[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by CKG

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

Oh, that isn't all...

Unless I missed it, no one has yet referenced Daniel 2 in connection to the words of Christ mentioned aboved and Gen. 6.

Dan. 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

There are the days of Noe in the future during the tribulation. And the wickedness condoned and encouraged by the presence of the Devil Incarnate is only comparable to the result of the sons of God cohabitting with the daughters of men. That wickedness that followed invited the judgment of God (flood) just as will the future.

[Brother Tim]

PB, re: Daniel 2:43.... bzzzz - sorry, does not match.

1 - This is prophecy of the Roman empire. It collapsed in part because as it spread, the control became disjointed due to incompatibility within the government structure because of intermingling with the captured nations.

2 - Mingling with the "seed of men" is not the same activity as "angelic seed" impregnating human women, unless we now have female-anatomy-equipped angels.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Bro. Parrish, Are you using the term "angel" to describe all the heavenly hosts? Are the four beasts of the Revelation a type of angel? They participate in the praises. In fact, they are in the center of the congregation doing the praising. The Scriptures distinguish them from angels.

Nope, stop the wagon brother...
let me clear; my statement reflects only the results for the KJV term ANGEL or ANGELS. Not beast, seraphim, cherubim or Mickey Mouse, just ANGEL or ANGELS.

Please notice Tim, in the passages you listed I do not see any BEASTS or other creatures singing or shouting for joy. Do you? Maybe they did sing, but I don't see it, and I haven't searched on that. I know that Cherubims had wings and were placed at the east of the garden to keep the way of the tree of life, I think they generally appear as guardians in scripture, but what difference does any of this make with regard to the topic? Some of your verses are not even talking about angels or beasts making sounds at all, for example you posted about singing in Rev. 14:3 but that is the hundred forty and four thousand singing...
please pay attention brother.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

My opinion is that these are the "sons of God" in Job 38.

Wait, stop the wagon again...
so for some reason you have come to the conclusion that the Seraphim and/or Cherubim are the SONS OF GOD in Job 38, you think the SONS OF GOD in Job 38 are "heavenly beings," but you refuse to accept the possibility that SONS OF GOD in Job 38 or Gen. 6 are simply—ANGELS? How many shades of private revelation are you using here brother?

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

By the way, Bro. Parrish, I will return your question to you regarding Job 38... Who are the morning stars who sing? Stars did not come into existence until day 4. [note: No fair going to the Hebrew again.

Well no need for any Hebrew brother, I can cross reference my trusty KJV and see that ANGELS ARE CALLED STARS right here:

"The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." - Rev. 1:20

[Winman]

Bro Tim

Poor guy, you are getting ganged up on here.

Yes, I pointed out in the story of Lot, that the two angels took on the form of men, and even ate food. Now, isn't that the proof that the Lord used to prove he was not a spirit after his resurrection?

Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

So, to prove to his disciples he was not a spirit, Jesus allowed them to touch him. And when they still believed not, he asked for food and ate before them.

And this is similar to the two angels in Gen 19. They ate food, and they physically touched Lot, his wife, and two daughters.

So, they were in a physical form.

And we do not know if angels can have relations with men or not. But you cannot use the argument from Mark 12

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

This verse says we will not marry in the resurrection. There will be no need, for we will have no need to procreate. And angels do not need to procreate either, although those that left their habitation may have chosen to do so.

But I like to believe we will still retain all our body members in the resurrection. And I believe when these two angels in Gen 19 took on the form of man, that physically they had the normal body members of men.

And what kind of body will we have in the resurrection? If we die long before the Lord comes, our natural body will return to dust. But we will be raised with an incorruptable body. But it is a body, not spirit.

Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Job says here after the worms destroy "this body", he will see God "in my flesh"

So, if we are like the angels as Jesus said, and our resurrected bodies will be flesh, wouldn't the angels be flesh also?

[Brother Tim]

The "as the angels" comparison has to do with marriage issue, not physical appearance or characteristics.

Poor guy, you are getting ganged up on here.

I'm used to it. I was on FFF for quite a while. It is not hard to stand alone when one knows that he is right.

Again, since various folks continue to make the "angels can take on physical bodies" argument [granted, the condition itself is obviously true - in essence, they are "in disguise"] so they acted as human men and had intercourse with human women, then it cannot be avoided that the improper mating is still possible if it happened in Genesis 6.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

Oh, that isn't all...

Unless I missed it, no one has yet referenced Daniel 2 in connection to the words of Christ mentioned aboved and Gen. 6.

Dan. 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

There are the days of Noe in the future during the tribulation. And the wickedness condoned and encouraged by the presence of the Devil Incarnate is only comparable to the result of the sons of God cohabitting with the daughters of men. That wickedness that followed invited the judgment of God (flood) just as will the future.

My husband johnlf will be happy to see someone else make that connection with Dan 2:43 and Gen 6. We've never seen any one else talk about it before but then again we're not really in the loop. I'll be sure to make sure he reads this thread.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Okay, let us do a little review:

Who are the "sons of God"?

In the NT, the phrase appears six times. In every case, it is identifying the saints, never heavenly or spirit non-human beings.

In the OT there are three locations where the phrase is used.
First, in Genesis 6, which we are discussing. There, these beings (no number given, only plural -sons-) produce offspring with multiple "daughters of men" who then become notable men of their era. Nothing more is said that narrows down the identities of these beings in the passage. The word "angel" does not appear as a link, while the title "angel" does appear elsewhere in Genesis.

Second, in the beginning two chapters of Job, "sons of God" are in the presence of the LORD when satan lays down his challenge. The obvious observation is that this takes place in Heaven during Job's lifetime. Again, nothing further is given to describe these beings. Again, the word "angel" does not appear as a link. "Angels" does appear later in Job 4.

Third, in Job 38, the LORD uses the phrase "sons of God" to identify heavenly beings who shouted for joy during the beginning stages of earth's creation. Again, the term "angel" was absent.

The OT "sons of God" have been assumed variously to be:

[1] Heavenly angelic or non-angelic beings (in Job 1-2 & 38)
[2] The spirits/souls of early OT saints (Job 1-2 in particular)
[3] Angelic beings, more specifically, fallen angels (Genesis 6 in particular)
[4] Decendents of Seth (Genesis 6 in particular)

In its broadest sense, "sons of God" could describe any or all created beings, spiritual or physical. I will agree that Job 38 was not speaking of humans (duh). These are created heavenly beings of some type.

-------------
Let us assume for a moment that those who support the "fallen angel" definition for Genesis 6 are right. I have these questions:

[1] When did the fallen angels fall? Most place this either prior to the six-day creation of earth, or during that time. Genesis 6 takes place much later. If 2 Peter and Jude are referring to this event, why did God allow them free reign for so long? On the other hand, if these passages refer to the event of rebellion, then these angels were already judged.

[2] How could this be limited in time scope or individuals participating? Are you claiming that all of the fallen angels chose to mate with human women all during the same pre-flood time period? If there were any who did not participate, then they were not under the 2 Peter/Jude judgment and therefore could have at a later point in time done the same thing.

[3] There appears to be two groups of thought: [a] The angels took on fleshly form in every aspect and thus the intercourse was possible. Then why would the offspring be any different than other human children? [b] The angels had some kind of created innate ability to impregnate women. Some have even compared this to Jesus' conception (which nauseates me!) This would require that God designed these spirit beings with spiritual sperm. Why?? Remember what Jesus said about the angels and marriage.

[4] IF giants were the resultant offspring (which as I have posted earlier, the sentence structure does not support), then this same behavior was present after the flood and throughout history, for there have been giants reported and documented. Does this not call into question the Jude judgment?

-----------

Finally, Bro. Parrish and his new buddy, GT, mock this venerable old saint by asking,Again, I say: Not every creature in Heaven is an angel! Angels are ONE form of heavenly being.

------------
Enough for now...

Brother Tim,

I only had time to deal with your first out of four questions to us. I'll try to do the rest later (I'm sure you're excited about that!).

Let us assume for a moment that those who support the "fallen angel" definition for Genesis 6 are right. I have these questions:

[1] a) When did the fallen angels fall? Most place this either prior to the six-day creation of earth, or during that time. b) Genesis 6 takes place much later. c) If 2 Peter and Jude are referring to this event, why did God allow them free reign for so long? d) On the other hand, if these passages refer to the event of rebellion, then these angels were already judged.

a) As a proponent of the gap theory I hold that the fallen angels fell sometime between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
b) Yes, of course.
c)There are 2 subsets of fallen angels. They are those referred to in Jude and 2 Pet who are in chains until the judgement and those who are still free. There are fallen angels that remain free.

Ps 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

When you say "this event" I will assume you are referring to Gen 6 not the rebellion. Are you asking why God allowed the fallen angels to mate with human women at all or for a certain period of time or did He delay judgement and if so, why? God doesn't give us the answer to why He allowed it. This lack of information on His part has no bearing on whether or not the Son's of God are fallen angels.
d) Again, the verses can't refer to the rebellion because of Ps 78:49. There are two groups of fallen angels. All of the fallen angels obviously participated in Satan's rebellion. Some, but not all of the fallen angels left their own habitation.

Your sister,

Jennifer

[Brother Tim]

Response to GB's first comments:

Greenbear, based on your answers, particularly that there are fallen angels that did not participate in the Genesis 6 event, are you acknowledging that this is possibly an ongoing activity?

In reference to:

God doesn't give us the answer to why He allowed it. This lack of information on His part has no bearing on whether or not the Son's of God are fallen angels.

GB, think about what you are saying. These women had no power to prevent this assault (Genesis 6:2 "...they took them wives of all which they chose.") God, foreknowing the actions of that these evil ones would commit, allowed this assault on unprotected, innocent women to take place for however long, and then immediately (and without comment, while at the same time expressing His anger with mankind) slammed the chains on them, leaving the results of their actions to further the destruction of mankind, AND on top of it, left others to perpetuate the same behavior later!?! Verse 3 and 5 scream out the perpetrators of this crime, MAN!

[johnlf]

Pardon me for jumping here, I've been very busy of late. You wrote:

"GB, think about what you are saying. These women had no power to prevent this assault (Genesis 6:2 "...they took them wives of all which they chose.") God, foreknowing the actions of that these evil ones would commit, allowed this assault on unprotected, innocent women to take place for however long, and then immediately (and without comment, while at the same time expressing His anger with mankind) slammed the chains on them, leaving the results of their actions to further the destruction of mankind, AND on top of it, left others to perpetuate the same behavior later!?! Verse 3 and 5 scream out the perpetrators of this crime, MAN!"

""GB, think about what you are saying. These women had no power to prevent this assault"

ermmm, not sure what you are getting at here. Since when have women ever had the ability to prevent being raped? If they are not able to prevent being overpowered by men, how could they prevent being overpowered by angels?

"God, foreknowing the actions of that these evil ones would commit, allowed this assault on unprotected, innocent women to take place"

Are you serious? Are you actually trying to use the 'problem of evil' argument here? What God allows is up to him and his purposes, and is nobody else's business. God is under no duty to intervene in stopping evil. He has already explained that he will wipe every tear from every eye, and there shall be no more tears or death. We are in no position to second guess him on anything.

"to take place for however long, and then immediately (and without comment, while at the same time expressing His anger with mankind) slammed the chains on them, leaving the results of their actions to further the destruction of mankind, AND on top of it, left others to perpetuate the same behavior later!?!"

I don't at all see the immediacy you speak of here. This appears to me to be a very long time wherein all of man's seed is corrupted by this evil angelic invasion. Also, God dealt with "the angels that sinned". I find nothing strange with the idea that there might have been others that remained who did not sin in that way, but were capable of doing so at a later time.

God is merciful to even his enemies:

"31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. 33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked."

Luke 8
King James Bible

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

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

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

Oh, Bro. Parrish thanks for posting this link. I've read Footsteps of The Messiah several times years ago. I don't agree with everything but he is brilliant. I can't wait to read this one!