WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM (Part 2)

The-Nephilim - Part 2WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM? (Part 2)

Nephilim – Written by Vernon Gray and critiqued by Tom Lessing

If you haven’t read WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM (Part 1) please click here for PART 1

VERNON GRAY

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of renown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?).

Consider carefully what this view proposes. It assumes that God placed a prohibition on intermarriage between the line of Seth and the line of Cain.

However, some of the men in the line of Seth fell in love with and married some women from the line of Cain (though nothing is said of the sons of Cain marrying the daughters of Seth). For some obscure reason, this upsets God so much that He destroys the inhabitants of the earth because of this intermarriage.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

For God, who is Spirit, to reveal Himself and His love for the world, He had to do several significant things.

  1. He had to choose and anoint someone who could reveal every aspect of his character 100% in a visible human form.
  2. He had to choose and sanctify a nation from whom He could produce such a person (John 4:22).
  3. He set this plan in motion from the very beginning of time (Revelation 13:8) and also chose a certain person’s lineage to accomplish His plan of salvation from the very beginning.

The person who God chose was Seth whose descendants had to be separate (holy) unto the Lord.

It does not mean that all of Seth’s descendants were righteous (saved). It simply means that God chose them to be separate (holy) unto Himself.

Consider for a moment the nation of Israel whom God chose to be his peculiar people (holy unto the Lord).

Yet, most of them did not enter the Promised Land owing to their lack of faith. (Hebrews 4:2). In fact, the Bible emphatically states that most of the “children of the kingdom” (Jews) are going to hell. (Matthew 8:12).

Bear in mind that Israel’s two most prominent sins, when they entered the Promised Land, were,

  1. to marry the women of other nations.
  2. to commit idolatry which was the result of intermingling with and marriage to foreign idolatrous women.

Despite the fact that many of the Israelite were not saved, they all had to obey God’s command to stay away from foreign women because the entire nation of Israel was sanctified and holy unto the Lord.

We find a similar situation in the New Testament.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy (set apart unto the Lord).  (1 Corinthians 7:14).

Unfortunately, things did no go according to God’s plan when the sons of God (the set-apart ones for God’s purposes) began to take unto themselves the daughters of men (women from idolatrous nations) as many as they pleased.

Vernon Gray asked,

” . . . why was this only a one-way decision? Why didn’t the daughters of men take the initiative to marry men as many as they pleased?”

Vernon Gray tackles the problem once again from a physical perspective rather than a spiritual one, which inevitably leads him into a cul de sac. He says,

“A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no ‘women of renown’ are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?”).

Vernon Gray seems to have forgotten that in the Old Testament, and particularly in the Middle East marriage was and still is, based on a patriarchal system and not a matriarchal one as we find it in our modern-day feminist societies.

Vernon Gray should know that God created Adam first and then the woman to be a help meet for him (Genesis 2:18). Paul emphasizes God’s order in marriage in 1 Corinthians 11:9.

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Therefore, it was quite natural for the man to set out in search of a wife and not the other way around. The women never sought after men to be a help meet for them.

We may sum up two major reasons why Vernon Gray is wrong in his assumption that an alleged physical deficiency in the line of Seth (only “y” chromosomes) debunks the view that fallen angels married human women and not the male offspring of Seth.

  1. BIBLICAL CUSTOM: It was customary to send someone on behalf of the male to find him a wife, or the male person himself set out to seek a wife. We never hear of a woman setting out to find a husband.

In the Godly lineage, the men never took a wife without her consent (Genesis 24:58). In pagan lineages the women had no say in the matter because the men had the right to take and divorce as many as they pleased.

Some of Seth’s descendants began to follow this custom and succumbed to idolatry. (Islam and Mormonism are two offshoots of this custom).

2) IDOLATRY: Women are more prone to deception than men are and when they begin to play a dominant role in religion you can be sure the men will soon follow suit.

This happened repeatedly in Israel’s history. (King Solomon; Jeremiah 44:15-17; Nehemiah 13:25-27).

Vernon Gray asks why there were no women of renown in those days. Once again, he should have known that there were several women of renown after the deluge and that idolatry gave them their notoriety and renown. We only need to mention two – SEMIRAMIS, the wife of Nimrod and JEZEBEL, the wife of King Ahab.

This was precisely what happened to the descendants of Seth. Their mixed marriages with unbelievers spiraled them into an abyss of the most horrendous idolatry.

Does that mean there were no Sethites who were saved and escaped the Flood?

In order to answer this question we need to ask ourselves another question, and that is whether God ever judged believers together with unbelievers and allowed them to succumb to the same fate.

Several examples from the Old Testament history of Israel provide the answer.

Were all the Israelite who were killed in the desert because they disobeyed God cast into hell? I don’t think so. I believe that some of them were truly saved but because they failed to obey God they were forbidden to enter the Promised Land.

Was Moses who God forbade to enter the Promised Land unsaved and cast into hell? I don’t think so. God even wanted to kill Moses when he failed to circumcise one of his sons. (Exodus 4:24).

God took the lives of Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to the Holy Spirit. Were they lost and cast into hell? I don’t think so. The reason why I mention these examples of God’s judgment on believers is that the Bible never says that all those who perished in the Flood were lost.

I am not, I repeat, I am NOT categorically stating that some of those who perished in the Flood were saved when the Flood overwhelmed them. I am merely proving from Scripture that God often punished believers with death when they disobeyed Him.

So please do not, I repeat, do NOT spread a rumor that Tom Lessing believes that some of the people who perished in the Flood were already saved when the flood overwhelmed and killed them.

At any rate, the belief that all women, except Noah’s wife and their three sons’ wives, perished in the Flood, whilst not all of them were forced into marrying fallen angels, and therefore did not have sex with them to be genetically tainted and thus produce giants (Nephilim), is just as, and even more abominable than the notion that some of the antediluvian souls were already saved when they perished in the Flood.

OR

Did every single antediluvian woman, with the exception of Noah’s wife and his three sons’ wives, marry and have sex with fallen angels to produce the Nephilim? David Pawson asserts that only some women were forced into marrying fallen angels. Yet all the women perished in the Flood. Where is the justice of God in this?

So, take your pick; Both these scenarios are an abomination.

Should we base an entire doctrine (in this case, the doctrine of the Nephilim) on the premise of silence? The fact that nothing is said about the sons of Cain marrying the daughters of Seth, does not mean that the doctrine of the Nephilim is correct.

I have already mentioned that in God’s plan of redemption the chosen lineages (godly and holy, if you will) seem to have been given more prominence than the ungodly lineages.

It follows that when God wanted to convey something concerning his plan of salvation, He did it from the perspective of the godly lineages. Once He had done it from the perspective of the godly lineages, it would have been daft to do it from the viewpoint of the ungodly lineages as well.

For instance, it would have been meaningless for God to forbid the Canaanite to marry the Israelite and not vice versa.

“When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;”

“And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them be-fore thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:”Neither shalt they make marriages with you; their daughter they shalt not give unto your son, nor your daughter shalt they take unto their son.

For you will turn away their son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against them, and destroy them suddenly.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 altered to suite the Nephilim doctrine).

 width=It sounds a bit odd, doesn’t it?

It really makes no sense to view God’s restrictions about marriage from the vantage point of the ungodly and not the godly lineages.

Let’s assume God commanded the Canaanite not to marry the Israelite. For what reason would He have wanted to do it that way? Would He have wanted to do it in that way to secure his plan of salvation?

Think of it this way. One of the most horrendous sins the Canaanite were known for was their sacrifices of little babies to their god Molech.  They literally threw their babies into the fire.

Would it have been the right thing to do if God, the God who always does things justly and right, had forbidden their sons to marry the daughters of Israel?

VERNON GRAY

NOBLES MARRIED COMMONERS VIEW

Recognizing the deficiencies of the first view, some scholars have sought to define the expression the sons of God by comparing it with the languages of the Ancient Near East.

It is interesting to learn that some rulers were identified as the son of a particular god.

In Egypt, for example, the king was called the son of Ra.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used for men in positions of authority.

This view, originating in 2nd century A D from rabbinic thought, is that “sons of God” refers to members of the nobility.

We know from a variety of texts from the Ancient Near East that rulers were regularly yet erroneously referred to as the “sons of God.”

In this case, the “sons of God,” or the rulers of the ancient world are forcefully taking women from the common folk, which is attested to in Ancient Near Eastern culture.

While the “sons of God” label could possibly refer to nobility, both of the views presented here suffer from the particular designation of the women as being “daughters of men“.

The phrase “of God”, seems completely unnecessary if both the “sons” and “daughters” are humans.

In this view, the “sons of God” refer to tyrant kings who seize the “daughters of men” as they want. The sin here is the polygamy to gain political power.

Their sin was not intermarriage between two groups – whether two worlds, (angels and man), two religious communities (Sethite and Cainite) or two social classes (royal and common) but that the sin was polygamy.

It was the same type of sin that the Cainite Lamech practiced, the sin of polygamy, particularly as it came to expression in the harem, the characteristic institution of the ancient oriental despot’s court.

In this transgression, the sons of God frequently violated the sacred trust of their office as guardians of the general ordinances of God for human conduct.

The problem is that there is no hint in the text that anything like this is going on.

In fact, there is no concept of nations until Genesis chapter 10, which is after the Flood.

The mention of kings does not occur until the time of Abraham. Polygamy was common amongst all peoples including the Jews, including David and Solomon.

But this view contends that the sin of polygamy was so great that it deserved the wiping out of the entire earth. Really?

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

I fully agree that the sin of polygamy could not have been the reason why God wiped out the entire earth, except Noah and his family (8 souls).

Most of the kings and patriarchs in the Old testament had more than one wife and even harems with many concubines, yet God never wiped them out, although it was God’s will from the beginning that one man and one woman become one flesh in marriage. (Matthew 19:3-6).

However, it is a well-known fact that polygamy was the direct cause of some of the most horrendous idolatrous belief systems and practices in the Near East, which of course do solicit God’s righteous anger and judgment.

It is a well-known fact that polygamy was practiced in ancient Egypt, especially among the more affluent citizens.

We all know that God’s final judgment – the tenth plague – on Egypt wiped out all the first-born sons because they were believed to be gods. Therefore, as we can see, the lie Satan planted in Eve’s head was perpetuated throughout the ancient world and reached epic proportions in the antediluvian societies.

Everyone believed they were gods and immortal. Isn’t this what the New Age circles teach and even many churches these days? Who can deny that we are fast approaching the time when things will be like in the time of Noah? (Luke 17:26).

To demonstrate how these sins continued to be practiced in the religion of the nations after the Flood, we need to briefly look at Israel’s history because it mirrors to a great extent what happened in the religions in the days of Noah.

Just before God led his peculiar people into their promised land, He sternly warned them not to practice the abominations of the Canaanites and all the other surrounding nations. (Deuteronomy 18:9).

Very few Christians know that Israel adopted one of the most horrendous abominations those nations were guilty of, and that was the so-called phallic worship.

Now, before we continue, we need to remind ourselves that phallic worship was intrinsically connected to the belief that sexual indulgences, especially in polygamous relationships, produced immortality.

 width=

I already pointed out that Mormonism and Islam are extensions of this abominable belief. If this is not a Satanic scheme to supplant God’s plan of salvation to gain eternal life, I don’t know what is.

Every time a primitive man engaged in a sexual act, he believed that he was playing his role in stirring up the passion of his chief father god and mother goddess in order to ensure the fertility of his fields and flocks.

The primitive peoples believed that if their god and goddess abstained from sexual union sterility in man and plant life (crops) were rampant.

This abomination could very well have begun to take shape with Cain who was a tiller of the ground and especially Lamech, the first polygamist.

Coveting Godhood is the oldest sin there is. It began with Satan and caused him and a third of the angels to be cast out of heaven and eventually to be cast into hell for all eternity.

Evidently, this was also the sin with which he enticed the first two human beings – Adam and Eve – and of course all their descendants. Some resisted his temptation by clinging to the one and only sacrifice able to redeem sinners, but most succumbed to his lies and were ultimately destroyed in the Great Flood.

To ensure fertility and everyday survival, the ancient religious hierarchy implemented various phallic rites and celebrations of vile nature to ensure that their gods and goddesses would continually perform their lovemaking and so pass on fertility onto everything else.

As a result, both male and female reproductive organs came to be venerated and worshiped. The male reproductive organ or phallus was called “The Staff” while the female “The Door Of Life.”

 width=In Hinduism, they are called the Linga (male organ) and the yoni (female organ). The Roman Catholic Mandorla is a direct outgrowth of this pagan custom, with one exception, which is that ecclesiastical figures are positioned in its center. It is an imitation of the incarnation (the becoming one flesh with man) of Jesus Christ. If the obelisk of the Vatican in Rome and the Blackstone of the Kaaba in Mecca are depictions of the male and female organs, it is rather easy to see how the Ro width=man Catholic Church (Mystery Babylon) and Islam are going to merge into one “flesh” (as in a marriage) during the Seven Year Tribulation. In fact, the unification of Roman Catholicism and Islam is already in an advanced stage of development (Read here).

Notice how Satan, the mastermind behind these abominable practices, distorts and mocks the Gospel of God, and how he manages to give it a physical slant? Isn’t this what the Nephilim protagonists are doing with the repulsive notion that Noah escaped the Flood because his DNA and that of his family remained untainted by the fallen angels who had sex with all the others who perished in the Flood?

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (John 10:9).

This carnal distortion of the Gospel and in particular the doctrine of redemption by way of the new birth quickly found its way into many false religions.

 width=In Hinduism, for instance, spiritual rebirth is portrayed as being drawn bodily through a giant Yoni (Vulva), signifying that the breaking of the water was the actual rebirth of a person.

The natural man, who cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14, John 3:4), must of necessity devise their own idea of the rebirth because their mind is always carnally inclined – never spiritually.

That was the reason why Nicodemus reasoned that he would have to re-enter or again pass through the birth passage back into his mother’s womb, in order to be born again when Jesus told him, “You must be born again.”

The Roman Catholic’s veneration of a woman – a counterfeit Mary – is nothing else but an offshoot of these abominable religious practices.

Effigies of the male and female organs were displayed in every major shrine. At other smaller and more portable shrines, “pillars” and “groves” were erected near the sacrificial altars.

The triangle was associated with sex and the triune God of the pagans. It stood for the father god, mother goddess, and their firstborn son – the result of their first sexual act.

 width=It isn’t too difficult to see where Freemasonry comes from.

 width=Like so much else in Canaanite religion, the name and worship of Asherah were taken from Assyria. She was the wife of the war god Asir, whose name was identified with that of the city of ASHHUR, and thus became THE NATIONAL GOD OF ASSYRIA. She was also called the SHEKINAH.

In Canaan the chief God was EL. He was often depicted with an enormous phallus – signifying his potency. His consort was Asherah (Semiramis). Baal (Tammuz) was their son. Baal’s fame eventually surpassed that of his father El (Nimrod). (Ezekiel 8:14).

Canaanites loved to worship on hills [bamoth] called “high places” in the King James Bible. Beside every altar at least one “pillar” [mazzeba] and one “grove” [ashera] was displayed in “erect” position.

The male and female shrine prostitutes were always present during these religious ceremonies to render their services. (Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Merril F. Unger, Chicago, Ill., art. Baal, on p. 413).

To this very day, prostitutes and women of ill-repute are known to call themselves the Shekinah.

The same source says: “a fertility god and the principal deity in the Canaanite pantheon . . . Baal’s representation was an upright stone column or pillar…A PHALLIC SYMBOL.” 

These “stone pillars” [mazzeboth]  were phallic symbols. (Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, on p. 1343).

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 2, on p. 265, describes the fertility rites of ancient Canaan in the following manner:

“FERTILITY CULTS – the oldest common feature of the religions of the ancient Near East was the worship of the great mother-goddess, the personification of fertility. The Old Testament furnishes abundant evidence as to the character of the religion of the land into which the Israelites came.

Fertility rites were practiced at the numerous shrines which dotted the land, as well as the major sanctuaries.

A characteristic feature of the fertility cult was a SACRAL INTERCOURSE BY PRIESTS AND PRIESTESSES AND OTHER SPECIALLY CONSECRATED PERSONS, SACRED PROSTITUTES OF BOTH SEXES, intended to emulate and stimulate the deities who bestowed fertility. . . Child sacrifice was also a feature of the rites.” 

These things did not start overnight after the Great Flood. They were rampant in the antediluvian nations, to such an extent that God said, “Enough is enough. I am sick and tired of your sins. I am going to wipe you out.”

Nothing grieves the Spirit of God more than fleshly lusts which, when sought after and practiced to the uttermost, breeds violence. When this sin, the unbridled gratifying of the flesh became irreversible, God said, “Their burning lusts shall be quenched in the deluge of waters.”

Think of it this way. God provided sinful man a way out of his hell-deserving lifestyle when He introduced his way of salvation right in the beginning (Genesis 3:15).

Instead, there came a time when the whole of mankind chose to follow their own abominable ways of redemption.

If the Nephilim hypothesis were true, the fallen angels would have had to be blamed for man’s Fall and not man himself.

As I had indicated earlier, if the women were forced to marry fallen angels who had allegedly become visible via some kind of genetic manipulation, God could be charged with gross injustices. (Isaiah 45:21).

Surely, God who has revealed Himself as just and impartial cannot and will not act unjustly and cast the womenfolk into hell who had been forced to marry fallen angels.

Whosoever suggests such a thing is not representing the true and only God in the universe but another god who is none other than the god of this world – Satan himself.

Jesus did not preach to the spirits of fallen angels – who allegedly became flesh and blood to marry human women – in prison (Hades), prior to His resurrection. He preached to the spirits of human beings who had perished in the Great Flood. (1 Peters 3:19).

It was the sin of unmitigated idolatry (as described in the preceding paragraphs) which came about through the intermarriage of believers and unbelievers (idolaters) that prompted God to send the Flood, and not the alleged marriages and sexual binges between fallen angels and human women.

When Israel married the women whom God forbade to take as wives in the land of Canaan, they were sucked into the worst kind of idolatry imaginable. It was this very same sin that reached a zenith so incomprehensibly evil prior to the Flood that God decided to wipe out the entire antediluvian world.

How do we know that the antediluvians practiced the very same idolatry the Canaanites were guilty of?

Carefully note what God said to Cain after he murdered his brother Abel,

“And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; . . .

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” (Genesis 4:11-12; 1 Corinthians 16:22).

Whenever mankind turns his back on God and his Gospel, Satan is always too happy to fill in the gap.

Cain and his descendants were tillers of the ground and desperately in need of good crops for their survival.

The ground which no longer yielded her strength to Cain and his descendants presented Satan the perfect opportunity to introduce to them a new gospel which involved fertility rites, raucous sexual immorality acts, infantile sacrifices and the worship of the male and female organs to ensure good crops.

If these outrageous abominations were not the final spark that inflamed God’s wrath to destroy all flesh in the Flood, what else could be considered that was worse than or at least equal to these abominations?

VERNON GRAY

ANGELS MARRIED HUMAN WOMEN

The third view is that a group of angels (the “sons of God”) descended upon the earth and married human women (the “daughters of men”). This view has been the target of bitter attacks which is why we will look at it more fully.

Who are the Sons of God?

Who were the sons of God? The Hebrew term here is “Bene Ha Elohim.

This term is found throughout Scripture as a reference to angels. This term is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament.

It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and also by the early Church fathers.

The term “sons of God” is a general term which means “to be brought into existence by God’s creative act.”

Because the term carries this meaning, it is used very selectively. Throughout the Old Testament the term “sons of God” is ALWAYS used of angels.

The term is used in Job: 1:6; 2:1, and 38:7 and elsewhere. No one debates that the other places where “sons of God” is found in the Old Testament clearly refer to angels, . .

. . . but because of the implications found here in Genesis 6, there is a reluctance to see it for what it is because the implications are mind boggling. We cannot make Genesis 6:1-4 the single exception to the rule.

By the way, this is the first mention of the “sons of God” in the Bible. The ‘Law of First Mention’ demands that we establish who they are and what their significance is.

In the New Testament the term “sons of God” is expanded.

Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38) because he was brought into existence by a direct act of creation.

Believers are called sons of God (John 1:12) because believers are considered to be a direct act of creation in that they are a new creation. Before they became the “sons of God” they were the “sons of Adam.”

In Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a “son of God.” The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam’s initial immortality forfeited.

Christ uniquely gives to them that receive Him the power to become the “sons of God.” Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection, they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

Vernon Gray often says things that are alien to the Word of God, and he is particularly keen to prove that this or that and the other are never mentioned in the Bible to refute his opponents’ views.

Yet he himself is often guilty of his own indictments. For instance, he asserts that believers were called “the sons of Adam” before they became the sons of God. Lo and behold there is only a single place in Scripture where the phrase “sons of Adam” appears (Deuteronomy 32:8).

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

In the latter verse the phrase “sons of Adam” does not designate them as believers or unbelievers but merely as descendants of Adam from whom the various nations developed.

In fact, the second part of this verse 9 identifies Israel and not the rest of mankind as the children of God (“sons,” if you will in the generic sense).

Vernon Gray continues to say that “This term (‘Bene Ha Elohim’) is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament.

The word “Elohim” does not always refer to God. In Psalm 82: 1, 6, Exodus 21:6 and 22:8 the word is used to describe judges.

Assuming that these judges had sons, we may call them “sons of Elohim” or “Bene Ha Elohim,” can’t we?

If “Bene ha Elohim” always and only refers to angels – including the fallen angels – in the Old Testament, why aren’t the devils in the New Testament referred to as the sons of God? Have they lost their sonship and their status as being directly created by God? Did their existence by a direct act of creation vanish into thin air?  Perhaps we should assume that whereas the fallen angels lost their sonship, the believers gained their sonship in the New Testament.

In fact, the six times the term “sons of God” appears in the New Testament, it only refers to believers and never to the fallen angels who are mentioned 51 times in 44 verses in the New Testament?

What brought about the change? Should we argue that it was the new birth in Christ that brought about this change, we should immediately ask, “What about Abraham, the father of all true believers?” Was he not a direct creation of God, i.e. in the spiritual sense of the word?

Was he not a son of God through the new birth in Christ Jesus although he is never specifically called a son of God in the Old Testament? In fact, he was the archetype of all the true believers in the New Testament who are all called “sons of God.”

How disharmonious with the Bible do you intend to get, Mr. Vernon Gray? Isn’t it odd to call believers the sons of God, and yet not their father in the faith? (Romans 4:1-3; 11-12).

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children [sons and daughters) of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7).

If we are willing to accept this premise as valid and binding, then there is nothing to stop us to call all the believers in the Old Testament the sons of God, which, of course, makes the argument that “bene ha Elohim” always and only refers to angels, including fallen angels, in the Old Testament, null and void.

If faith and faith alone in the finished work of Christ Jesus on the cross is the building block for a direct creation, then all believers are the sons of God, including those in the Old Testament, unless the Old Testament saints were redeemed in some other way than the saints in the New Testament?

Vernon Gray argues as follows,

“In 1 John 3: 1, 2 Christians are referred to as the ‘Sons of God’ because, like the Angels and Adam, we are created anew at the rebirth. Whereas we were the sons of Adam through a sexual union prior to salvation, we are now the ‘Sons of God’ like Adam is and the angels are.”

The immediate question we need to ask, is, were Abraham and all the believers in the Old Testament not created anew at their rebirth through faith in Christ Jesus?

In fact – and here again we must honour the fact that Abraham was the archetype of all believers in the New Testament who are called the sons of God – we could never have been called the sons (children) of Abraham if he had not been created anew at his rebirth, and therefore also been called a son of God.

“Sons of God” is a generic term with no exclusive reference to the male species. Both male and female persons, who have been redeemed by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, are called “sons of God.”

It is, therefore, a spiritual bond between the redeemed and God, wrought through Christ Jesus who has been God the Father’s Son from past eternities. As such, all the believers in the Old Testament were also the sons of God, in the very same way the believers in the New Testament are. There is no other way to interpret it.

If, as Vernon Gray says, the term “sons of God” refer exclusively to the angels, good and bad, in the Old Testament, because they were brought into existence by a direct act of creation, we have no other option but to call Satan a son of God as well.

This puts the Nephilim doctrine squarely in the Mormons’ fold who believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

Such an abominable thing is inconceivable because Satan is never once called a son of God in the Old Testament nor in the New. (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Vernon Gray writes under the heading “Who are the sons of God” the following,

“Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38) because he was brought into existence by a direct act of creation.

“Believers are called sons of God (John 1:12) because believers are considered to be a direct act of creation in that they are a new creation. Before they became the ‘sons of God’ they were the ‘sons of Adam.'”

“In Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a “son of God.”  The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam’s initial immortality forfeited.”

“Christ uniquely gives to them that receive Him the power to become the ‘sons of God.’ Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels.

May we assume that Adam and Eve were already immortal before the Fall and that they forfeited their immortality when they sinned?

Immortality is a state of life in the eternal presence of God.

If they’d already been immortal before the Fall, why did God deem it necessary to give them the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

The reason lies in the fact that they were innocent before the Fall and completely oblivious of good and evil, and hence what it means to love God with a pure heart.

God’s heaven of immortality is an abode where everyone willingly and obediently loves, obeys and worships God 100% for all eternity – not out of coercion but willingly from a pure heart.

That is why Jesus said, “If ye love Me, keep my commandments.” Adam and Eve could only have learned what it means to love God the moment they’d been given a command. They were innocent and not yet tested to see whether they would love and obey Him.

He first had to test them by giving them a commandment.

Therefore, He placed them under a short term of probation to see whether they would love and obey Him. We find the very same principle applied to the nation of Israel after they had been redeemed from their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land.

“All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.”

“And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.” (Deuteronomy 8:1-2).

VERNON GRAY

Oiketerion “Oy-kay-tay-ree-on”

The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.

Jude 1:6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, (G3613 Oiketerion) he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

“Habitation” or “oikoterion” is a word used only one other place in Scripture, referring to our spiritual bodies after the resurrection.

2 Corinthians 5:2 “For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house (G3613 Oiketerion) which is from heaven:”

The fallen angels who “disrobed” in order to take on human form in order to satisfy their lusts have abandoned their “habitation” to assume a lower life form; namely human.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

It is important to note that the word “oiketerion” in Jude 1:6 is used in conjunction with the word (‘arkhay’ – “estate”) Strong’s defines “estate” as, From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): – beginning, corner, (at the,) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

If we want to be consistent and apply the law of “First Mention,” which Vernon Gray stressed with affirmed conviction, we should lay more emphasis on “arkhay“” than on “oiketerion.” The latter is merely an authentication of the meaning of the “First Mentioned.” It defines the true meaning of “oiketerion” in this particular context.

At any rate, Strong translates the word “oiketerion” as follows:

oiketerion

oy-kay-tay’-ree-on

Neuter of a presumed derivative of G3611 (equivalent to G3612); a residence (literally or figuratively): – habitation, house.

It can either be used in a literal or figurative way, depending on the context. Albert Barnes’ assessment of Jude 1:6 is correct. He says,

“And the angels which kept not their first estate – A second case denoting that the wicked would be punished. Compare the notes, 2 Pet 2:4. The word rendered “estate”  is, in the margin, “principality.” The word properly means, “beginning, commencement;” and then that which surpasses others, which is “first,” etc., in point of rank and honor; or pre-eminence, priority, precedence, princedom. Here it refers to the rank and dignity which the angels had in heaven. That rank or pre-eminence they did not keep, but fell from it. On the word used here, compare Ephesians 3:10; Colossians 2:10, as applied to angels; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15, as applied to demons.”

The notion that “estate” refers to the fallen angels’ heavenly bodies, which they allegedly exchanged for the lower human bodily form in order to satisfy their lusts in a marriage is patently false. Moreover, the assumption that “the believer longs to be clothed, with the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed” is equally false.

The Bible never once alludes to the saint longing to be clothed with the same heavenly body the fallen angels discarded when they sinned.

The Bible clearly says that we shall be like Him in 1 John 3:2, for “we shall see Him as He isand not “we shall see Him whose appearance changed into a heavenly body equal to that of the fallen angels  which they sported before their fall so that they may whoop it up with human women.”

Jesus’ body is a glorified risen body. None of the angels have resurrected bodies like unto that of Jesus, simply because He did not pay for their sins on the cross. Mankind alone, made of flesh and blood, has the wonderful privilege of being like Him in his risen state.

VERNON GRAY

The Meaning of Genesis 6 for Christians Today.

While the New Testament has much more to say about the activities of Satan and his demons, few of us seem to take our spiritual warfare seriously. We really believe that the Church can operate on human strength and wisdom alone, or with a little help from God.

We often attempt to live the spiritual life in the power of the flesh. This is like entering a gun battle with a penknife.

We urge all Believers to rededicate their lives and redouble their efforts, to remind them that our only strength is that which God supplies.

TOM LESSING’S REBUTTAL

Vernon Gray emphasizes the importance of spiritual warfare, and rightly so. Spiritual warfare should be an indispensable part of a Christian’s life.

Spiritual warfare has a two-pronged purpose. The one relates to unbelievers and the other to believers and both have to do with Satan’s devices in his attempt to withstand and thwart God’s will.

The one relating to unbelievers is in 2 Corinthians chapter 4.

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

Here the obvious purpose of spiritual warfare is to pray against Satan and his hordes and to ask God to open the unbelievers’ eyes so that they may see and understand the light of the Gospel in order to be saved.

The second relating to believers is in Ephesians.

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.”

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:10-13).

Then Paul elaborates on the things we need to guard against to escape the wiles of the devil.

  1. That the truth may prevail in our lives.
  2. That our righteousness in the Lord may not be marred by the lies Satan flings at us in the form of fiery arrows.
  3. That we may endure in the proclamation of the Gospel amidst the direst and most dangerous circumstances.
  4. That our faith remains untainted by a mixed bag of all kinds of unbiblical doctrines and deceptions. (Matthew 24:4).
  5. If the fallen angels donned flesh, bones, and blood after their fall, we wouldn’t have any bones to pick with them because “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” So, don’t allow Vernon Gray to blind you with a feigned spirituality like spiritual warfare against flesh and blood.

These things sum up God’s will for his children in regard to spiritual warfare.

Having said this, we need to ask ourselves whether it is God’s will that we engage in spiritual warfare when his righteous anger, wrath, indignation, and judgments are poured out on mankind.

Are the Nephilim going to return before the Rapture or after it? If they are going to return prior to the Rapture, why aren’t they here yet? If they are going to return after the Rapture, why should Christians be so concerned about it and engage in spiritual warfare against them?

Why would it be necessary for Christians to engage in spiritual warfare during the Tribulation when God Himself is going to send a strong delusion so that the inhabitants of the earth may believe the lie? Furthermore, why would they engage in spiritual warfare when they will already be with our Lord and Saviour to partake in His marriage ceremony after the Pre-tribulation Rapture?

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had plea-sure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12).

Ephesians 6:10-13 sums up God’s will for his children in regard to spiritual warfare.

Having reminded ourselves of this, we need to ask whether it is God’s will that we engage in spiritual warfare when God’s righteous anger, wrath, and judgments are poured out on mankind.

Even the Jews and Gentiles who are going to be saved during the Seven Year Tribulation needn’t be concerned about the Nephilim appearing after the Rapture because their heads are going to be chopped off. That’s the worst thing that can happen to them.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:7).

What shall we pray and against whom should we wage our spiritual warfare — against God who will have given Antichrist and his demonic forces the go-ahead to hunt down and kill Christians during the Seven Year Tribulation?

One of the most amazing prophecies in the Bible Christians usually miss, is in Isaiah chapter 26.

“With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.”“Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD.” (Isaiah 26:9-10).

The Amplified Bible says it thus,

“My soul yearns for You [O Lord] in the night, yes, my spirit within me seeks You earnestly; for [only] when Your judgments are in the earth will the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness (uprightness and right standing with God).”

10 “Though favor is shown to the wicked, yet they do not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness they deal perversely and refuse to see the majesty of the Lord.”

I believe that this section is a direct reference to the Seven Years Tribulation which is primarily a time when God’s wrath is going to be poured out on the entire world. (Revelation 3:10).

What we need to establish is whether the return or the recurrence of the alleged Nephilim episode is going to take place before or after the Rapture.

Should it occur after the Rapture, Christians shouldn’t be too concerned about it, or should they?

Why should we be alarmed about something that’s going to transpire on earth when we will already be in the eternal presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and beholding his awesomely beautiful and holy face?

Are we going to wage spiritual warfare against fallen angels who are allegedly once again going to roam the earth and force unsuspecting human women to marry them?

If the alleged Nephilim episode is going to be part of God’s judgments on earth during the Seven Years Tribulation, why would we want to wage spiritual warfare against God’s will? It makes no sense.

In fact, instead of waging spiritual warfare against the alleged Nephilim, we should rejoice in God’s righteous judgments on the world gone crazy, and refusing to repent of their evil deeds.

“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 1:14-15).

Revelation 16:7

“And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.”

Revelation 19:2

“For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.”

Psalm 2:1-5

  1. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
  2. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
  3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
  4. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”
  5. “Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour know-eth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:35-39)

Note very carefully what verse 38 emphasizes.

  1. Eating and drinking
  2. Marriages. (Note the phrase “giving in marriage.” It relates to a father giving his daughter in marriage to the man she loves, and not to a fallen angel forcing an earthly woman to marry him.)

These are not unnatural things but every day, normal things all human beings do.

In fact, humanity cannot exist without them. They are normal everyday things humans have been doing since the dawn of time.

So, what’s the point in mentioning these things so common to man? The point is, Jesus wanted to convey the fact that mankind, in general, will not be ready. He will return to earth to judge the nations when they least expect it . . . as in the days of Noah.

There is nothing sinister or unusual or unnatural about these things. Nonetheless, let us assume that something very sinister and unnatural occurred in the time of Noah, something as evil as marriages between fallen angels and human women.

Let us go back to verse 37 of Matthew 24 and focus on the words “But as the days of Noe were” and pay special attention to the word “as.”

The word Jesus used for “as” is “hosper” and means “exactly” as it was in the days of Noah.

The reasonable conclusion to make is that the return of the fallen angels in the end time will be exactly as it was in the time of Noah, which means they will again force human women to marry them and produce unnatural offspring, provided, of course, that the Nephilim doctrine is true.

Indeed, we learn from Scripture that fallen demons are going to roam the earth and torment the wicked during the Tribulation. However, they are not going to appear in the form of human beings to become handsome husbands who allegedly are going to take unto themselves wives as many as they wish.

In fact, they are going to look like hideous monsters who had never before invaded the earth in such a shocking way.

 width=And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. (Revelation 9:1-8)

What we have here, is not a fairy-tale scene of fallen angels marrying human women and producing unnatural offspring but one of the demons tormenting humankind, to the extent that they desire to die but are forbidden to die.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

WHAT IS SATAN’S SINGLE MINDED AND GREATEST PLOY?

I am sure every truly born-again Christian would agree that Satan’s and his fallen angels’ most single-minded and greatest ploy is to keep sinners from redemption so that they may receive eternal life. Their villainous strategy has a two-pronged purpose.

  1. To hinder and stop God’s children from preaching the unadulterated (untainted – pun intended) Gospel (Good News) of God.
  2. To raise up and sustain false preachers to present the world with a tainted (pun intended) gospel.

As we’ve seen earlier, God never rains his righteous judgments on sinners before He had given them ample time to repent (“metanoia” – change their minds for the better). The antediluvian people (not the fallen angels) were given 120 years of respite before God sent the Great Flood. During those years, Noah preached the Gospel.

“. . . and if He did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought [the judgment of] a flood upon the world of the ungodly;” (2 Peter 2:5).

Ask yourself this. Would the Holy Spirit inspire someone to preach the Gospel to people who, as David Pawson put it, reached their final and ultimate nemesis? He says:

It 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.

According to David Pawson and many other Nephilim proponents, things got so bad that God wrote Ichabod over the entire population of the world (except, of course, Noah and his family) because they had become irretrievably and hopelessly lost. Their relentless march on their way to hell was unstoppable. God’s grace was cut off from them so that no one could be saved. It was finished.

The fact that Noah preached (heralded) the Gospel of God while building the Ark, proves that the Nephilim doctrine, proclaiming that marriages took place between fallen angels and human women, is a farce.

Surely, if it were true that fallen angels married human women and consequently sealed the entire world’s fate, Noah must have known it.

Having known how God’s righteousness worked in the lives of people and being a preacher of His righteousness, he would have honored God’s final decision to show no mercy and send them all to hell. Instead, Noah preached the Gospel for more than 100 years to the antediluvian inhabitants of the world. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

It makes you think that the Nephilim proponents do not know, or do not want to know, what the purpose of preaching is. Well, let us see what Paul says about preaching.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17).

As you may have seen, the reason for the preaching of the Gospel is to familiarize sinners with the Truth so that they may believe the Good News and be saved (Acts 4:12). Yet David Pawson insipidly remarks that the antediluvians’ “evil had taken a perverted form that had stepped beyond all previous bounds and right beyond the limits that God had set to human behavior.”

Since when did God set limits between sin and sin? When did He ever say, “Ok listen up your varmints? In my unfathomable mercies, I have decided to forgive you every conceivable kind of sin, but if you ever do this or that, you will never in the eternities to yet to come receive mercy and forgiveness.” The only time God set a limit was when He said,

“All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Mathew 12:31-32).

Some may immediately protest and say that the antediluvians did indeed sin against the Holy Spirit. Who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit – the fallen angels or/and the human women who had been forced into marrying the fallen angels? Really?

Yes, indeed, fallen angels cannot receive forgiveness, but the women who they allegedly married could, provided that they repented and believed the Gospel, as Noah preached it.

I must reiterate that it would have been foolish of Noah to preach the Gospel to a bunch of irretrievably lost sinners whom God had irreversibly condemned to hell because some had allegedly participated in fallen angelic marriages – unless you are a Calvinist like Charles Haddon Spurgeon who passionately believed in the doctrine election and also preached to the reprobate despite them having been irrevocably chosen by God to suffer eternally in hell, just because it allegedly pleases Him and gives Him glory.

The only reasonable conclusion to which we can come is that the Nephilim proponents are preaching another Gospel, inspired by another spirit to entice people into believing in another Jesus. (2 Corinthians 11:4). Anyone who denies that their revision of the Gospel from a spiritual (the tainting of the soul through sin) to a physical dimension (the tainting of human DNA through genetic manipulation) is false, is aiding and abetting them in their sin.

 width=

And, with that, I close my case.

If you haven’t read WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM (Part 1) please click here for PART 1 

Tom (Discerning the World)

Tom Lessing is the author of the above article. Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.

42 Responses

  1. Anna says:

    Congratulations and thank you so much for this article. This nephilim escathology needs to be rebuked. The book of Enoch is also at a blame for these doctrines to spread. There are too many false teachers out there spreading gnostic teachings and Jewish fables.
    This is an interesting video on this same topic that sheds some light as to one of the major proponents of the fallen angels / nephilim theories… Chuck Missler. And as always, this person was linked to the new age and UFO´s and aliens ( demons ). So all he was spreading, was doctrines of devils. I believe too many sincere Christians have fallen in the trap and spread these theories because they were influenced by people like Missler and other “pastors” who were actually infiltrated to corrupt the church.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-fFfTyeIBY

  2. Hi Anna :hi:

    Thank you so much for your comment.

  3. LT says:

    This is an excellent read! I had some things I wanted to add on.

    Who did Christ by the Holy Spirit use in giving a warning of a Coming prophetic flood?

    2 Peter 1:21 “21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

    2 Peter 2:5 “5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;”.

    So Noah was a “preacher of righteousness”.

    [So, 1 Peter 3:18-20 tells us that Jesus in His great mercy by the Holy Spirit spoke through Noah, in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared. Striving to redeem those humans in prison to sin, while the ark was being prepared.]

    Genesis 6:3 “3 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.”

    [It is CLEAR that the patience of Jesus is exceedingly great. By the Holy Spirit He spent 120 years trying to reach the people before the flood came. The world was warned, they rejected it, and the flood came.]

    Here is the BEST PART:

    1 Peter 4:6 “6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

    Notice these individuals who were preached to could be made alive according to God in the spirit. Who can be dead but made alive according to God in the spirit? Paul writes about those who were dead but who were made alive in….

    Ephesians 2:1-3 “2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
    2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

    3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

    Notice THIS group were spiritually dead but not physically dead. Once we die, we don’t have a second chance.

    Christ went and preached unto the spirits who are NOW in prison, in hell, through the voice of Noah. Peter doesn’t say He preached to them WHILE in prison. Peter says he preached to them ONCE, during the days of Noah, and NOW they are in prison.

    The inhabitants of the antediluvian world who “having been disobedient”, and convicted of the most flagrant transgressions against God, were sentenced by His just law to destruction. But their punishment was delayed to see if they would repent: and the longsuffering of God waited 120 years. Which were granted to them for the purpose of that time as criminals tried and convicted, they are represented as IN prison. Detained under the arrest of the Divine justice, which was waiting for their repentance of the end of the expiration of the 120 years that the punishment would be inflicted by the Flood.

    Lastly, the fact that “Baptism” is a like figure in 1 Peter 3:20 is a MONSTER clue for us. People in our day, get Saved, but don’t get Baptized. They are Saved spiritually, but continue in their flesh. Which is the comparison being made here in Peter. Noah preached to many of them, and albeit the Holy Spirit got some Saved, they still lived in the flesh.

    Sorry so long. Any feedback or thoughts would be awesome.

  4. Hi LT :hi:

    I have a thought or some thoughts on this, but I am going to wait for Tom to reply to you on this one before I say anything. :smile:

  5. Enlighten me. Thoughts on what? I have been having problems with my computer. Sorry!

  6. Hi Tom :hi:

    Thoughts on LT’s comment. Please read his comment. I’m kinda confused as to what he means regarding Baptism.

    Maybe I should ask you LT :smile:

    You said “Lastly, the fact that “Baptism” is a like figure in 1 Peter 3:20 is a MONSTER clue for us. People in our day, get Saved, but don’t get Baptized.”

    Can you elaborate? Are you talking about immersion in water or spiritual baptism the moment one is Saved?

  7. HI Debs,

    I think, as you suggested, we should rather ask LT what he means by baptism with the Holy Spirit, lest we misunderstand him. I have a pretty good idea but would like him to explain.

  8. LT says:

    Hey, sure would love to clarify some more.

    I’ve heard from “fallen angel” theorists countless times that 1Peter 3:18-20 is speaking about Jesus preaching to “fallen angels” during His 3 days in Hell. That’s a lot to digest, I know.

    I absolutely disagree with their opinions on this scripture. What I believe is to be understood here, is that Noah (a preacher of righteousness), through the Holy Ghost (Spirit), preached to those people during the 120 years leading up to the Flood. The possibility that (some) of those getting Saved (as this article suggested), is a great possibility. But since only 8 went on the boat, they were still punished.

    Why is this important? Because in verse 20, all of a sudden, we see the like figure of Baptism spoken of. Quite odd to throw that in the text here. But to reconcile this, a literal application would be that this is much like our day today. Many people get Saved, and Believe in Christ as their Lord and Saviour. But not all these people get Baptized. Yes, the full submersion type of Baptsim.

    Getting Baptized is obedience being shown AFTER we get Saved. To get Saved is enough to secure our Eternal Salvation, but not being Obeidant in the flesh and getting Baptized afterward is the comparison to those that Noah preached unto. Potentially some got Saved through the Holy Spirit, but they continued in the flesh and not being Obeidant.

    So we have to continue reading to chapter 4 to get the finality of chapter 3 in 1 Peter.

    And the KEY VERSE….6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

    Okay, so we KNOW that Christ went to Hell for 3 days after he died. THIS verse is NOT talking about when Christ went to Hell, to preach to “fallen angels”. This has NOTHING to do with Jesus preaching to the dead and them getting “Saved” while in Hell. Like, they were burning and being tormented and here came Christ preaching and they get decided NOW to believe and get Saved. That’s ridiculous.

    Peter 4:6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

    “them that are dead”, referring to those people who died in the flood.

    “that they might be judged according to men in the flesh.” Referring to they were judged for their sins, they didn’t listen to Noah and get on the ark.

    “but live according to God in the spirit.” You see, they were Saved! They HEARD the gospel but still followed the worldly stuff. They were spiritually saved, but not physically saved from the flood.

    So that’s the picture here. Noah didn’t waste his time preaching 120 years for nothing. There was a REASON why he preached to those who are dead. There was a reason why he preached for a 120 years, to ALL those people….and THAT REASON is that those people who died in the flood, those who believes in Christ STILL went to heaven after there physical death in the flood.

    They got Saved, but they didn’t get Baptized!! Noah’s ark is a picture of Baptism going through the water. There are people today who get Saved, but don’t get Baptized. They’ll be judged in the flesh by God for not being Baptized, but they’ll “live according to God in the spirit.”

  9. Hi LT, Your comment is very interesting and, I must say, to the point. Give me some time to chew the cud a little before I answer you.

  10. LT says:

    No problem. For me, my main issue at first was to prove these verses were not speaking about “fallen angels”. That initially was the reason I studied this. After I came to the conclusion this wasn’t referring to “fallen angels being preached to in Hell, I had to figure out who it was talking about.

    Then the “like figure” of Baptism started to stick it out to me.

    Anyway, I absolutely enjoyed these two refutations of the “fallen angels” that you wrote. One of the best I’ve seen. The one aspect we would disagree on is the timing of the Rapture. But that’s a totally different topic. Great Job!

  11. Hi LT

    This is not the first time I’ve said this to someone…I need time to think about this as well. :think: I’m gonna take a back seat in the peanut gallery on this one :pop: and hand it over to Tom :overt2: who is far more clued up than me on this issue and let him come back to you. :up:

    Actually I just wanted an excuse to use my smiles in that sentence. :grin:

  12. Hi LT

    Been thinking about this the whole day… this peanut must speak :smile:

    Are you promoting a partial rapture? Those baptised (immersed in water) get removed (raptured = ark), those not baptised (immersed in water) get to go through tribulation as a baptism (immersed in water)? :scratch:

  13. LT says:

    Rapture?? I’m not promoting any ideas on the Rapture theory. I only stated that one comment because I know we disagree on that. At least I’m assuming from some of the comments posted y’all are strictly pre-Trib.

    As for Noah and the Ark, since “Baptism” was the “like figure” mentioned, I am merely using this figurative language as a typicification.

    My absolute main CENTRAL idea for 1 Peter 3:18-21 and 1 Peter 4:6, is to disprove this is referring to “fallen angels”. These verses, along with 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 (as these articles did an excellent job explaining), are often used for the “fallen angel” theory.

    If y’all have another thread for the Rapture, I’d love to compare scripture. Thx

  14. Dear LT

    I understand what you were tying to do initially, to disprove the fallen angel theory. I was merely answering you on this part of your comment: :check:

    ““that they might be judged according to men in the flesh.” Referring to they were judged for their sins, they didn’t listen to Noah and get on the ark.

    “but live according to God in the spirit.” You see, they were Saved! They HEARD the gospel but still followed the worldly stuff. They were spiritually saved, but not physically saved from the flood.

    So that’s the picture here. Noah didn’t waste his time preaching 120 years for nothing. There was a REASON why he preached to those who are dead. There was a reason why he preached for a 120 years, to ALL those people….and THAT REASON is that those people who died in the flood, those who believes in Christ STILL went to heaven after there physical death in the flood.

    They got Saved, but they didn’t get Baptized!! Noah’s ark is a picture of Baptism going through the water. There are people today who get Saved, but don’t get Baptized. They’ll be judged in the flesh by God for not being Baptized, but they’ll “live according to God in the spirit.””

    You have stated here 2 things:

    1) there are Saved unbaptised people – going to heaven – but because not baptised they will go through trib.
    2) there are Saved baptised people – going to heaven – but because they are baptised they will go on Ark.

    The ARK and it’s shutting of it’s doors is a TYPE of rapture and salvation (being in Christ) :smile: that is why I brought the rapture into my comment (it had nothing to do with your comment on the timing of the rapture)
    The flood you have stated is a type of baptism of the world…but to destruction (immersion in water)

    You stated that people today get saved but don’t get baptised (immersed in water). You say these people will be judged in the flesh by God meaning I presume they will go through the tribulation. But those today who are saved and baptised, they will go in the Ark or are IN Christ (once again I state that the Ark is a picture of a TYPE of rapture and salvation).

    Do you now see what I am saying LT. :nod:

    You have a whole other doctrine here on baptismal salvation.

  15. Hi LT

    Here are all our rapture articles: read, enjoy, pick one to comment on :smile:

  16. LT

    Tom is having PC problems, hence the reason he has vanished, but should be back online soon. We are having electricity power cuts around the country and it’s caused his pc to crash a few times.

  17. LT says:

    Ugghhhhh what a buzzkill….

    I typed out a long reply and I lost it all somehow scrolling up.

    Firstly, I’m not creating some Baptism “doctrine” here. Read 1 Peter 3:21. The “like figure” should help. Typicification can be used in many ways. I normally don’t go overboard with it. Don’t want to here either. The Ark is a “picture” of the Rapture. Or a picture of Spiritual Salvation. Or this or that. Not the rabbit hole I’m venturing in to.

    To further prove in 1 Peter3:18-21 is talking about those who died in the flood, we continue reading to 1 Peter 4:6. This is where we read that they were judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. Notice the word “live”. How can one “live” after they have “died”? They were Saved.

    Your presumption is incorrect about these people not baptized going through the Tribulation. I haven’t mentioned that in any respect. ??

    As for the OT Antediluvian people, they didn’t get on the boat. Guess what happened? They were judged according to the flesh with a Gobal flood. When comparing this with a literal application of today, AGAIN, it’s just a typicification and easily can confuse people into some wild doctrines. I tend to stay away and stick with the scripture.

    And as we see in 1 Peter 4:6, this group was judged according to the flesh, but LIVE according to God in the spirit. Only possible way to live according to God in the spirit, is to be Saved!

    If you wish to change the primary target of the verses into a Baptism chat, I’d be happy to give some scriptures on Baptism since we keep going back to this.

  18. LT

    What concerns me the most is your last statement of your comment.

    “So that’s the picture here. Noah didn’t waste his time preaching 120 years for nothing. There was a REASON why he preached to those who are dead. There was a reason why he preached for a 120 years to ALL those people….and THAT REASON is that those people who died in the flood, those who believes in Christ STILL went to heaven after their physical death in the flood.
    They got Saved, but they didn’t get Baptized!! Noah’s ark is a picture of Baptism going through the water. There are people today who get Saved, but don’t get Baptized. They’ll be judged in the flesh by God for not being Baptized, but they’ll “live according to God in the spirit.”

    None of the antediluvian sinners who died in the flood were saved. They were all cast into hades which is not the Lake of Fire proper, but a preliminary place where the souls of unbelievers are kept until their day of judgment after the 1000 years of peace on earth. According to the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man was cast into this place for unbelievers. Prior to Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, believers were kept in a place called Abraham’s bosom (Paradise) where, according to the parable Abraham spoke to the rich man in hell (not the Lake of Fire proper). (Luke 16). It follows that if Abraham could speak to the rich man while he was in Paradise and the rich man in hell, that Jesus Christ, who went to Paradise (not hell) after his death on the cross, could also speak to the antediluvian lost sinners in hell. He did not preach to them the Gospel to give them a second chance, as you suggest 1 Peter 4:6, allegedly says. The word kērussō simply means to herald a truth, which in this case was to show them that that which they did not believe when Noah preached to them 120 years, has come true, i.e. his incarnation, death and resurrection.

    As for the view that He preached to fallen angels, the word absurd fails to describe something so absurd and far fetched.

    Moreover, your last remark implicates Paul of Tarsus as a heretic, and here’s why I say so:

    “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17).

    Your views on baptism suggest that Paul was not concerned about his new converts’ spiritual well-being and deliberately exposed them to God’s wrath (so-called judgment in the flesh) for not having baptized most of them. It also makes Paul’s statement in Romans 8:1 redundant.

    Now, before you remind me that the verse says “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” to prove that what you said, is correct, let me remind you that the phrase does not appear in the original Greek. It simply says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, . . . I am not a NIV fan but in this it is perfectly correct.

    This already gives us a clue what the baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 really amounts to. None of us walk in the Spirit 24/7 and often fall into carnality of some sorts. Will we be judged in the flesh, as you say? No amount of water can rid us of the flesh, let alone provide us with a good conscience. Forget it. If that were true, John the Baptist’s baptism in water would have provided us with all the necessary spiritual content to be saved, sanctified and glorified.

    Why would Paul thank God for not letting him go about baptising new converts and expose them to his judgments in the flesh when there is no longer condemnation to those who are in Christ? Why would Jesus have cried out in victory “TETELESTAI” (It is finished) when a water rite like baptism is needed to fill up the alleged inefficiencies of his cross? It doesn’t make sense.

  19. LT

    There is no such thing as a judgment of or in the flesh apart from spiritual judgment for an unbeliever. (Matthew 10:28). Therefore, 1 Peter 4:6 cannot be interpreted in terms of the Great Flood. If the ark was a type of Jesus Christ, it also typifies salvation in terms of being IN CHRIST in order to be saved. As such, Noah and his family were baptized into Christ (typified by the ark) and thus saved. The rest who were completely enveloped by the waters of the flood, were baptized into damnation, not salvation. The judgment according to men in the flesh simply means that the physical bodies of believers, although we are saved spiritually, are judged by God by means of physical death (Romans 6:23). In fact, this was the Gospel that was preached to the dead believers who once lived and got saved through the preaching of the Word. It states, “You are going to die in the flesh because the wages of sin is death, but you will live because your spirit has been quickened through your faith and baptism into Christ.” It’s got absolutely nothing to do with water baptism.

  20. LT says:

    You totally lost me with your first comment. But redeemed yourself at the end of the second. Romans 6:23….Exactly! Judged in their fleshly physical death, but Saved in the spirit.

    As for Paul and Baptism, it wasn’t his calling. Paul was called to preach the gospel. This is where you lost me. Where does Paul come into play here? I can tell you where Baptism comes into play…1 Peter 3:21. The “like figure” of Baptism. I guess we could go round and round disagreeing here. You said, “my views on Baptism”….I haven’t even begun to give my views on Baptism. But in 1 Peter 3:21, we see that comparison. A typification. A like figure And I make the connection to that of 1 Peter 4:6. And Noah was a preacher of righteousness.

    You made a disclaimer that you never said people got Saved before the flood came. I’m saying some of those antediluvian sinners DID get Saved! Else Noah is made null and void and the the scripture is a liar.

  21. I don’t think I lost you. In fact I know exactly where you are coming from. Let’s look again at what you wrote.

    “They got Saved, but they didn’t get Baptized!! Noah’s ark is a picture of Baptism going through the water. There are people today who get Saved, but don’t get Baptized. They’ll be judged in the flesh by God for not being Baptized, but they’ll “live according to God in the spirit.”

    Do you really think God would not have called Paul to baptize mew converts if the loss or absence of baptism brought God’s judgment in the flesh upon people? Surely, if Paul knew that God would judge new saved converts in the flesh for not having been baptized, he would have baptized every single new convert to whom he preached the Gospel. Your view of the absence of baptism makes those who have never been baptized (immersed) in water (the one thief on the cross, for instance) equal to those who perished in the flood. Jesus never said to the one criminal on the cross next to Him. “You are saved, but you cannot come with me to Paradise because I must first judge you in the flesh because you have never been baptized with John the Baptist’s baptism by being immersed in water. Only then you will ‘live according to God in the spirit.'” I have never been baptized (immersed) in water but I do know that I have been baptized. Am I like one of those who perished in the waters of the flood? How do you know some were saved who were perished in the flood. You have only ONE reference and that is 1 Peter 4:6, and according to you that is not enough to prove your view.

    You have already made it clear what your views on baptism are. You have two kinds of salvation.

    1) Salvation without baptism that forces God to judge the unbaptized in the flesh.
    2) Salvation with baptism that forces God not too judge you in any way.

    Here are some verses that prove only Noah and his family (eight souls) were saved and not some others who perished in the flood, as you say.

    By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
    (Hebrews 11:7).

    For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peters 2:4-5)

    God spared only eight souls and judged the rest of the entire world because of their ungodliness. None were saved. How does that make Scripture a liar?

  22. LT says:

    Yes, somebody definitely got lost on this one. Baptism, is an outward sign of Obiediance. Baptism doesn’t equal Salvation. Still with me? You do realize we are talking about the time of Pre-flood correct? Don’t let this pass you by. It’s important. Jesus didn’t preach to Paul before the flood. The Holy Spirit preached to the ante-diluvian people. THIS group is who we are referencing. Read 1 Peter 3:18-21 again.

    Since y’all both are still confused, let’s back track. Using “typification”, which as I said easily confounds people (as we see), it we were to deduce a “modern day” literal application, than it is very simple to deduce that those who got Saved DURING the preacher of righteousness before the flood time, they were disobedient in the flesh. You’ve taken some hilarious acrobatic gymnastics and twisted the generalization and simplicity. This isn’t “doctrine”. A comparison seems to lead many astray going down rabbit hole tangents. We seemed to have crossed that bridge.

    Many people in our day get Saved, and never Baptized. Baptism is obedience. It’s not a Salvation killer. But the obedience factor of the flesh. The “like figure” of Baptism for those who died in the flood, yet LIVE according to God in the spirit, is an obeisance factor. They got Saved, yet remained sinful in the flesh and were not obedient. Hope this helps the gymnastics you are performing.

    Lastly, was Ham Saved? He was on the boat. He was a Sodomite and cursed. He made it through the flood, yet was cursed? Now I could give you my educated modern day literal application for this….BUUTTTTT I can only imagine the unscriptural acrobatics that would follow. Again, using small amounts of typicification is better suited to keep gymnastic somersaults under wraps.

    The world was ungodly, and God punished the world. YET….those judged according to the flesh, will LIVE according to God in the spirit.

  23. LT

    Indeed, somebody did get lost on this one and persistently resort to eisegetical gymnastics, and it is definitely not I.

    NO! Baptism is not a sign of obeisance or obedience (decide which word you would like to use). If baptism had been a sign of obedience, Paul would have been baptized by Ananias in his home in Damascus. Listen carefully to what Ananias said to Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16). Ananaias did not say that he was going to do the baptism. At any rate, from whence did Ananias get all the water in his home to immerse Paul into? Ananias was doing the perfect thing by alluding to the fact that, as John the Baptist identified true baptism, Paul needed to be baptized with Living Water (Holy Ghost) which God the Holy Ghost alone could do (Matthew 3:11). The only thing Paul had to do was to stand up and confess his sins.

    You wrote:

    Don’t let this pass you by. It’s important. Jesus didn’t preach to Paul before the flood. The Holy Spirit preached to the ante-diluvian people. THIS group is who we are referencing. Read 1 Peter 3:18-21 again.

    You are not only satisfied to apply your tomfooleries and eisegesis gymnastics to baptism, but also to rewrite the Word of God. Your rendition of Hebrews 13:8 will probably sound something like this, “Jesus Christ NOT the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. During the Antediluvian years, He preached another Gospel.” (Heb 13:8). OH, but of course it was not Jesus who was doing the preaching through Noah but the Holy Spirit. Here again you dare to change Scripture to your own advantage when you suggest, “God the Trinity are not one and they say different things, and even contradictory things, at different times to suit the situation.”

    Look! The eight souls in the ark were a prefigured baptism into Jesus Christ, proving that IN HIM and IN HIM alone you are safe (saved) and no longer exposed to his judgments and wrath. Isn’t that what Paul says in Romans 8:1. And to remind you again, the word, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” do not appear in the original Greek. And even if they had, I need to ask you, Do you always walk in the spirit and never in the flesh? Even an obscure, ONCE -off walk in the flesh is enough for God to judge you in the flesh. Oh, I’m sorry, you won’t be subjected to that kind of judgment because you were baptized in lots and lots of water.

    Your view on Ham having been a homosexual is the cherry on the cake of your biblical gymnastics. Please put on some proper glasses when you read the Bible. Genesis 9:22 simply says Ham saw his father’s nakedness, went out to his brothers and made a mockery of his father’s nudity. Unlike today where everyone, and especially women, like to go around naked and half naked, in ancient times even looking upon a father’s nudity was a breach of family ethics, let alone to make a mockery of it.

    You wrote:

    The world was ungodly, and God punished the world. YET….those judged according to the flesh, will LIVE according to God in the spirit.

    Weren’t all the ungodly people judged in the flesh when they succumbed to the waters of the flood? In that case every single one of them must have been saved. You are preaching another Gospel and I would like to warn you to stop it before it is too late.

  24. LT says:

    Hello again, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed your fallen angel articles. Don’t agree with much more past that. Unsure what you mean as “another gospel”?? Sounds like cop-out. Typical conclusion. I preach the scriptures. UNLIKE all the man made terms y’all falsely preach. I’m sure someone already warned you. I’ll pass.

    Obiendance….oh you pointed out a typo. Congrats. You should proof read your own articles. They are LACED with them. I guess this helps your ego. Glad I could help.

    Not much to answer that hasn’t already been answered. All you added in the last comment was more gymnastic acrobats with a few less tricks.

    AGAIN….cherry picking ONE verse without context has y’all believing in multiple false doctrines. Context Context Context…line upon line, precept upon precept. You pointed out Genesis 9:22….yet you don’t keep reading?? You did this in your Rapture writing countless times. I’ll point out one after I show this one. Genesis 9:25 (3 verses later from 22).

    Also, if I am correct, you were using Exodus 19:6 as your “Jews only” in your false deception unscriptural “7 year Tribulation”, but AGAIN…you leave out “other” verses. Cherry picking. Exodus 19:5 (the verse PRIOR to your “proof”) “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice……..”

    Did you see that word there Tom? IF….IF…..IF…..IF…..

    Well Tom, they didn’t! They did NOT obey! But I do appreciate you leaving that verse out. Highlights the deception with precision.

    Wonderful job on the fallen angels. Since you said literally nothing in the Rapture forum, I’ll call this a wrap. God Bless

  25. Shoeeeee, but you become nasty nasty LT when you can’t answer Tom’s questions.

    Then you God Bless us? Oh boy…

    Your pre-wrath doctrine mixes church history with jewish history – mistake 1 of several.

    Pre-wrath diagram

    You said “I thoroughly enjoyed your fallen angel articles. Don’t agree with much more past that.”

    PS, your understanding of Nephilim in the book of Job is great, but that’s where it ends.

  26. LT says:

    Hello Deborah. Excuse my sarcasm. I am a bit extreme when “typo’s” of one letter become an ego trip. I’ll assume the intent wasn’t based on that.

    Thank you for the Job analysis. I put a lot of study into that. We def agree on the false teaching of the fallen angels. Again, that was the best written piece debunking that I’ve seen on that issue. Well done!

    I enjoy solid Rapture talk. Haven’t had one with a Pre-Trib in awhile. “Church history”, “Jewish history”, “Jews only-ism” is a forgone conclusion to most outside the “at any moment” pre-Trib theory. You call that “my first mistake”. I typically debate with Post-Tribbers anymore. Namely, the idea of the “last trump” matching the “7th Trumpet” during the Wrath period. This I disagree with. I read some of Paul Benson’s stuff and although he has some decent things, I disagree with him on some key issues.

    There are some KEY events that take place in the book of Revelation. To name a few in no particular order…Wrath, Trib, Armageddon, Rapture, Millennium, Great White Throne Judgment, battle it Gog and Magog, of course, others. But within these KEY events we should EXPECT the book of Revelation to give us some insight and talk about these KEY events. If we take the Rapture KEY event written in the book of Revelation, are you comfortable suggesting that “hour of temptation” (Rev 3:10), or John being taken away in the “spirit” (Rev 4:1), as to being the BEST description of the Rapture? This MAJOR event, in the book of Revelation, THESE are the BEST descriptions of the Rapture to Pre-Trib believers?? For me, as a Believer in Christ, if that was my BEST verses in Revelation for the Rapture, I would be severely disappointed. But to help alleviate this problem. MY Rapture verses are FILLED with description in the book of Revelation.

    Rev 7:9-17 “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;”.

    Rev 14:14-16 “16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.”

    Compare these with, “hour of temptation”….

    Tom, Deborah, thank you kindly for the talks. I apologize if my sarcastic nature seemed nasty. Wasn’t my intent. I asked quite a few specific questions that didn’t get answered. If Tom has any, ANY specific questions I may answer, by all means….fire away :)

  27. Dear LT

    I think the slipping in of your ‘strange baptismal doctrine’ into your Nephilim analysis regarding the Day of Noah got us all a flutter. I do believe based on scripture that this is VERY unscriptural. Then you came in with your pre-wrath teaching and also managed to sneak in a few names of your favourite pre-wrath teachers for advertising purposes lol. Well done on that one :wink: Tom and I will be investigating them thoroughly. :nod:

    Quick fire question: Does Jacob Prasch fall into your camp as well?

  28. LT says:

    Hello Deborah, No! I don’t ascribe to Pracsh or Missler. I read plenty of y’all’s analysis on them and I believe they are unscriptural teachers. I only mentioned a name to give you guys (and ladies) a chance to see where I’m coming from. Y’all (sorry I’m from Texas, always say y’all) mentioned the name Paul Benson and I’ve never heard of him. Also mentioned Prasch now. I just mentioned a SOLID scriptural end time teacher named Alan Kurschner, and possibly a few other (can’t remember). I’m not promoting him personally for any gains. I’ve never spoken with or met him. Only studied his resources on the Pre-Wrath on his page and YouTube channel.

    Again, can’t speak for your “Baptsim doctrine” y’all keep spewing. Giving a literal modern day typification is NOT “doctrine”. Webster’s dictionary should help define “doctrine” and why it’s irrelevant to this thread with Baptism. Remember the “like figure”. I merrily presented a “like figure” in our day. If you read 1 Peter 3:21, you will SEE the “like figure” of Baptism ascribed to pre-flood. And if you continue reading to 1 Peter 4:6, it applies. Simplicity works here. Going down this “baptism doctrine” rabbit hole doesn’t apply here.

    Your comment is very strange indeed. You said, ““strange baptism doctrine” into your nephilim analysis”….

    The point of this thread was to disprove the nephilim in 1 Peter 3:18-21. The “spirits” preached unto were those (not all) during the 120 years God was long waiting to judge the ungodly. This tells me, even after multiple citations, it still hasnt been grasped. Circling the wagons by repetition seems to be the safe play. That’s fine. The point was made.

    I would highly encourage you to check out the Pre-Wrath teachers I cited. Inside the Pre-Wrath teaching are some minor nuances disagreed upon, but the overall agreement is the 6th Seal-Four cosmic disturbances Rapture.

    I appreciate your time Deborah. I would love to hear your analysis on the Pre-Wrath. It has picked up some highly influential steam in the past 3 years. It could be your next challenge :)

  29. You wrote,

    Again, can’t speak for your “Baptsim doctrine” y’all keep spewing. Giving a literal modern day typification is NOT “doctrine”. Webster’s dictionary should help define “doctrine” and why it’s irrelevant to this thread with Baptism. Remember the “like figure”. I merrily presented a “like figure” in our day. If you read 1 Peter 3:21, you will SEE the “like figure” of Baptism ascribed to pre-flood. And if you continue reading to 1 Peter 4:6, it applies. Simplicity works here. Going down this “baptism doctrine” rabbit hole doesn’t apply here.

    How on earth can it be irrelevant when you entire antediluvian-saved-unbaptized-judged-in-the-flesh-doctrine revolves around baptism. You are dancing and egg dance. Whenever you are driven into a corner, you suddenly think up something else or deny flatly that what you said is what you meant. You were the one who started spewing baptism, and now you say it is irrelevant.

    By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb 11:7)

    Is the world here, the entire world or just a portion of it? Or are you a Calvinists who makes a difference between the world of the elect and the world of the non-elect? The only difference is that you allege that all the inhabitants of the world (except Noah and his family) were not baptized and yet there were some who believed. Was it their faith that prevented them from being baptized (to enter the safe haven of the ark) or was it their non-baptism that prevented them from being baptized (to enter into the safe haven of the ark)? Or did they believe and refuse to be baptized (enter into the safe haven of the ark)? Can you see how preposterous you views are? Please tell us, why did they allegedly believe the Gospel but refuse to be baptized (to enter the safe haven of the ark)?

    It was by faith and faith alone that God enclosed Noah and his family in the ark (which is likened to baptism into Jesus). Yet you say, No, no, their faith gave them the go-ahead to be enclosed in the ark as well, but they refused to climb in. What utter nonsense. And please don’t accuse me of putting words into you mouth again. That is what you suggested, lock, stock and barrel.

  30. LT says:

    Hello Tom, repeating false statements must make them true….so saith the soothsayer. It’s “irrelevant” because the PICTURE or “like figure” of Baptism is just that, a mere Representstion. You can’t seem to fathom this. I can’t help that. Let’s help with an example. If I said, the Ark is a picture of Salvation because there was one door on the Ark….and Jesus is that door. Your response would go off some wild rabbit hole tangent about why doors have locks and why some don’t. Oh, and the peephole…I’m sure you would spend 12 comments telling me I said the peephole was false salvation doctrine. That’s basically what you’ve done.

    Every sentence you muttered in both comment threads have twisted acrobatically every thing I’ve said. Quite sad Tom. Deborah in the least took a gander and has respect for dialogue. You speak like a loose canon. But I’ll allow it. Can’t force a person to read intelligently what’s being shown.

    You keep saying statements that I’ve said AS IF I said them. THAT is putting words in my comments. Every comment you falsify something and change the topic. This is incorrect, and redundantly deliberate. What’s happened here, repeatedly, is your presumptuous non/mis-understanding and amazing gymnastic somersault twisting of the plain scripture.

    Now I’m a Calvinist?? Please Tom, could you refrain from judgmental name calling and fruitless titles that you apparently box every commenter in to, to acrobatically help aide this WORTHLESS blubber blabber you keep spewing.

    Apologies for sending you off the deep end. I’ll carry on my merry little way. Preaching tomorrow night and need to finish my notes. Have the last word big guy!

    LT

  31. Please answer the questions I asked.
    You wrote:

    1 Peter 4:6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

    Why were the antediluvian critters given the wonderful opportunity to hear the Gospel of salvation preached to them so that they may be saved (judged in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit)? If God is a God of perfect justice and righteousness, it follows that He should be doing the very same thing to this day. Is He still preaching the Gospel to the dead in Hades (hell)? Answer the question.

    What is wrong in asking whether you are a Calvinist when you seem to make a difference between those who believed and those who did not in more and less the same way the Calvinists do? Whereas Calvinists separate the elect from the non-elect, you separate the believing non-baptized from the non-baptized non-believers. What’s the difference? They are all lost, whether you want to admit it or not. I didn’t say you are a Calvinist. I suggested that you use the same tactics in regard to the meaning of world. Can’t you see that? A.k.a. the world of the believing non-baptized sinners versus the world of the non-believing non-baptized sinners. What proof do you have that they believed and were saved without having been baptized?

    Presentations or allegories were things Jesus often used to convey deep spiritual truths. Yet, you say they are mere presentations. Your view of likening the ark to baptism is precisely what led you into a maze of deception and lies. Even if I had gone down the rabbit hole and told you the door had a lock and a peephole, you would still be going down the rabbit hole of deception because you doggedly and rebelliously cling to the insipid idea that 1 Peter 4:6 is connected to 1 Peter 3:18-21. It is not!!!

    Again I ask you. Please answer my questions. I asked:

    By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb 11:7)

    Is the world here, the entire world or just a portion of it? Or are you a Calvinists who makes a difference between the world of the elect and the world of the non-elect? The only difference is that you allege that all the inhabitants of the world (except Noah and his family) were not baptized and yet there were some who believed. Was it their faith that prevented them from being baptized (to enter the safe haven of the ark) or was it their non-baptism that prevented them from being baptized (to enter into the safe haven of the ark)? Or did they believe and refuse to be baptized (enter into the safe haven of the ark)? Can you see how preposterous you views are? Please tell us, why did they allegedly believe the Gospel but refuse to be baptized (to enter the safe haven of the ark)?

    Stop dodging the questions, Mr. LT. You are not merely going down a rabbit hole, you are already stuck in it lock, stock, and barrel and seem to be stuck their forever, because you argue in circles. Soothsayers just love to do that.

    For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. ( 1Co 14:33)

    Satan is the god of confusion.

  32. I wrote the following comment on Alan Kurschner’s and Thomas Ice’s debate on this video.

    Kurschner calls these debates Christ-honoring discussions which brings glory to Him. Rubbish! How to you bring glory to Christ when you espouse lies? (John 8:44). The different rapture views Kurschner and Ice uphold cannot possibly both be true. If one is true, the other must be a lie. Yet he says their debate brings honor to Christ? Really? We may as well say debates with Mormons (with whom we should achieve a good moral soil), Seventh Day Adventists and any other heresies on the planet bring honor to Christ. Glory, glory Hallelujah!

    How did the Pre-wrath Rapture doctrine start? Pre-wrath rapturists came together and debated the issue of Revelation 3:10. Here’s how they tried to solve God’s promise in that great verse.

    “Oh dear, Here God says He is going to keep his Bride (the Church) from the hour of temptation. The only way to make it suit our lies is to shift God’s wrath from the first to the 6th and 7th seals. So let’s do it. From now on God’s wrath is not going to commence the moment when the only worthy One to open the seven seals (Jesus Christ – John 5:22-23), breaks the seal of the first seal. Sorry Jesus, you are not worthy enough to pour out your judgments and wrath during the first five seals. For that to happen, we will give Satan and Antichrist the honor. Surely, you must agree, that we may give them some kind of honor and worthiness as well, don’t you think? They too are worthy to unleash their own wrath during the first 5 seals, don’t you think?”

    Here’s a question for Kurschner. To whom did Jesus speak when He said, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another (Antichrist) shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.(John 5:43). God often gives sinners what they want as n expression of his judgment and wrath.

    The entire scope of the seven-year tribulation is God’s judgments and wrath. The series of sevens alone prove it. There is not a single instance in the Bible where Satan and Antichrist are linked to the number seven.

    Paul said:

    We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:6)

  33. LT says:

    Comment deleted by DTW

    DTW says: It is impossible to talk to someone who says something and then, when you prove to him he is wrong, he denies ever having said it. Twisting Scripture to your own liking is very dangerous.

    As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

    LT believes that baptism in water can cleanse you of the defilement of the flesh and thereby give you a good conscience. Like most anti-Pretribulation cronies, he does not know what the difference is between singular and plural words. To them “spirits” = “spirit” and vice versa, and “him” = “them” and vice versa. If LT had still been in school I would have flunked him with a zero 10.

    This is what he said, and NOW he denies it.

    1 Peter 4:6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

    “them that are dead”, referring to those people who died in the flood.

    “that they might be judged according to men in the flesh.” Referring to they were judged for their sins, they didn’t listen to Noah and get on the ark.

    “but live according to God in the spirit.” You see, they were Saved! They HEARD the gospel but still followed the worldly stuff. They were spiritually saved, but not physically saved from the flood.

    So that’s the picture here. Noah didn’t waste his time preaching 120 years for nothing. There was a REASON why he preached to those who are dead. There was a reason why he preached for a 120 years, to ALL those people….and THAT REASON is that those people who died in the flood, those who believes in Christ STILL went to heaven after there physical death in the flood.

    They got Saved, but they didn’t get Baptized!! Noah’s ark is a picture of Baptism going through the water. There are people today who get Saved, but don’t get Baptized. They’ll be judged in the flesh by God for not being Baptized, but they’ll “live according to God in the spirit.”

    As I said before, this is another Gospel.

    I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

  34. Hi Tom

    Yip, I too find it utterly amazing… :scratch:

  35. LT says:

    1) How many comments must Tom delete to feel correct?

    2) “7 year Tribulation”….Where does the Bible teach this “concept”?

    Simple questions that should be easy to answer…barrels locks pocket sockets or whatever floats your boat ?

  36. LT. I refuse to answer you because you fail to see glaringly open truths in the Bible. So, stop wasting your time. You are as blind as a bat.

  37. LT

    1) Simple explanations should be easily understood.
    2) You are having trouble understanding, we can’t help you with this problem. Only God can.

    Please move on.

  38. Perhaps we should ask LT to prove to us that the seven-year tribulation is non-existent (is not in the Bible). Only then we shall prove to him that a seven-year tribulation is, in fact, in the Bible. His proof, however, must be substantiated by a verse or verses that say, “There is no such a concept as a seven-year tribulation in the Bible.”

  39. LT says:

    [Deleted by DTW]

  40. Ronald Piper says:

    I read quite a lot of this presentation, and skimmed other parts, So in your opinion what should I conclude about this?
    Thanks Ron

  41. You can not make any kind of thoughtful conclusion by just skimming through parts. You will have to read the entire article, plus of course part 1 in this series as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:hi: 
:hat: 
:nod: 
:nope: 
:unhappy: 
:smile: 
:grin: 
:giggle: 
:laugh: 
:up: 
more...