₦airaland Forum

@ Image123,

Can I asked you few questions please? Maybe you might be able to answer this? I guess you are preaching a strange and another Gospel, am just afraid. However, this is my question to you:

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. Heb. 10:9 Kjv.

Then he said, "Look, I have come to do your will." He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. (NLT)

What do you understand by that verse?

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of [His] glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Heb. 1:1-4 NKJV

God has spoken! The emphasis of this book is that God, not man, has spoken. Therefore, it does not identify its writer, nor in any of its quotations from the Old Testament does it mention the speaker's name. According to the concept of this book, the entire Scripture is the speaking of God. Hence, in referring to the Old Testament, this book always says that it is the Holy Spirit's speaking ( Heb. 3:7; 9:8; 10:15-17 ).

In the Old Testament, God spoke to the people not once for all and not in only one way but in many portions and in many ways: in one portion to the Patriarchs in one way, in another portion through Moses in another way; in one portion through David in one way, in other portions through a number of prophets in several different ways. It is most fitting and meaningful that this book, a book of God's speaking, is entitled The Epistle to the Hebrews. This book reveals to us the contrast between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was of the law in letters and forms, of man, earthly, temporary, and by sight and issued in a religion called Judaism. The New Testament is of life, spiritual, heavenly, permanent, and by faith and is focused in a person who is the Son of God.

The first Hebrew was Abraham ( Gen. 14:13 ), the father of all those who contact God by faith ( Rom. 4:11-12 ). Therefore, God is called "the God of the Hebrews" ( Ex. 9:1,13 - ASV ). The root of the word Hebrew means to pass over.[/b]It can mean specifically to pass over a river, that is, to pass over from this side of the river to the other side, to pass over from one side to another. Therefore, a Hebrew is a river crosser. Abraham was such a one. From Chaldea, [b]the land of idolatry, which was on the other side of the great river Euphrates, he crossed over to Canaan, the land of the worship of God, which was on this side of the Euphrates ( Josh. 24:2-3 ).

The intention of God's speaking in this book was that the Jews who believed in the Lord but still lingered in Judaism would leave the law and cross over to grace ( Heb. 4:16; 7:18-19; 12:28; 13:9), that they would leave the old covenant and cross over to the new covenant ( 8:6-9:1-End ), and that they would leave the ritualistic service of the Old Testament and cross over to the spiritual reality of the New Testament ( 8:5; 9:9-14 ); that is, that they would leave Judaism and cross over to the church ( 13:13; 10:25 ), that they would leave the earthly things and cross over to the heavenly things ( 12:18-24 ), that they would leave the outer court, where the altar is, and cross over to the Holiest of all, where God is ( 13:9-10; 10:19-20 ), that they would leave the soul realm and cross over to the spirit realm ( 4:12 ), and that they would leave the beginning of truth and life and cross over to the maturity of life in the truth ( 5:11-6:1 ). Not only the Jews who believed in the Lord but all who contact God by faith should be such river crossers. This is the purpose of God's speaking in this book.

However, the writer of this great and expository epistle is mainly unknown but there are lots of speculations as to the writer of this epistle. If you had studied the epistle to the Hebrews, who do you think is the writer and what is your prove of your choice of the writer? Let's prove ALL things again. Yes, we can know the writer, I believe.

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." 1 Sam 16:7 Niv

And I heard my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ say:

[size=15pt]Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.[/size] John 7:24

frosbel: plausible , but quote some other verses to support this, though I am in agreement at a high level.

thanks

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Tim. 2:11-15 Kjv

@ Frosbel,

Here again we see the "silence" in parallel WITH LEARNING. The bible is very clear on this subject. It is women lording authority over men that the word of God doesn't teach. The silence is NOT to "shut up" and never to speak. It is in reverence to subjection, learning, orderliness, edification and comfort.

frosbel: Absolutely spot on !!

But brother, I am not so sure we should continue to debate the enemies of Christ with gospel truths.

What they need is salvation and if they reject it , we have no further business with them.

Harsh but true.

God bless.

You are right. I just gave logicboy01 many instances where same Paul also wrote that women should talk and he still insist on arguing. I can't keep arguing with him like you noted. If you observe me, I don't jump into any thread by logicboy01, I don't just want him get away with this, that is the reason I jumped into this thread. Keep expanding the Kingdom of God my brother Frosbel and the Lord is your portion and reward. Thank you.

logicboy01: All this epistle you are writing does not mean anything.

Silence/hold your peace means shut the hell up! End of story.

Yes, you are right....I hardly read the bible when I was a catholic. Catholics in general do not read the bible. Just go to mass and take holy communion like sheep.

You see logicboy01, this is the problem you have even when I showed you from other scriptures that the same Paul wrote that woman pray and prophesy which both involves speaking or talking, you still can't reason with that. I have said it in the beginning of my response to you that your 22 yrs of being a Christian or church goer needs to be questioned and you just confirmed the truth to my statement. How can you still continue to argue after I just showed you. If you say "keep silence" means shut up, and I showed you other instances where same Paul wrote women to speak/talk, then Paul will be contradicting himself.

You see what your problem is, you are reading the Bible with a veiled mind and therefore, you are reading to find fault. The word of God is NOT contradictory IF YOU TAKE TIME TO STUDY (not just reading like circular novels or newspapers). This is one of the reasons why I don't like dealing with you because you are always wanting to keep arguing and am not in for that, am sorry. If everyone is like me on this board, you will be preached to in due season just like Frosbel said but if you refuse, you will be completely ignored and allow to talk to yourself. However, I still promise to engage you someday that I have time for you. No harm meant. I leave you with these words from the Bible:

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 2 Cor. 3:16 Niv

@ OP,

I first responded to this thread because I was about going to bed when you started this thread yesterday. I know you as an Atheist and you claimed to have been a Christian for 22 years or so. If truly you are once a Christian, I wonder how you read your bible within those 22 years and later became an Atheist. Well, that is by the way. I didn't want to jump into your thread because I hate wasting my precious time with you as you don't read ANYTHING about the Bible to learn but to discredit it. You are always reading the Bible with the mind of finding fault and loop holes forgetting that the letters kill but the Spirit gives life. However, I do not want you get away with this. Now, back to the thread.

First. There is NO one verse of the scripture that stands on its own. This is what the bible meant when it says, "no scripture is is PRIVATE interpretation". You cannot up-root one verse OUT OF CONTEXT and give/apply an interpretation. This is not how the bible says we should interpret the bible. Okay. (Am going through this, if only you want to learn)

Now, Let look at 1 Cor. 14: 34 in context (the whole) and see if actually Paul is saying. What does it mean to be silence according to that verse and in context?

Silence is an English word translated from the Greek, "sigao" and it means: to be still, KEEP silence, to hold one's peace. So what is the Apostle saying? Let's put this meaning in place of silence and in context and let's see how it reads:

Let your women [be still, KEEP silence, hold their peace] in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. When we read "keep" as it precedes "silence" means a state of "maintaining" silence and not a state to shut up without talking.

Paul is NOT saying they should NOT talk because the context of "keeping silence" does NOT mean one should NOT SPEAK. How did I know this? The context. In the same context of 1 Cor 14:27-28

If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Here we read Paul said one should keep silence AND LET HIM SPEAK. Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that, the sense of "keep silence" does not mean one cannot speak. It simply means to hold one's peace and be still IN THE CONTEXT OF ORDERLINESS AND FOR EDIFICATION. This we can clearly see in the context of verse 30-31 same chapter,

If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.. So we read clearly here in this context that the sense of "keeping silence" IS NOT OR NOT TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH BUT EDIFY, ORDERLINESS, LEARNING AND COMFORT. The context of 1 Cor. 14:34 is demonstrated in the next verse 35,

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

It therefore follows that the sense of "keep silence" in the church IS NOT TO MEAN THEY CANNOT TALK AT ALL WHILE IN THE CHURCH BUT THE SENSE AND CONTEXT IS AS IT RELATES TO DISORDERLINESS, LEARNING, CONFUSION AND NOT EDIFYING. Because we already see in the context of verse 28 that one is asked to be silence and still speak. How can someone be told to be silence and still asked to speak? It doesn't make any sense that way. So we should understand what Paul is saying.

Again, "KEEP SILENCE" cannot not mean total non-speaking state in the sense that same Paul in 1 Cor. 11:5 taught that women can pray and prophesy in the church which involves an act of speaking.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

So how can a woman pray and prophesy if she should totally remain quiet? Paul is not saying women should be silence in the sense of total non-speaking/talking state when they come to church BUT silence as in the sense of learning, comfort, edification and orderliness and this truth we clearly see in verse 35, 26-33 and verse 40 which says,

Let all things be done decently and in order.

Well, I think we solve this already in the other thread. Like I said, the "giants" as used in that context doesn't relate to physical status but related to apostates. Also, if you say angels (who are spirits) cannot mate humans or daughters of men then, then you might not believe in demons or even the birth of Jesus by Spirit (holy) of Mary. We also have events where demons (spirits) possess people and Jesus delivered them.

YOU SHOULD BE SILENT IN THE PUBLIC PLACE LIKE NAIRALAND.

buzugee: totally agree with everything you wrote except the 'giants being big people part'. if you look at a KJV bible, there is a writing method which is purposely convoluted so as to make people have to decipher it. this keeps away the riffraffs and heathens who just read it for fun but draws in those who are willing to meditate on the words to crack it open. this is how the bible is coded. to get rid of the chaff. if you look at that verse 4, it begins by saying there were giants in the earth in those days ( now note how after saying this, that statement was left open. there was no fullstop but a semicolon ) notice that. then next statement after that was that the sons of God came into the daughters of man and they bare children to them ( at this point the statement is still not closed yet ). then it goes on to say 'the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. so basically with that statement 'the same'. what you are expected to do is to juxtapose 'GIANT' with 'BECAME MIGHTY MEN OF OLD, MEN OF RENOWN'. so basically in a nutshell GIANTS is refering to mighty men, men of renown. men of influence. men of great deeds. not no physical giants

Thank you. What Frosbel is not getting here is that, he is interpreting "giants" as literally to mean giants as in physical status. That is wrong. That word "giant" is interpreted "Nephilim" in other translations which means "fallen ones" otherwise "an apostate ones". The same "giants" means fallen ones in KJV dictionary. Frosbel, check it out.

nyameke: Lol@ Goshen.. compare the long article that you posted to the two answers that I gave you guys in the beginning; is the article not saying the same thing I said from the beginning of this thread albeit my a shorter explanation..is it understanding you guys lack or what ?

lolz. No mind me my brother. I guess you didn't prove beyond ALL contradictions and you even said you will tie it up the next day but guess you are busy. Thank God we figured it except for brother Frosbel who still hold a different view. If he insist on his view, I guess he needs to answer your question which I later reasoned with about how Spirit (holy) was able to conceive Jesus in Mary's womb without se.x since angels too are spirit. Thanks though. I might be coming up with another controversial topic this coming week,lolz

@ Frosbel and Everyone,

This thing is very simple, not as hard as it first appeared to me. I mean now that I get the true picture.

Look at it this simple way. The book of Gen.6:1-2 says,

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, [size=15pt]That[/size] the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

First it says WHEN "men" began to multiply. I will like to remind you that "men" CANNOT multiply WITHOUT male and female. So "men" in this context is NOT just male, it's mankind. Okay. Now, if it takes meale and female to multiply and in the cause of that multiplication, DAUGHTERS were born unto them (mankind).

Verse 2 tells us that, "THAT" the "sons of God" SAW the daughters of men (mankind). The key here is "THAT" that precedes "the sons of God" SAW. Okay, lets assume this is an open puzzle and we need to find the meaning to these "sons of God" and that is what this thread is all about. WHO ARE THEY?

First clue is, the book of Job was written in the time of Genesis BEFORE THE LAW and the "sons of God" at that time was ONLY used for angels based on the revelation they have at that time.

Second (if) the first is not enough, what could be a possible reason why the whole earth was wiped out with flood reserving just 8 people if it just mere marriage before children of God and daughters of men (that is if "sons of God" means children of God from the line of Seth)? I want to believe that is something more to that and this is my thought:

(a). After the flood, the children of Israel still got married to harlot nations after delivered from Egypt and God did not wipe them out with another flood.

(b). The Bible talks about a case where a believer (in God) marries and unbeliever and they Bible says, the unbeliever is sanctified by the believing spouse. If these "sons of God" were children of God, are we to say the daughters of men who are the cursed people overpowered the nature of God on the children of God?

(c). If the "sons of God" are children of God that knew God at that time, while will their marriage give birth to such an extra-ordinary described spices - Giants and they are called "the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown"? I mean why? if they are of same human being?

Our puzzle is to find meaning to who these "sons of God" are? Angels or human?

Let's say we leave it open until we get to the book of 2 Peter. He says,

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

Which "angels" is Peter referring to and what is their sin? We want to find out. We do not know until we get something parallel to this that gives the exact description of what we are looking for. That is the book of Jude vs 6 that parallels with the statement of Peter highlighted in RED above and below

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6

The book of Jude and Peter simply say the same thing about the puzzle we want to solve. They both say, "DELIVERED/RESERVED IN CHAINS OF/UNDER DARKNESS, to be/unto the JUDGEMENT".

What they both said is same and the only thing they referred to is ANGELS. Now, what is their sin? Peter did elaborate but Jude did as they both referred to angels. Jude says, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation".

This seems to appear they committed two sins: They didn't keep their first estate and second, they left their habitation. Keeping first estate is different from left their habitation in the sense that "BUT" was used and they imply two different things otherwise, Jude could say, "they kept not their first estate and/but left their first estate"

Also, both Peter and Jude parallels these event to three other examples that occurred for God to wipe out the world then with flood. 2 Peter 2:4-6 AND Jude 1: 5-7. They repeated the thing and they both have reference to "angels" as to the flood.

Well, I am convinced beyond ALL CONTRADICTIONS that the "sons of God" in Gen.6:1-4 ARE ANGELS. They are fallen (apostate) angels and their reference in Jude plus his mentioning their sins is under "examples of the OLD apostasy" that Jude was relating the sins of the false teachers to. Hence, they are "fallen or apostate" angels. Also, it clearly parallels with the three events in the time of Noah and also agreed by Peter, Peter also paralleling same three examples, both in reference to the time of Noah. This is beyond contradictions.

The weight that angels can't marry by Jesus is NOT sufficient because Jesus was talking about a SPECIFIC location (IN heaven and IN resurrection) not to mean it cannot happen on earth and especially when it involves "corrupt or apostate" angels, it is possible they can do anytime like demons possessing a young man when Jesus delivered him, the bible says that young man was jumping into fire and water. This is the work and manifestation or fallen angels that became demons because their "first estate" by Jude had not being kept. If we believe demons exist, then we should also believe these angels "in a fallen or apostate" state, can also do anything which corrupted the whole human existed in the "world" that then was...according to Apostle Peter.

Hence, my final stand is that those "sons of God" are fallen angels. If not, they might not be able to give birth to such description of men of old and renowned with such hybrid kind.

Thanks

Am sorry bro. Am not in a good mood right now. Am sorry. I don't mean insult. Maybe I misunderstood you cos of my mood anyway. Well, if you don't mean it for evil, it's okay.

buzugee: that aint no expensive joke. lighten up bruh. let me ask you a question. what is the valley of the dry bones?

It's good you asked after him. He is fine. I often speak to him off line outside NairaLand but he doesn't have time for some senseless conversation/thread anymore. But your jokes are too expensive sometimes. Please, kindly remove "Has He returned to the valley of dry bones" from your thread. It's not ideal please. Think about it. God bless you.

^^^
Kindly create a link for me about the main defender bible from that link, not the notes. I want some that will put me inside the study bible book by book, verse by verse. Am lost within the website, I can't find bible itself. All I see is summary and notes. Thank and I will appreciate it.

Great work @ Apostle Image123. Keep teaching the Kingdom of God.

Kenneth4u205: that's the gosple truth.that's my life story

Okay. Kindly send me email on goshen360@yahoo.co.uk. I will prefer to address your issue off line and privately. Kindly refer to this thread when you email me and if possible send me your contact number. If I don't have much minutes on my calling card, I will reply via email but if I have much minutes on my card, I will speak to you on Phone. God bless you.

OLAADEGBU: If the word giants refer to fallen ones what then shall we call the giants like Goliath and the ones in Jericho?

I presented an article in the other thread just as you also did presented an article from defender study bible or so. I think that explains it. The "fallen" (Nephilim) in Gen 6 is not based on size and stature. It is based on apostasy, like fallen from Grace or fallen from truth. The Giants in the case of Jericho and Goliath are then based on size. If the one in Gen. is based on size and the flood wiped all out and we are told Noah was perfect, that is without blemish, then where did the Giants in Jericho came from? They are not the same meaning thought same spelling just like, "in the beginning" of Gen 1:1 and "in the beginning" of John 1:1 are not the same.

I hope this explains it. Thanks for the article update from defender study bible also. How do I get that defender study bible free online or I have to buy a hard copy? Am interested in it. Also, you might also find the "Apologetics study bible" good for you also, they both defend the faith (if you check the meaning of apologetic).

logicboy01: Why are you surprised? Are you not a christian? SMH

1 Corinthians 14:34

New International Version (©1984)
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Abeg keep quiet...u dey look for person u wan follow play this afternoon. I no get your time and what relevance does the verse you quote got to do with this thread? I have told you many times, I don't waste my time debating issues with you until the day I promised you. Okay.

@ OP,

Tell me (personally) this is a joke. Until then, I will hold my comment. If you tell me it is true, then I will comment.

This incarceration in chains until judgment day gives us further insight of who these angels are. If the sin mentioned in 2nd Pt. were the original fall of the angels which occurred in heaven, then all the evil angels would be in chains, not just some. This would mean that Satan and all the angels would be bound and would not be active today. Obviously this is not correct so the only explanation is a separate event which prompted the Lord to keep them apart from us never to repeat this heinous act again. It seems these particular angelic beings were more inclined to evil than the others that they left their assigned place in the heavens to defile the whole human race. So they could have been a certain class of angels as there are numerous different creatures described in heaven. The Apostle Peter refers to the spirits in prison more than once. In 1 Pt. 3:19-20 he states that after Christ died he went and “preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah.” this preaching was not the good news but to proclaim, announce their inevitable judgment, again we find the time of this being Pre-flood.

In summary

We see from numerous parallel scriptures that this marriage of Gen. 6 was disastrous for humanity. That the offspring of this union lead mankind into activities that are promoted by Demons. Their offspring were called the fallen ones, super human in strength and intelligence that became world renown. That the legends of the Gods in mythology probably are a distortion of a true event just as they have distortions of the flood. That the Lord intervened with a cataclysm in which only eight people were saved. There is no line of Sethites to found afterward. That this behavior is consistent of the fallen angels trying to pollute the line of the messiah. That the word "sons of God" is used exclusively for angels throughout/in the Old Testament, not man. The weight of the evidence with the information we have does seem to conclude that the "sons of God" are indeed the fallen angels.

~ End of Article ~

Both of these events are described as Pre-flood. Both Peter and Jude place these events between false prophets and Sodom and Gomorrah. Both accounts are in the context of sin and fornication of these cities. (going after a different kind of flesh then there own type Rom. 1:26,27.) Jude draws a comparison with the sin of Sodom and the angels, Both departed from their own nature to go after unnatural desires. Because of this rebellion they are confined in chains in Tartarus. This is a location in Hell specifically for the angels. These angels were involved in such an extraordinary sin that they needed incarceration until judgment day.

In the whole of Scripture (Genesis to Revelation) we have recorded two apostasy's of angels:

The first occurred in heaven with the rebellion of Lucifer the chief cherubim who had one third of the good angels follow his lead (Ezek. 28:14-16) and were confirmed in their fallen state.

The second apostasy is mentioned in 2nd Pt. and Jude in which they abandoned their assigned place of residence to invade another that was off limits to them. The author Jude writes of these angels who sinned and then parallels their sin with sexual immorality.

We should take notice that while this attacked the families of mankind, Noah was undefiled by this activity. Gen. 6:9 “This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.” He was perfect meaning without spot or blemish, healthy his family was not affected by the invasion to defile the “gene pool" of mankind.

With all this information of the antediluvian world in the Old Testament can we find any parallel accounts in the New Testament? Yes we can. We can find even greater detail on these particular angels and how and why they were judged. Without the Gen.6 account referring to angelic beings we are left empty handed on why these particular angels are bound until the end of time.

2 Pt.2:4-5: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, 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.”

“The angels that sinned” some interpret as the rebellion in heaven. This could not mean Satan's rebellion, because we would have no demonic angels against mankind today if they were all incarcerated. The question is, how did they sin? It is Jude's explanation that gives light to what Peter is speaking about.

Jude 6-7: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, [size=15pt]but[/size] left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Note: Jude didn't say "but left their first estate". It means "not keeping first their first estate" is DIFFERENT from "left their OWN habitation" otherwise, Jude would have said, "kept not their first estate but left their own/first estate"

Pastor Kun: And just a reminder to those adding to scripture that Cain's descendants were cursed; Enoch who the bible recorded as being very close to God was cain's direct son. So all these hogwash about the "phrase daughters of men" refering to cain's descendants is at best the figment of the imagination of it's promoters.

Just read the article. I think it best answer all this questions. Though it's lengthy but it worths the time. Thank you.

Many say how can a demon (or fallen angels) have sex with a human or have this ability to be physical. As we have already seen angels do change into physical form and can physically help people even though by nature they are invisible spirit beings. The Bible doesn't tell us how this occurred although there are some other factors to consider. A demon can inhabit a person and give them unusual strength and powers beyond any normal human ability. They can even give someone psychic abilities. So it is possible that instead of a creature becoming visible and physical to have sex we have a case of demon possession that affected their offspring's. I’m not saying this is how it occurred but it can be acceptable explanation.

Without the fact of their being two different species angelic and human co- mingling there can be [b]no plausible explanation of God's severe judgment. Which came upon both mankind by the flood and the angels that are now bound in chains. [/b](2 Pt. 2:4-5; Jude 6-7)

What purpose would there be for an angelic assault of this nature? After the fall of Adam and Eve God pronounced judgment on them and the Earth. He also gave a promise that a messiah would come and crush the head of Satan Gen.3:15. What we see consistently throughout the scriptures is a satanic attack to corrupt the line of the messiah. This was his first and probably greatest attempt to pollute the line (gene pool), stopping the seed of woman (Christ) from appearing. By introducing something foreign to the human race, man would eventually become a hybrid, part human and angel, something God never intended. This would have been disastrous because Christ would then not be able to represent man who was made in the image of God. It would be for this reason God took such a drastic measure to rectify this event.

frosbel: Because I believe in the simplicity of the Gospel and not to introduce strange meanings. But I respect your opinions , however I do not agree with them.

Keep posting and I will keep reading , no hard feelings.

"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 11:3

No offence my brother. Just wait till I finish and just read slowly. You know me too well that someone will have to convince me beyond all contradictions in a matter of the word. This is proving all things. ~ Still Posting ~

From the scriptures we can find no justification for separating the race of mankind and making one line righteous the other not. We actually find evidence for the opposite. The scriptures always refer to someone being righteous by their obedience to God, by their spirituality, not by their physical posterity or what family they are in. Why would all the Sethite men be godly and all the women of Cain be ungodly. There is no indication that the line of Seth was godly or stayed godly. If so, why were they also destroyed in the flood along with everyone else. There is no mention of this type of distinction before or afterwards. It would make more sense that intermarriage would occur with also godly women and ungodly men as well. There is no indication to confine the term of “daughters of" to "ungodly women" when it's a general classification for womankind.

Another factor that seems to lead one away from the two classes of humans is Gen.6:2 stating “they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.” In the Hebrew language this describes a violent taking for themselves, not a good thing. Why would godly men resort to this kind of activity for marriage (should they be from Seth)? In the next verse the Lord says his Spirit will not continue to abide with man and then pronounces the time when the future judgment will occur. All this after their marriage to other humans? When Israel did not obey the Lord from marrying outside their own nation there was never such a punishment. Whether this was a punishment incurred specifically for this event or it contributed to it seems to be somewhat obscured at times.

When the righteous marry the unrighteous they do not give birth to such unusual offspring, unless there is another element to this event. How else can one explain the offspring of this union which are described as “mighty men who were of old, men of renown” in Gen. 6:4. This is a description of their power and fame (their abilities intelligence, and strength far exceeded other men.)

If we look at the affect on humanity from this forbidden act it indicates that man became incredibly evil, where his thoughts were bent on evil all day long and he filled the earth with violence. (Gen. 6:5,13) with this afterwards as the affect from the unnatural offspring of humanity God decides to destroy the Earth. This was such a violation to God's created order that it altered mankind and necessitated a worldwide flood.

In Unger's Bible dictionary referring to the word for giants (Nephillim) he writes; “the Nephillim are considered by many as demigods, the unnatural offspring of the daughters of men mortal women in cohabitation with” the sons of God” (angels). This utterly unnatural union, violating God's created order of being, was such a shocking abnormality as to necessitate the worldwide judgment of the flood.” (pg. 788)

Gaebelein interprets,” The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers,” whose sonship is “distinctly a New Testament revelation.” (A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (Penteteuch). p. 29).

Can we find any justification for this view elsewhere in the Bible. Or is it as some claim the story of Greek mythology, where we have legends of titans, the gods of Mt. Olympus (Hercules, Achelles) coming down and intermarrying with humans having hybrids, half human and god. What we find is that this is not limited to only the Greek and Roman cultures, almost all ancient civilizations have legends and myths of visitations from the sky. Are these only folklore or are these legends distortions of what really occurred? We have the same for the flood accounts so it is very possible they are distortions of the true account.

There are several questions that are relevant to this event that need to be answered. First what justification is there to confine the daughters of men to be ungodly women specifically from the line of Cain. Does the bible ever classify people in this manner? If the Sons of God are descendants of Seth what are they doing presenting themselves before the Lord in heaven. Job 1:6, 2:1 (Also bear in mind that Job lived in the time of Genesis, the pre-law)“ there was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” A[b]lso why would there be such unusual offspring from marriage if they were all of human kind.[/b]

@ Frosbel,

Why dont you want to listen to other people's view. Kindly wait till I finish posting this man's teaching am posting and cool down to read it. I think he has a stronger point. The reason that led to God destroying the earth then with flood and how it relates to these angels are taken care of in the article. This is NOT about Rabbis, I don't read rabbis also but we have to be open minded. God bless you.