’t what these verses in Genesis 6 are about.

    Your conclusions are all based on mere conjecture. First of all, God did not shorten the lifespan of mankind to 120 years. He granted humankind (not fallen angels) a respite of 120 years to repent of their sins, something which fallen angels cannot do for all eternity. Normal human beings may receive forgiveness of their sins, not fallen angels.

    Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited [1230 years] in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peters 3:20).

    Do you really believe that God would be longsuffering to fallen angels because He does not want them to perish? Once again, God is longsuffering ONLY to human beings.

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peters 3:9).

    Noah was as much a lost sinner as any other person who perished in the Great Flood. The only difference was that he repented and received forgiveness for his sins.

    The fallen angels in Genesis 6 is said to have been cast into Tartarus where they are being kept until the final Day of Judgement. When and how did they leave Tartarus to have sex with earthly women?

    1 Peter 3:19 does not in the very least say that the spirits who are now in prison are fallen angels. They are the spirits of normal human beings who refused to repent of their sins during the days of Noah.

    The sons of Anak in Numbers 13:33 were giants born of normal human beings. Anak only had three sons, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai. Therefore, the spies Moses sent out to Canaan saw only three giants. The Bible does not say that they saw a whole army of giants. In any case Caleb drove out Anak’s three sons when he was sent to conquer the land of Canaan.

    Of course there were giants in those days as there are today. The question is: Are today’s giants the offspring of fallen angels and earthly women? Should you believe they are, then you are offending normal human beings who were made in the image of God.

    The fact that spirit beings interacted with human beings in the Old Testament is no proof that fallen angels had intercourse with human beings. At any rate, every single example of angels who interacted with human beings were all holy angels – never fallen angels. When Satan interacted with Eve he spoke through a serpent and not in the form or guise of a human being. God allowed holy angels to appear in the guise of humans and to interact with men. None of them were incarnated. Jesus Christ is the only pre-existing Spirit Being who was incarnated by God the Father. Your view blasphemes the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ.

    Your interpretation of Romans 8:14-24 is totally wrong. You cannot say that because the word “children” is used in verse 16 that believers are not yet adopted sons and daughters of God. If you are not yet an adopted son (generic word for all God’s children), you are not yet saved. The word “teknon” (children) in verse 16 is also translated as child, daughter and son.

    You quoted Luke 20:35-36. It completely debunks the view that it was fallen angels who married the daughters of men in Genesis 6. He distinctly says that angels do not marry in heaven and that the resurrected will be like them when they too are in heaven. You are denying what Jesus said in Luke 20:35-36 and in Matthew 22:30.

  • Kate E

    Consulting only with scripture I couldn’t figure out where the concept of the mixing of believers and unbelievers/sons of Seth and daughters of Cain came from because this concept appeared out of thin air (read – it is not supported by scripture), but on this article http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html they identify that this teaching started with Augustine stating the following:

    “The interpretation of Genesis 6 which takes “the sons of God” as referring to the godly line of Seth is most natural since it avoids the obvious problem of how spirit beings could copulate with humans. Moreover, it has weighty support in that it is the view of many theological giants of church history. It is not an early view– we will come back to that later–but it appears in such thinkers as Chrysostom and Augustine in the early church, and is adopted by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and their followers.

    Of the early views Augustine’s is most important because he had a great influence on later interpreters. Moreover, he placed his interpretation within a broad theological context. Augustine’s treatment occurs in The City of God, in which he is trying to trace the origin, nature and development of the two cities (the society of those who love God and the society of those who love self). This is significant, because it fits his objective to view Genesis 6 as continuing the story of the two cities which, according to Augustine, emerges in Genesis 4 and 5. He writes of the passage, “By these two names [sons of God and daughters of men] the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For although the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace…. When they [the godly race] were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society.””

    According to this article http://www.douglashamp.com/sons-of-seth-and-the-daughters-of-cain-or-fallen-angels-procreating-with-women/ :

    “Calvin continues with his unbiblical prohibition of inter-class marriages. Notice that again he does not offer any biblical support for any of his positions. He does not seek to prove his point with Scripture but with opinion and conjecture. Having simply asserted his position, Calvin then ridicules the ‘sons of God as demons interpretation.”

    So this false teaching is derived from Augustine and Calvin. My concern regarding this false teaching is that it leaves us vulnerable to demonic attacks not accepting the tactics our enemy can and will use to deceive us. Don’t let the enemy take you by surprise. Read the word and pray for understanding!

  • Kate E wrote:

    So this false teaching is derived from Augustine and Calvin. My concern regarding this false teaching is that it leaves us vulnerable to demonic attacks not accepting the tactics our enemy can and will use to deceive us. Don’t let the enemy take you by surprise. Read the word and pray for understanding!

    You seem to derive your need for alertness to demonic attacks from a very shaky theory and not the Bible which is all sufficient. We don’t need a silly theory to keep us alert. The Bible warns in several passages that we should be aware of the wiles of the devil (2 Cor 2:11; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Cor 11:13-15). What if your version of the Nephilim were wrong? Would your alertness to the wiles of the devil and his demons diminish and vanish in thin air? I suggest that you rather base your alertness on the Bible and not a shaky theory.

    Answer me this. If it were so that fallen demons married and had sex with women and spawned children by them, why are they no longer doing it? Did God cause all of them to become impotent?

    Your problem is, you don’t believe Jesus Christ who said:

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

    So, as you can see, this “false teaching” was NOT derived from Augustine and Calvin. It started with Jesus Christ.

    And don’t tell me He only referred to the holy angels in heaven. The fallen angels were also holy angels before they followed Satan in his rebellion against God. It follows that they too neither married nor were given in marriage. If they did marry the daughters of men, when did they receive the ability to marry and have kids with women and who gave them that ability – God? You must be kidding me!

    My statement that the Nephilim theory demeans the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ does not seem to bother you.

    Your warning “Don’t let the enemy take you by surprise” is rather odd. Do you mean that only women need to watch out lest they be clobbered over the head and are forced to marry demons (spiritual beings)? Men don’t need to be alert because the fallen demons are all male entities (allegedly the sons of God) and cannot marry the sons of men. Unless, of course the demons are all gay in which case they cannot spawn children because gay marriages do not produce children. Jesus’ warning against the devil and his fallen angels does not relate to marriage, sex and the Nephilim. His warning relates to the vile wiles of deception. And you, are deceived.

  • Kate E

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine? In scripture “sons of God” refers to angels and saints, and daughters of men is a general term. Nowhere in scripture does it tie “sons of God” to believers or “daughters of men” to nonbelievers. It is clearly stated in Genesis 6:4 that this mingling resulted in giants and why would this happen if it really was referring to the offspring of pure human beings? You haven’t provided any scripture proving this teaching.

    Christ was born wholly man yet the wholly divine son of God. The angels that manifest in human form are not wholly human which is why the mingling of their seed with the “daughters of men” creates offspring with genetic mutations. You are wrong to indicate that those believing the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels have any lesser faith in Jesus Christ having been born a man.

    What my discussion with you reveals to me is that true believers need to be humble and accept ridicule because this is a tool that Satan uses to defend his false doctrine.

  • Kate E wrote,

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Did God create the holy angels with the ability to marry and spawn children but forbade them to marry? The rebellious angels who were in heaven before their fall were not evicted from heaven because they allegedly married and had sex with the daughters of men. They were evicted because they followed Satan who said he wanted to exalt himself above God. Read your Bible.

    You wrote:

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine?

    You’re not listening. I have already proved to you that it did not originate with Augustine but Jesus Christ.

    Yes, your’re right in saying Satan uses tools to deceive, and one of those tools is the infamous doctrine of the Nephilim (fallen angels) who allegedly fell in love with the daugters of men, married them, had sex with thewm and had kids with them. That’s preposterous. Do you really want me to educate you in what sex is? SPIRITUAL BEINGS LIKE ANGELS CANNOT HAVE SEX. GOD DID NOT CREATE THEM TO MARRY AND HAVE SEX. Theat’s what Jesus actually said in Matthew 22:30? Can’t you see that? He did not say the holy angels were made with the ability to marry, have sex with women and spwan kids but He forbade them to marry. That’s ridiculous. That would put Him in the same class as false prophets who forbid people to marry (1 Timothy 4:3).

    Justin Martyr taught a lot of nonsense because it is contrary to what Jesus teaches in Matthew 22:30.

    The Nephilim doctrine that fallen angels married women and had sex and kids with them is a satanic doctrine. It does NOT come from God.

  • Martin Horan

    It was interesting to come over this site again. It is astonishing to find that famous “Christian” speakers believe in the Nephilim doctrine.
    I had always thought that Chuck Missler was a true Christian, not that I’d listened much to his views but, with those I had heard, I found him to be a genial man. But I was saddened a while back to find that he believed that fallen angels had married women. It shows that we can’t just listen to “teachers” superficially.
    I hadn’t a clue that Jacob Prasch went along with this stuff also, though his Judaising is flaky enough. And I had considered David Pawson to be fairly sound, after some time back buying a book of his called Defending Christian Zionism, in resopnse to Stephen Sizer and John Stott. Yet the above article shows that Mr Pawson too has become involved in this Nephilim idea.
    It just shows that we really have to be astute in these times when dealing with men who have ministries. We can think they must be sound simply because they have nice personalities or because we agree with them on some things.
    Well done DTW for this insightful article.

  • JT

    Tom,
    I do NOT like the doctrine that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are fallen angels for many of the reasons you say. It seems to throw up issues that I can’t reconcile with scripture, most of all with regard to soteriology. If the sons of God were fallen angels then is mankind to be judged for the sins of angels?
    It is a subject that I have started to study in depth, and I have read your lengthy article in it’s entirety, although that is not to say I necessarily understand everything.

    What are your thoughts on Numbers 13.23 where it says “…and they bare it between two upon a staff..”? The scripture goes on to say as a result of this and other incidences that “an evil report” was brought back to Moses. Now, I grow grapes, and I can pick a “cluster” up with one hand! Was this a “cluster” or a whole vine? Clearly the sons of Anak were rather tall/large people, but just how much so?

  • JT wrote,

    What are your thoughts on Numbers 13.23 where it says
    . . . and they bare it between two upon a staff..”? The scripture goes on to say as a result of this and other incidences that “an evil report” was brought back to Moses. Now, I grow grapes, and I can pick a “cluster” up with one hand! Was this a “cluster” or a whole vine? Clearly the sons of Anak were rather tall/large people, but just how much so?

    The cluster of grapes does not tell us how tall the Anakims were. It tells us how fruitful the land was. In Deuteronomy 9:2 the children of the Anakims are described as having been great and tall.” The word for tall (rûm, room) can either be inerpreted literally or figuratively. The latter describes their self-exaltation, their pride, haughtiness, and self-angrandizement. They may have been giants but not excessively so, to the extent that they were much taller than today’s giants. Goliath’s stature grew at the hand of narrators or scribes: the oldest manuscripts—the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the 1st century historian Josephus, and the 4th century Septuagint manuscripts—all give his height as “four cubits and a span” (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 metres). The tallest man in medical history for whom there is irrefutable evidence is Robert Pershing Wadlow (USA) (born 6:30 a.m. at Alton, Illinois, USA on 22 February 1918), who when last measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 2.72 m (8 ft 11.1 in) tall.

  • JT

    Tom, thank you for your reply. Would the dimensions of Og’s bed in Deuteronomy 3.11 also have to be reduced according to Josephus and the Septuagint? I assume reading the context that the mention of the length and breadth of Og’s bed is written to give us an idea of his size being “of the remnant of giants.”?

  • JT,

    Was Og the offspring of a marriage between a fallen angel and a human being? The fact is, his iron bed which was probably his coffin or sarcophagus was 13.5 feet long and not he personally. The Bible does not say how tall Og was. The fact that his sarcophagus was 13.5 feet long does not mean that he was an exceptionally tall giant. The length and breadth of a sarcophagus indicated how important the man was and not how tall he was.

  • JT

    Tom,I don’t believe that Og was the offspring of a marriage between a fallen angel and a human being.
    I am not sure, but I don’t think, with the exception of Goliath, the Bible gives any specific height of any man, woman or angel? And you seem to say that we can’t rely on the Biblical record of Goliath’s height? But I was only asking if the length of Og’s bedstead must be reduced proportionately as per the height of Goliath according to Josephus and the Septuagint?
    From my research today (by no means exhaustive!) I have not heard anyone say that Og’s bedstead was any thing other than his bed. Granted, if it was his bed no doubt it would be longer than Og. If we were to use the maximum 22″ for a cubit this would put his bedstead at 16 1/2 feet. Reading Deuteronomy 3.11 again it says “behold” as if to say take note and listen? Why would Moses say this if it were his sarcophagus? Are there not many other stone burial places/monuments/pillars throughout the Bible, yet no mention of their dimensions?
    I find this cubit thing very interesting, being a whisker under 6’5″ (and I DON’T feel like a giant!) it would seem obvious to me that my cubit would be longer than a man who was around 5′? I don’t know what the average height of a man was at the time of Moses?

  • JT

    Do you believe that the sons of God were fallen angels who married women of flesh and blood (human beings)?

  • JT

    Tom,
    The sons of God, I certainly believe to be of the godly line of Seth. It is my belief that because the two bloodlines were apart for a great many years that the intermixture may well have given rise to an offspring of superior bodily size and constitution (as God permitted). Also that this intermarrying brought upon them God’s wrath, of which the Almighty gave men 120 years to repent. The deluge came, and as we know giants existed afterward (Numbers 13.33) which were also the progeny of men.
    As you well know, there are many out there who would have us believe that the giants were over 100′ tall or more, and try to prove from ambiguous rock formations (principally their foot prints)that such existed.
    Certainly I believe if God wanted to produce giants of 100′ or more in height, He was/is more than capable of doing so.
    If I am contending for anything, it is only that these “giants” were significantly taller than you believe them to have been, only because the Bible calls them “giants”, and we do have the Scriptures pertaining to Og and Goliath to give us an indication of their size?
    An old time writer asked “How could the intermixture of the Sethites and sons of men produce giants?” To which we may reply “How could the intermixture of fallen angels and the sons of men produce offspring, let alone giants!”? And besides all this, it was for the sins of men that the deluge came. If the fallen angel theory be correct then they would be the guilty party?

  • JT

    The word “nephı̂yl” does not necessarily mean a giant in stature. It also means “feller” which is a bully or a tyrant.

  • JT

    Tom,
    I agree that the word Nephilim “does not necessarily mean a giant in stature”. But we do have other evidence (if it is to be believed) from Scripture that shine much light on the height of some who lived around 3000 years ago and more.
    In a previous post you mentioned a giant in modern times by the name of Robert Wadlow, very interesting. Apparently when he died he was still growing; how do we know that thousands (or even hundreds) of years ago men twice his height or more didn’t exist?
    With respect, you may have overlooked a question I asked in a previous post-can the dimensions recorded in Deuteronomy 3.11 be relied upon? I only ask this as you previously said words to the effect that our modern Bibles cannot be trusted regarding the height of Goliath in 1 Samuel 17.4?
    I thank you for your speedy replies-some other sites don’t reply!

  • JT

    Christians so often get bogged down in useless details that they miss the spiritual lessons the Bible teach. Whether Goliath was 9’9″ tall (Hebrew Bible), 6’9″ (Greek Old Testament), 6’9″ (Dead Sea Scrolls), or 6’9″ tall according to Josephus, we should not get caught up in these kinds of arguments. Surely the lesson in 1 Samuel 17 is that the flesh (physical stature, prowess, beauty, and strength) “availeth nothing” because it is “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Zechariah 4:6). Or should we rather continue to calculate how many angels fit onto the head of a pin? Get my drift?

  • JT

    Tom,
    I DO get your drift!
    Though some may say it is in these “useless details” that we can learn from Scripture?
    I WAS going to ask you some more questions.
    I will post back here in a few weeks (God willing) after I have done some more research.
    Many thanks for your help thus far.

  • JT

    Tom,
    In reply to Edmund (28/12/2014) you state “Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God.”
    How do you reconcile this with 2 Chronicles 12.14 where it is said of Rehoboam (son of Solomon) “And he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the LORD.”? Two verses later the chapter records Rehoboam’s death.

  • JT wrote:

    Tom,
    In reply to Edmund (28/12/2014) you state “Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God.”
    How do you reconcile this with 2 Chronicles 12.14 where it is said of Rehoboam (son of Solomon) “And he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the LORD.”? Two verses later the chapter records Rehoboam’s death.

    Consider the following from Scripture.

    But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. (1Ki 11:1-10)

    Now the million dollar question which you may like to answer. Was Solomon saved? Is he in heaven or hell?

  • JT

    Tom,
    The truth is, I cannot answer that question. I will leave that to God. Many have different ‘answers’ to that “million dollar question”? Certainly when you consider the folly of what Solomon did in his old age, you do have to wonder?
    I used the account of Rehoboam, purely because it is not so well known as that of Solomon’s? Rehoboam also had many wives and concubines(not 700!).
    As we don’t believe that the Nephilim are the result of fallen angels marrying women, but of the union between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, then it is clear that many of the “sons of God” were not saved? So is it correct/biblical to say that “Every single person in the line of Jesus Christ’s genealogy was saved and therefore the sons of God”?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    JT

    Regarding Solomon, “I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father” (1 Chronicles 28:6)

    Solomon looks back over his wasted years and finds no joy in them, only futility, vanity, and “a chasing after the wind” (Ecclesiastes 1:14). But he had learned his lesson, albeit the hard way, and he ends with this advice (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14). This definitely sounds like a man who has returned to God.

  • JT

    And that is so very true! But what about Solomon’s son?
    If I didn’t know you better, I would think you were a Calvinist!

  • JT

    What is so true? You haven’t answered my question. Is Solomon in heaven or hell?

  • JT

    >> What about Solomon’s son?

    Why don’t you study the scriptures to find out?

    >> If I didn’t know you better, I would think you were a Calvinist!

    LOL, that is funny. Nope JT we (this website) are not Calvinists.

  • JT

    “What is so true” is that Scripture-1 Chronicles 28.6. I think it right to believe that Solomon learned from the folly and error of his ways. As you know, God said “I have CHOSEN him.”
    I have never been able to accept that a man inspired by God’s Holy Spirit could have penned the writings of Solomon, and be in hell, as some think? All of the other authors of God’s word are saved, and so, I believe Solomon.

  • JT,

    And there you go – from error to deeper Calvinism. Let me ask you the question you asked me. Are you a Calvinist? Do you believe sinners are saved because they have been chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world? Now, now, that’s not kosher, you know. Not kosher at all. And I suppose you will probably also say the damsel in Acts 16 (like Solomon) was inspired by the Holy Spirit because she said something so wonderful as the following – “These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.”

    I suggest that you study and search the Scriptures as Deborah advised you to do and you may just come up with a feasible answer. Start with Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew and Luke and see whether you can find an answer there.

  • JT

    Tom,
    I thank you for your help. I will follow Deborah’s advice. But, one thing, even though the Bible says nothing good about Rehoboam (as I understand the Bible to say); “he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord.” But I stand corrected. What you are in effect saying is that God has pre-destinated or elected Rehoboam unto salvation, and Rehoboam was saved regardless of his actions-but, most surely not? He must have repented of his own God given ‘free will’? Therefore; God relied on man’s free-will so that the genealogy of our Saviour could happen? I think this is what you are saying?
    No! The damsel in Acts 16 was definitely NOT, I repeat NOT inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. Paul was “grieved” by this episode?
    You know that?

  • JT

    Once again, I am not a Calvinist. The reason why I used the damsel in Acts 16 as an example is to prove that not everyone who speaks or writes the truth is necessarily inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, of course Solomon was inspired by the Holy Ghost but that does not prove that he was saved. I personally believe that Solomon was saved and is now in heaven. How do I know? Read his Ecclesiastes. As far as Rehoboam is concerned, I would like to advise you again to read Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke. You will find the answer there. I am not going to spell it out for you because I want to give you an opportunity to study the Scriptures for yourself.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    JT

    >> But I stand corrected. What you are in effect saying is that God has pre-destinated or elected Rehoboam unto salvation, and Rehoboam was saved regardless of his actions

    Nope, Tom did not imply this at all, Read our website, we take a strong stance against Calvinism.

  • Kristine

    Kate E wrote:

    I believe that the angels in heaven do not marry as Jesus states in Matt 22:30, however the angels of Jude 1:6 that that left their original purpose – their role as messengers, and their unique habitation – heaven are not in heaven doing God’s will but on earth doing Satan’s will. Then there is Rev 12: 7 & 8 where it says the dragon (Satan) and his angels were evicted from heaven. The angels that are in heaven doing God’s will, not on earth wrecking havoc on mankind. In Justin Martyr’s Second Apology Chapter V – How the Angels Transgressed he states “the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons” showing that his understanding of Genesis 6 was that the “Sons of God” were angels. I realize that you said not to tell you this is the answer but it is the answer. As to how the angels were able to do this – the answer is free will.

    Where did the teaching that the “sons of God” were believers or sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” were unbelievers or daughters of Cain come from if not from Augustine? In scripture “sons of God” refers to angels and saints, and daughters of men is a general term. Nowhere in scripture does it tie “sons of God” to believers or “daughters of men” to nonbelievers. It is clearly stated in Genesis 6:4 that this mingling resulted in giants and why would this happen if it really was referring to the offspring of pure human beings? You haven’t provided any scripture proving this teaching.

    Christ was born wholly man yet the wholly divine son of God. The angels that manifest in human form are not wholly human which is why the mingling of their seed with the “daughters of men” creates offspring with genetic mutations. You are wrong to indicate that those believing the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels have any lesser faith in Jesus Christ having been born a man.

    What my discussion with you reveals to me is that true believers need to be humble and accept ridicule because this is a tool that Satan uses to defend his false doctrine.

    You are correct, I agree on most part. This is long ago, just to add, there’s a book in ancient text not included in the Christian Bible that Judaism has in support of many accounts on this phenomena in Genesis. But even in Christian Bible some scriptures are obvious on the presence of these fallen angels, their inter-mingling to mankind for the purpose of disrupting the original plan of God’s creation and deceiving of mankind. Just one obvious scripture on how Satan as a serpent deceived Eve in the Garden. The Great Flood had to occur coz mankind will eventually not survive to co-exist with these mutated genetic beings, it’s like a reset to the world. Consider Satan like a virus. When this world was created for humans, while Satan wanted to rule this world for his own even before, same as today.

    This event will also explain why are there some angels chained in the bottomless pit, while some can roam around on the face of the earth as today (demons) tempting humans to do bad things. Those angels who were chained are probably those angels who mated with human women, their transgressions were great that deserved higher punishment. At some point in time, this cohabitation or inter-mingling just stopped, maybe God put some chasm so this wont happen again, and God gave an ultimatum on these angels to chose which side to take from their Freewill, is it to side with Satan or to stay with God. So those who followed Satan became demons while those that stayed with God, are the angels guiding and protecting mankind.

    This inter-mingling can also explain the knowledge of the ancients, of the secret societies who are ruling the world today as Lord Jesus said, the rulers of this world are of the devil. So we should stay vigilant so as not be deceived, and preach the Good word of God.

    This is not related but just want to ask to discerningtheworld.com, do you believe the earth is a flat disc??? Been looking around your site. Would appreciate your answer. God bless!

  • Kristine

    You agree with Kate E. May I ask you a very frank question. Do you think the angels in heaven are only male and that their maleness is determined by their male organs? Or are their female angels with female organs as well? If there are only males then we can only lament the opposite sex because there are NO female angels in heaven. If however the angels in heaven are sexless and only the fallen angels have male organs and able to have sex with women, when did they get their male organs? Who supplied them with male organs? Did they give themselves male organs? Well, in that case they would be equal to God because only He has the power to create. Did He supply them? I don’t think so. The notion that fallen angels married and had sex with women and spawned children of their own is one of the most dangerous occult teachings on the planet. Only Satan can create a lie like this. Jesus said:

    And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. (Joh 10:4-5)

    If you follow the lies of strangers (like Satan and his demons) you simply do not know the voice of Jesus. If you did, you would never twist his words. These are his words whether you like it or not.

    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)

    Now you say, No, they are quite capable of marrying women, having sex with them and spawn children but they are forbidden to do so. You are attributing to God the same indictment as that with which Paul indicts the Roman Catholic Church.

    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)

    Like the Roman Catholic Church, God is giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils and speaking lies in hypocrisy and his conscience is seared with a hot iron because He has forbidden his angels who have male organs and a whopping sexual urge to get married. Nice doing. Learn to know the voice of Jesus and when you do, please listen to and obey Him.

    Furthermore, if the fallen angels took on human form so that they may marry and have sex with women, who incarnated them? They themselves or God? There is not a single instance in the Bible of fallen angels taking on human form. Only the holy angels and Jesus Himself took on human form in the Old Testament. They appeared to people as humans. We do not know what the substance was of their human form. It certainly was not incarnated bodies.

  • Christine Erikson

    I don’t buy the usual nephilim idea, but there is no resemblance between supposed incarnation by a spirit getting physical (which obviously the angels sent to Lot did) and the ONE Incarnation of GOD Who is Jesus.

  • Christine Erikson,

    The angels who appeared with Jesus, and He Himself, did not “get physical” as you said. They merely appeared in a form that is visible to the human eye. Indeed the ONE incarnation of Jesus is unique because no other being, dead or alive, has ever been reincarnated as He was. To suggest that the fallen angels were incarnated in the same manner Jesus was, is blasphemy to say the least.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

The Nephilim Controversy

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments‘ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!