I recently came across a quote from a bestselling children’s author who based her bestseller on her understanding of a passage in Genesis. Author Lauren Kate wrote the book Fallen about an angel who is romantically attracted to and pursues a relationship with a human teenager. In the January 11, 2010 issue of Publisher’s Weekly (PW) on p. 13, Kate claims, “The idea for the book came from a line I read in Genesis about a group of angels who were effectively kicked out of heaven because they lusted after mortal women. I became curious about what the experience might be of a teenage mortal who suddenly became the object of an angel’s affection.”
The passage Lauren Kate refers to is Genesis 6:1-6, but from her quote to PW it is obvious she did not read the passage for herself and probably just heard about it from someone. The scripture never talks about anyone being kicked out of heaven for their lust. Here’s what the passage says:
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And 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.
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. [Genesis 6]
It has often been claimed that the “sons of God” in this passage refers to fallen angels and that the giants (often called Nephilim) who walked the Earth in ancient times were the offspring of the angels and the women. Those who hold to the belief that angels mated with humans use the argument that the phrase “sons of God” only refers to angels in the Old Testament (OT), using the book of Job as their proof–
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. [Job 1:6]
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. [Job 2:1]
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. …Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:4, 6-7]
They are correct that the phrase “sons of God” is talking about angels in Job, but a closer examination of the scriptures shows that Genesis 6 is NOT talking about angels. It is referring to humans and this truth can be deducted from the principles and context of what the Bible teaches. I will highlight a few points from the Bible as proof.
Point 1: Sons of God are humans who follow God. This is shown in both the OT and the New Testament (NT). In the OT, God gives the message to Pharaoh through Moses that Israel is his son–
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. [Exodus 4:22-23]
We also know from the OT that God said Solomon was his son–
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: [2 Samuel 7:14]
When we look at the NT, we are plainly told that believers are the sons of God–
But as many as received him [Jesus Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [John 1:12]
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [Romans 8:14]
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God… [1 John 3:1]
Now if we go back to Genesis 4, it establishes the context for chapters 5 and 6. At the end of Genesis 4, we are shown that two families of men are emerging in the Earth–Cain’s descendants and Seth’s descendants. It was Seth’s descendants who “call upon the name of the LORD,” [Genesis 4:26]. In other words, Seth’s descendants were those who worshiped God and their lineage is highlighted in Genesis 5. Since they worshiped God, they were considered sons of God and were the sons of God in Genesis 6. It was Cain’s descendants and other unbelievers who were the “daughters of men.”
Point 2: Fallen angels are never called sons of God. Satan, who is the fallen angel Lucifer (see Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:12-17), first appears in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3. We must also take into account that Satan, according to Revelation 12:4, convinced 1/3 of the angels in heaven to follow him in his rebellion against God as he started a war in heaven. Revelation 12 also tells us that Satan lost the war and was kicked out of heaven with his angels. It was at this point that
…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] 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]
Since these angels “kept not their first estate,” they lost all the privileges and benefits they had in heaven, including the right to be called the “sons of God.” Because Satan is present in Genesis 3, we know he has already been kicked out of heaven with his angels. So by the time Genesis 6 comes around, neither Satan nor his angels would have been referred to as the “sons of God.”
Point 3: God did not create angels with the ability to procreate with each other or with humans. God, who knew from the beginning that he would be betrayed, established at the creation of the angels that angels in heaven would neither marry nor be given in marriage (see Mark 12:25). He created them without this capability so that even when the fallen angels rebelled, nothing they could do would ever change this fact. This is why the fallen angels who were not yet placed in the chains of darkness in hell, and who roam the Earth freely, can only go so far as to possess unbelievers. If the immortal fallen angels could procreate, they would not waste their time possessing people since procreation would be a more direct route of affecting and infecting humanity for their evil purposes. Even when they possess unbelievers, their possession cannot affect the reproductive cells of the man or woman they possess so that they can spawn children. This is also why unbelievers in the Bible who are called “children of the devil” are only considered his children in the spiritual sense and not in the physical sense.
Point 4: God only complained about mankind in Genesis 6. The Lord makes several statements in Genesis 6 that prove he is upset with humans, not angelic beings. Here is what he says–
3And 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. …
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [Genesis 6]
God was clearly angry by what he saw. If fallen angels were actively participating in these events, why would he just focus on punishing men and not the angels who were involved? Throughout scripture we see how God places boundaries on what fallen angels can do and how he rebukes devils when they go too far (e.g. the serpent’s judgment at Eden, the story of Job, Michael’s dispute with Satan over Moses’ body, Jesus casting out devils, Gabriel and Michael’s fight with the Prince of Persia to get to Daniel), so if they were involved here, why is it that there is no mention of him saying he would punish them? He didn’t mention them because it was only humans involved in this situation.
Conclusion: Based on these four points, I’ve concluded that the big deal made over sons of God marrying and having children by the daughters of men speaks to the ongoing theme throughout scripture that God dislikes spiritually mixed marriages. In other words, God gets upset when his followers marry unbelievers. He did not like it in Genesis 6, or when he established the nation of Israel as his chosen people, or when he called believers in Jesus Christ to be separated from the world. The Lord has never liked such relationships because it is always the spiritual state of the believer that gets the short end of the stick. It is always the worshiper of God who ends up severely compromising their relationship with Yahweh when they get hitched to unbelievers.
Angels have never mated with humans and have never produced offspring by humans. This is one thing God has never allowed and will never allow.
–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–
No Doubt
/ February 11, 2010Shalom,
I was going dispute your four points, however, I decided to leave you with an suggestion from one brother to another. If you desire to know G-ds truth, do not allow your tradition Biblical education get in the way. As I read your four points, it became obvious that you have little or no scriptural or cultural background to make such claims. My hope and prayer is for you to rid of yourself of your traditional bias and cling to the truth that only the Spirit can lead you into. Please do not take this as an insult, it was not intended as such.
Shalom Aleichem
harryagaylord
/ February 12, 2010Traditionally I was taught that angels mated with humans whose offspring were the nephilim. What I have learned from extensive study of the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide is that angels never mated with humans. My post goes against the traditions I’ve been taught and my post reflects the truth of what is in God’s word on the matter, so your criticism of me is not accurate.
Antonia
/ November 8, 2011I agree, Mr. Gaylord. This guy/gal makes claims about your biblical interpretation which s/he doesn’t back up at all with any evidence. I, personally, was blessed to read your Bible study on this matter and I thank you for your wisdom and careful study, and comparison of scripture with scripture.
This study actually gives me relief concerning a matter that had bothered me for a long time.
It also makes me wonder when s/he says you don’t have the proper “cultural” background to make such claims. With his/her use of the words “shalom aleichem,” it makes me think that this person feels only Jewish people or Jewish Christians are qualified to interpret scripture. This is a faulty proposition to advance, and I totally reject it. My husband is a Jewish believer. We have extensive experience with messianic synagogues in four cities (Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and one town in New Jersey, all of which are places we have lived for years).
In SOME messianic synagogues (not all, but in a sizable portion), there is the belief that messianic Judaism is a superior version of Christianitiy. We have to tear down this belief wherever we find it. All born-again Christians, Jewish or not, are able to worship God and teach/preach His Word in full brotherhood and equality, and having a Jewish background, while it can help with scriptural understanding in some ways, can also be a detriment if you can’t get free of the shackles and belief that one is bound to the Law. Certainly, there is enough false doctrine in enough messianic synagogues that this demonstrates that ANY of us can get off-track with our scriptural studies.
So it’s important not to accept this type of superiority which says that we Gentiles cannot interpret scripture properly so we might as well hush up! I know this person tried to come in peace (shalom), and I appreciate that, but his/her claims are anything but peaceful in the Kingdom of God! To say that one’s cultural background completely disqualifies one from accurately handling the Word of God (which is essentially what s/he is saying) is not peaceful and is not good for the Body of Christ (Messiah). Mark those who cause division, and avoid them, we are urged.
harryagaylord
/ November 8, 2011Amen, Antonia. I’m glad you were blessed.
JR
/ February 25, 2010you can make all the excuses you need to, but the word nephilim does not refer to anything from this earth—-this did not happen last tuesday——-long time ago. do some more studying on this. they came here, not kicked out, they chose to come here. and they can assume a human body, as the man who gave up his daughters to save his “guests.” they ate food.
harryagaylord
/ February 25, 2010The word nephilim means “giants.” They weren’t supernatural beings, but large humans, like Goliath of Gath who was killed by David in 1 Samuel. Giant humans once roamed the Earth in large numbers. Their genetics still occur in modern humans from time to time as highlighted in the Guinness World Book of Records or Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Some of the men who play professional basketball could also probably be called giants.
Barb
/ August 5, 2010Mr. Gaylord,
My congratulations on your perception, interpretation, and your understanding of The Word. As one who is filled with the Holy Ghost you know the Holy Bible is only words to many, as Jesus parables were incomprehensible to many. To believers the bible stops being contradictions and written words. It is why they call it “the living bible”. With spiritual enlightenment comes the truth contained there in. I marvel at the knowledge it encapsulates translated by the Holy Ghost and the different meaning man tries to apply when they tell God what His book means.
You did better than good but you already know that. Thanks for sharing.
Barb
harryagaylord
/ August 6, 2010Thanks Barb.
David
/ October 11, 2010Mr. Gaylord,
Are you uncomfortable with the alternate possibility… I am – but, that doesn’t mean I get to change what God’s word says.
Point 1:
After a quick review of the Hebrew we find “Sons of God” in Gen 6 is “be•nei ha•’e•lo•him”, referring to a direct creation of God. Adam was as angels were. Those of us who have experienced the 2nd birth are also now “Sons of God” in the same manner.
However, Exodus 4:22-23 uses the word “be•ni” without the “ha•’e•lo•him”; while 2 Samuel 7:14 uses a different word altogether, “le•ven”.
Clearly, you’re not comparing apples to apples here between the references and Genesis 6. The best explanation so far is the “angel view” of Genesis 6.
Point 2:
We also find in the Genesis 6 account that there were nephilim, “han•ne•fi•lim”, in the land. What does that word mean? Turns out it comes from the root word naphal, meaning fallen ones. This sounds like Lucifer and his band of rebels. Let’s just double check that… when the old testament was translated to Greek this word became gigantes.
So in regards to the Jude 6, “the angels which kept not their first estate”, the reference to first estate is actually the word “oikētērion” in the greek. It means habitation. Strangely, the only other place in the bible this word is used is in 2 Corinthians 5:2 “For most certainly in this we groan, longing to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven”. It would seem these angels stepped out of a God-given habitation for something else. Interesting!
Point 3:
Procreation as we all know is possible outside of the bonds of marriage – not exactly what God intended. But this reference of Mark 12:25 does not support your argument.
Point 4:
Wow, you’re missing this one wide. One of the things you may have overlooked in Genesis 6 was the reference to Noah in verse 9, where God is pleased with Noah and Noah’s generations are blameless/perfect/unblemished. What does that mean? Is it possible that Noah’s genealogy had not been corrupted by the unholy procreation business between fallen angels and the daughters of men? And if this had been happening and if the world of men had been corrupted to such a full extent, then a world-wide flood would have been the best thing God could have done… for you and me and everyone else to provide our Savior.
harryagaylord
/ October 11, 2010Very clever tactic, David. Throwing Hebrew and Greek words around like you do in your argument to cause unnecessary confusion and to muddy the waters. However, this tactic doesn’t work on me. God went out of his way to keep his word simple and also grants wisdom to those who really want to understand it.
The book of Job says, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them,” [Job 1:6], and “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD,” [Job 2:1]. The phrase “Satan came also among them” is a phrase that points out the fact that Satan was not one of the sons of God–he was not considered part of their group.
In your criticism of my Point 1, you claim that I was not comparing the same Hebrew word for “son”, but both the Exodus and 2 Samuel scriptures use the same word “ben” for son. So your criticism is totally incorrect. The word “leven” is not in either scripture. So it’s obvious you’re stirring up unnecessary confusion.
In your criticism of my Point 2, you overlook the fact that the term “fallen” refers also to sinful men. Psalm 20:7-8 says that those who trust in the power of horses and chariots for battle instead of trusting in God are “fallen”, using the word “naphal.” As a matter of fact, “naphal” is used most of the time in the Old Testament for “fallen” because that’s the usual word for someone who falls whether it’s a normal physical fall to the ground, a fall in battle, or a spiritual fall from God. So your argument has no merit when you imply it only applies to Satan and his angels.
Your criticism of my Point 3 is a failed argument. God created all of his creatures on Earth to procreate after their kind. Mark 12:25 is perfect for my argument. Jesus points out that angels are not created for procreation like humans. The fact that their purpose is not for marriage speaks to this truth. And since they were not created with the purpose or possibility of ever being married, they were not created with the possibility of being sexually involved with each other or with humans. As Jesus once said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.”
My Point 4 was right on point and withstands your criticism. Noah was blameless on a spiritual level because he was devoted to God and what pleased God. He came from a line of godly people. He, like his descendant Abraham, believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Your argument is that giants were descendants of angels procreating with humans. You argue that Noah’s family did not procreate with fallen angels. Then why were some of Noah’s descendants giants? There were giants who were Canaanites and Philistines who descended from Ham, Noah’s son. They were the sons of Anak.
So your argument doesn’t hold water. If giants only descended from angel/human mixing, and God decided to destroy the Earth with a flood for this purpose to destroy the giants, and to save Noah because he didn’t have these giants in his family, then there would have been no giants after the flood. Once again, ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
David
/ June 17, 2011Regarding your reference to Job 1:6 and 2:1, let’s consider John 20:26 which reads
“And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them…”
Wouldn’t you agree, although Thomas is called out by name in this passage, it does not mean that he is not one of the disciples?
harryagaylord
/ June 17, 2011In a rush to raise an argument with me and to prove yourself right, you overlooked a major component of understanding scripture–context. The context of John 20:26 is that Thomas in the previous verses was absent when the Lord appeared. When he was told Jesus paid a visit, Thomas said he wouldn’t believe it unless he saw Jesus himself and touched him. Then we come to John 20:26 which sets up the anticipation that Thomas is about to see Jesus so John lets us know Thomas was present this time with the rest of the disciples.
In Job, when it says “Satan came also among them” it was denoting that he is separate from the sons of God. The context had already been set that Satan is the bad guy, the evil one. This scenario is the precursor to Paul’s teaching that the devil presents himself as an angel of light. And the mention of Satan lets us know something bad is about to happen based on what was established about Satan in previous books.
So your “debate” falls flat and you fail once again to prove my points wrong. You tried to give your own private interpretation and that was your first mistake.
David
/ June 17, 2011I appreciate the feedback. I agree there are different contexts, but it seems like your approach is taking some liberties to say the context overrides the common understanding of this phrase both in the Old and New Testaments not to mention the fact that sentence structure does not semantically demand the interpretation you’ve assigned. Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is you still have not convinced me that my argument failed but I will think about what you said a little more.
Hope you have a good weekend.
David
/ October 11, 2010Point 2:
I missed part of point 2 above… The word gigantes come from the root word gigas, which after some digging came up with a few additional meanings besides the most frequent one, “giants”. It also refers to “earth-born ones” and in another context to “a wild race related to the gods” (little ‘g’).
Hope this also helps.
harryagaylord
/ October 11, 2010Whatever your argument is, your play on etymology does not change the fact fallen angels are not “sons of God” and angels did not procreate with humans.
David
/ October 26, 2010This is your stump, Harry – not mine. And before I start let me say I truly appreciate your devotion of effort, time, and other resources to the study of God’s Word. My only hope is that you stop puffing up, drop the pride, and consider what you may not know.
So let me see… if I understand your position… you basically saying…
– Seth’s sons worshipped God and followed Him.
– Seth’s sons were the “sons of God”, a.k.a. “believers”.
– The daughters of men didn’t worship God.
– So, the daughters of men were “un-believers”.
– In a moment of weakness these two groups hooked up.
– Their sin was rewarded with “GIANT” offspring.
This might sound plausible, until we remember Goliath was over 9 1/2 feet tall. If this is all it took to create a star basketball team, I think we have raised the hoops a little higher than 10 feet by now. And, if the only requirement for worldwide flood was sinful man, then I think, we should all be walking around with life preservers today.
Seriously though, here’s what’s at stake… by implying the flood was God’s first response to our “sin problem”, it makes the cross sound like it was a last ditch effort to save us – some sort of cosmic Plan B. Personally, I don’t think our all knowing God needs a Plan B. No, I believe that God set our time-space up exactly as he needed it, down to the placement of every sub-atomic particle. He was not surprised by any of the adversary’s plans, nor by Adam’s fall, just as He is not surprised by our everyday failures.
He’s ALWAYS been on Plan A!
Here’s another interesting sidebar… after studying Genesis, a 13th century rabbi’s concluded, that we live in 10 dimensions – 4 knowable and 6 unknowable. Today scientists and mathematicians agree there are at least 10 dimensions to our reality. With this in mind, combined with your study of the scriptures, I’m sure you would agree angels are enabled with freedoms and abilities within these 10 dimensions that WE do not share nor understand.
Your final statements, quoted from above:
“Angels have NEVER mated with humans and have NEVER produced offspring by humans. This is one thing God has NEVER allowed and will NEVER allow.”
Do you realize how this sounds? You are implying either you know what God knows or that you’ve somehow been given “special” knowledge with respect to this subject that the rest of us don’t have. Your use of 4 absolutes is quite provocative – those should be used only when we truly know what we know. And even then, we should be careful. Wouldn’t you say?
harryagaylord
/ October 26, 2010No, David, you misunderstand my position. The sin of believers marrying unbelievers was not rewarded with giant offspring. You were the one who said that the flood was the best thing for God to do to keep Noah’s genealogy line from being corrupted by the giants who were angel/human offspring.
You claimed the flood’s purpose was to destroy the giants. My point was that giants existed after the flood, descending from Noah. The Bible tells us there were giants in the Promised Land who were Canaanites. So obviously your claim that God had to bring a flood to wipe out the giants was wrong. And your claim about angels mating with humans is wrong. And your claim that giants can only come from an angel/human mixture is wrong.
God created man to populate the Earth. Therefore, God created man and woman with the physical ability to populate the Earth and to follow his command to be fruitful and multiply within the confines of marriage. But man used those physical abilities to sin against God with fornication, adultery, etc.
Angels were not created to populate the Earth. They neither marry nor are given in marriage and were not created by God to physically procreate. God established marriage as the union for procreation. Since angels do not marry nor are given in marriage, this tells us it was not God’s intention for angels to procreate and he did not create them with the ability to procreate.
And I can speak using absolutes because I know what the word of God says. This isn’t special knowledge since God reveals absolute truths to those who believe in Jesus if they are willing to humble themselves.
Your arguments about a Plan A versus a Plan B don’t make sense either. When God destroyed the Earth the first time, he used water but gave the rainbow as a sign to man that water would never again be used to destroy this planet. But he eventually revealed to his prophets that the Earth would be destroyed again and the next time it would be destroyed by fire. So apparently God does have Plan Bs in operation. His plan Bs are not about whether or not he is omniscient, all-knowing. It’s about God giving mankind plenty of time to repent on God’s timetable and also leaving man with no excuse whatsoever for rejecting his plan of salvation.
God also gave the Mosaic law to man for a limited time as a plan A. Then at his appointed time, he came in human form as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the world. By coming as the Lord Jesus to fulfill the Mosaic law on our behalf, the old covenant of the Mosaic law was no longer needed. All that was needed to be cleansed spiritually was faith in Jesus Christ. It was God’s plan B but was paradoxically also God’s plan A since this was what he had in mind even before he established the foundations of this world.
So who is Jesus to you? I noticed that you’re talking about what some Rabbi said about 10 dimensions. Where’s his proof of that? Your arguments about dimensions and what mathematicians and scientists and rabbis claim is just to stir up confusion. Especially since the men you’re talking about came up with these theories about dimensions to sidestep the truth found in God’s word. And you don’t provide any specifics. I’m holding to God’s word and you attack me for it yet you cling to teachings of fallible men and claim you’re correct. Christians are commanded to “keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called,” [1 Timothy 6:20]. We are also told “let God be true but every man a liar.” So again I ask who is Jesus to you? Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?
David
/ October 27, 2010How about – we take one thing at a time. Let’s start with Jesus. You’re asking me who He is to me. Jesus is the I AM of the burning bush, the Creator of all, the Redeemer, the Lord. He created me just like he created you. He is my kinsman redeemer. He is my Lord and Saviour. He was born of a virgin. He walk among men as a man, yes – “in the flesh”. After He died on a wooden cross in Judea, He was buried.
But that’s not the end. On the 3rd day He was resurected and walk among men again, until the day He ascended into heaven. He now sits at the right hand of the Father. He has sent the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who will remain until the day Jesus comes back to gather His bride from among the living and the dead, to bring her home. On that day we will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye; and we will see Him as He is.
But that’s not the end either, is it? – more on that later.
harryagaylord
/ October 27, 2010Excellent. Just making sure we were on the same page regarding our spiritual foundation.
Norin
/ November 9, 2010Ask yourself why was it nor the Sons of Men and Daughters of Men? There must be some difference…
Satans plan was to pollute the human race so Jesus could not be born in future generationsthat through a pure lineage.
Satan had polluted all but a few people (Noahs family) before God plan moved to the next stage. Read Gen 6:4 :
<q cite="GEN 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. “>
“In those days” means “before Noah”
“And also after that” means “after the flood”
From this point on Israel was always being confronted by tribes and nations of the offspring of this event. At times Israel was even told to leave “none alive”.
Withougt understanding the context and purpose of the Giants and pulluted offspring God appears like a barbarian.
harryagaylord
/ November 9, 2010Norin,
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
However, the human race was already polluted by their own sin and didn’t need the help of evil angels. And as I highlighted in Gen. 6 above, God only addressed his disapproval with men in this scripture.
Your explanation of “In those days” and “also after that” doesn’t agree with the context of the scripture. “In those days” is talking about the days where Gen. 6:1-3 were happening. “And also after that” refers to after the sons of God married the daughters of men and after giants began to appear on the Earth. It was AFTER these things that the offspring of these mixed marriages of believers with unbelievers that children were born who grew up to become mighty men and men of renown. That’s the meaning of Gen. 6:4.
Noah was already walking the Earth during the time of Gen. 6:1-7 and he was mentioned in Gen. 6:8 as a contrast to the evil people mentioned in the previous verses. Gen. 7:6 tells us the flood started when Noah was 600 years old. God said in Gen. 6:3 that man would have 120 years left on Earth before he would destroy them. So if we subtract 120 years from Noah’s 600 years, we know God predicted man’s destruction when Noah was 480 years old when God said man would be destroyed. Noah saw the giants and saw how believers (sons of God) were intermarrying with unbelievers (daughters of men). So Noah was around “In those days” of the giants and also around “after that” when this intermarrying occurred. Those phrases are not about “before Noah” and “after the flood.”
And even the Lord Jesus verifies that Genesis 6 is only speaking of humans when he said that the return of the Son of man would be like the days of Noah. When Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:37 and Luke 17:37 about his second coming, he talked about what HUMANS were doing at the time. They were marrying, eating, and drinking. Why didn’t Jesus talk about angels marrying humans? He didn’t talk about this because no such thing was occurring.
You have basically done what so many people do when approaching the scriptures. You formed an opinion based on what you have been told and then went to the scriptures and tried to make them fit your preconceived, man-made notions.
David
/ November 10, 2010I think we agree, there were giants. Right?
Well, where on earth did the giants come from?
harryagaylord
/ November 10, 2010Giants were humans. Being giants was part of their genetic make-up. Just as people of the same color who marry others of the same color and produce offspring of the same color, large humans married other large humans and produced large offspring. It’s as simple as that.
David
/ November 10, 2010So if “being giants” was in their DNA, that would have meant that some or all of their ancestors had to have had this giant_gene to naturally pass it along. Ultimately, what you’re saying then is Adam and/or Eve had the giant_gene, then. Is that right?
harryagaylord
/ November 10, 2010Well, since we still have people today who have gigantism and they, like all humans, descended from Adam and Eve, I would have to say that Adam and Eve had the gene. Only human genes back then were not as corrupted as genes in our times, so I imagine giants back then may not have had some of the abnormalities of today’s giants.
David
/ November 30, 2010I’ve gone over this time and again… and I keep ending up confused that such a brilliant man (not a sarcastic put down by-the-way) is making the kinds of claims you are making. Can you help me understand what texts you are using to form the basis for your arguments? NIV, KJV, ASV, The Message? What is at the root of your bible study?
harryagaylord
/ November 30, 2010I’m using the kjv and comparing scripture with scripture. My claims line up with what it says in the kjv and the textus receptus, the manuscripts used to translate the kjv. Your confusion is not from what I’ve said. It’s from the fact that you have learned traditions of men that have been drilled into your mind over and over and your unwillingness to let your traditions go to embrace what God’s word really said. And in your previous comments you placed words in verses that do not actually appear where you said they did. You are leaning to your own understanding instead of leaning on the understanding that God gives to us through his Holy Spirit when we are humble enough to listen.
David
/ November 30, 2010Interesting.
Every time someone tries to dig a little deeper to get a better understanding of the differences in our positions, you come out swinging.
It’s really too bad – because you are obviously a very sharp guy.
The things you have said about my positions throughout your monologue – that they are based on traditions and my unwillingness, etc. is not true.
What is true… is that I have been earnestly studying God’s Word the last several years and leaning completely on the Holy Spirit for insight and strength to bear the truth he reveals.
One thing that I have learned along the way is encapsulated in this quote from Herbert Spencer. Perhaps, you’ve seen it before:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
If not, you – my friend, have certainly been putting it into practice. Let me be clear – I am not your enemy, nor are any others who would seek to keep you from straying too far. I hope you test the spirits a little more rigorously than you did me. They are after more than just deceiving you. Our adversary is out to deceive your audience. He is a liar, a thief, a murderer.
Shalom aleichem
harryagaylord
/ December 1, 2010David,
Your previous comments were a sharp criticism of my views and you have to admit, you ridiculed them. I’m not taking a swing at you. I’m just explaining in the simplest terms I can what is really going on here. When I explain my position with clarity and simplicity, giving scriptures in the correct context to back up what I say, yet someone questions what the scriptures say and chalk it up to a misinterpretation on my account, what should I conclude?
I have rightly divided God’s word here and yet I’m accused of being off and deceiving people, while those who criticize me don’t accurately use scripture to explain their points. But somehow I’m the bad guy?
michael
/ January 3, 2011In regards to these two theories, I would have to lean towards the angel/human breeding interpretation.
Archaeological records indicate an array of humanoid subspecies which are bipedal and yet clearly not homo-sapien. For example, Neanderthal – which for many years was claimed to have been an ancestor of Homo Sapien by the “public education system”. These creatures were similar but NOT humans. More muscular, thicker boned, and violent cannibals. Yet they made musical instruments and buried their dead. Gene research has shown them to have too many chromosomes to be an ancestor of Homo Sapien. In addition, evidence shows that Homo Sapien & Neanderthal lived at the same time. So where did they come from? And where did they go? If not the result of a demonic attempt to corrupt the Homo Sapien race, what is your explanation for the fossil record?
Consider that many current testimonials exist of demonic “rape” occuring during possession/opression of females. But it seems, that God has already restrained the only order of spirit-beings that were both capable and motivated to commit this act with the result of offspring.
harryagaylord
/ January 3, 2011Are you sure your info is correct? The science on Neanderthal is tainted by scientists who believe in evolution. You can’t take their word as truth since they fudge scientific data and create stories to pass it all off on the masses as being true so they can get funding and do away with the God of the Bible, who they hate.
As far as demonic “rape” is concerned, devils can physically affect the human body, but this doesn’t mean they have ever had any offspring by humans.
I think the word of God is clear that “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are not fallen angels. Fallen angels are not “sons of God.” What occurred in Genesis 6 happened after Satan and his angels rose up in rebellion. There’s no way they would have been considered sons of God hundreds of years after their fall. And let’s not forget Genesis 6:4, which says “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” So this tells us in the days when sons of God began marrying the daughters of men, giants were already roaming the earth. Giants were in the earth in those days and AFTER THAT (after giants were in the earth), when sons of God married daughters of men, the children they had were mighty men, not mighty angel/human hybrids.
michael
/ January 3, 2011Besides fossil evidence and possession testimonies, there is also the discussion of this topic in the Book of Enoch – which supports the angel/human breeding theory. Say what you will about the Book of Enoch, just remember that Jude quotes from it.
harryagaylord
/ January 3, 2011The quote in Jude may match what is in the apocryphal book of Enoch, but Jude is actually quoting from another source that the apocryphal book of Enoch also quotes from. Apocryphal books often plagiarize other sources. Some of them quote Psalms or Proverbs, but this doesn’t mean we can take them as truth. So the angel/human hybrid theory still isn’t proven as fact.
michael
/ January 3, 2011Harry,
yes I am quite sure of the info I posted. If you’re interested in the gene aspect of research I suggest reading Bryan Sykes “The Seven Daughters of Eve”. Written by the professor of genetics at Oxford.
Regarding other reading material on this topic I will also add that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a manuscript which also supports the angel/human breeding concept. Search “dead sea scrolls book of giants”.
harryagaylord
/ January 3, 2011Michael, regarding Neanderthals, I’d like to refer you to this link, which is a timely article from a Christian perspective. And here’s a short article addressing the genetics of Neanderthal.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are as unreliable as the apocryphal books because they were created by the Essenes, a heretical sect of the Jews. Yes, the scrolls have parts of the Old Testament in them but they also promote the confiscation of personal property for the sake of the group (we would call this the re-distribution of wealth or socialism/communism). They also believed in the coming of two Messiahs–one religious and one a governmental leader. In other words, they were hoping to see the coming of the Antichrist and his false prophet. Their doctrines are also a spin-off of gnostic beliefs.
michael
/ January 4, 2011The articles were interesting but unconvincing. They present a a defense of strict “young earth” interpretation as the only “correct” version of Biblical events, and whenever evidence emerges that casts shadow, they just say “well that’s not Biblical”. What? That is unreasonable and definitely not science.
They all but concede that Homo Sapien skeletal remains exist which pre-date their “version” of the creation account! Which is true – there are bones of fully modern humans located in areas where – according to BOTH evolutionists AND the 5,000 year-old young-earth – they shouldn’t be. This tells me 2 things:
1. evolutionists were wrong, and their charts are worthless.
2. creationists who fail to consider that time is a function of the material universe and doesn’t operate the same way at all points in the formation of the universe – are also wrong about the dates.
In regards to the MtDNA of Neanderthal, the only tactic presented by the site you linked was to say “it could have been corrupted”. Really? All the samples were ineptly handled and corrupted?
One major difference here is that the site you linked was debating with a Nat’l Geographic article depicting a hairy, dirty-looking Neanderthal woman as a primitive cave-dweller. I am making no such claim about the technological or hygene practices of the species.
What I AM saying is: if angels and humans did mate and breed offspring, it would follow that there would be fossil evidence of human-like variants on the Homo Sapien model. Something that walked bipedally and talked and had its own culture – something that mostly looked human – but was NOT.
Such evidence exists. And those who staunchly deny deny deny only look more foolish as the evidence mounts. Both in the evolution camp as well as those in the believer’s camp – but who will only accept one interpretation, theirs.
For detailed reading on the subject of early Homo Sapien fossil evidence please see “Forbidden Achaeology” by Cremo and Thompson.
And regarding extra-biblical texts – I find it interesting that many believers will point to an overwhelming multitude of Flood stories and myths from literally every part of the world – as support for the Biblical story. I am one of them. I cannot be a coincidence that every culture and language has a very similar story to the Noah account.
But in regards to this theory, all the other similar extra-biblical accounts are meaningless?
harryagaylord
/ January 4, 2011Here’s another article regarding Neanderthal DNA. Just like Ardipithicus ramidus (“Ardi”) proved to be an embarassment to evolutionists and just like they had to re-think their timelines for homo habilis and homo erectus, the Neanderthal DNA findings will eventually be shown to be mistaken. Neanderthal DNA is a rather recent finding and will have to be scrutinized more closely to see if the findings are correct. The jury is still out. The evidence is questionable at best for your belief.
You can make all the arguments you want but the Bible is clear, although you wish to exercise your eisegesis to the Bible instead of exegesis. My previous arguments still hold firm–i.e. fallen angels aren’t sons of God and giants roamed the earth before the sons of God married the daughters of men. Angels never mated with humans.
Antonia
/ November 8, 2011But how big was Neanderthal? Was it a giant? All of the drawings I’ve seen of Neanderthal have attempted to show it as being SHORTER than mankind.
I can’t understand how you can assert it’s a giant.
michael
/ January 4, 2011You said “the jury is still out”.
This is to my point. One of the reasons I lean towards the angel/human theory is because there is more than one way to interpret the passage in question.
Then, looking to extra-biblical texts (Enoch, Sea Scrolls) and fossil evidence – I see evidence which tends to confirm the literal face-value interpretation of inter-species breeding.
But, sure the jury is still out. Oh, and Neanderthal is not the ONLY Sapien varient fossil. There are others. Take fallen angels out of the equation and, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, “You’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.”
Ha! I’ve seen strict dogmatic types invent all sorts of theories ranging from pre-adamic humans to God cleverly “planting” the fossils just to throw us off our game.
harryagaylord
/ January 4, 2011When I said the jury is still out, I wasn’t saying that about the scriptures. I was saying that about your scientific theories. The word of God is already established truth. Your scientific theories are just unproven theories. God is not a man that he should lie. Scientists are men and they often lie, especially when they are desperate for funding like the Darwinists.
You can cling to all the so-called “evidence” you wish, but God’s word is truth and no scientific evidence can ever prove it wrong if it is true science. The science you cling to is not the truth. The scriptures have already spoken concerning this issue, as I’ve pointed out time and again in my post above and in my comments. So “where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” [1 Corinthians 1:20]. “Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” [1 Corinthians 2:5].
David
/ January 4, 2011Seriously!
Michael, you need to be careful here – this blogger knows his stuff. I should know, I have a few scars to prove it.
Needless to say – I’m in agreement with you, Michael. I would recommend you check out an article written by Bible scholar, Chuck Missler. It’s titled “Mischievous Angels or Sethites?”. This can be found at the following URL …
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
In this article Mr. Missler discusses the concerns presented in this blog. For example that the early Church held to the Angel view as did those who translated the Old Testament into Greek before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You know that makes me wonder, why wouldn’t Jesus address that as a mistake in the translation, if it were in fact an incorrect assumption?
Anyway, I chased this down to make sure Missler wasn’t feeding me a bunch of malarkey, buy reviewing the Greek and Hebrew texts. How can one do this you might ask… well, I found that get that answer in the King James, but if you take the time to do a little research with interlinear Bible tools – you will find some answers. There are plenty of hardcopy resources for this out there, not to mention online resources. One online resource in particular is …
http://interlinearbible.org
Regards to both you and the blogger.
David
/ January 4, 2011When I wrote… “How can one do this you might ask… well, I found that get that answer in the King James, but if you take the time to do a little research with interlinear Bible tools…”
I meant to write…How can one do this you might ask… well, I found that YOU CANNOT get that answer in the King James, but if you take the time to do a little research with interlinear Bible tools…”
harryagaylord
/ January 5, 2011[why wouldn’t Jesus address that as a mistake in the translation, if it were in fact an incorrect assumption?]
Jesus did address this. He told his disciples that angels don’t marry, nor are they given in marriage. And Missler doesn’t touch on the fact that Genesis 6:4 says giants roamed the earth before the sons of God married the daughters of men. He talks of “ancient rabbinical sources” but which ancient rabbinical sources? He also talks about the Septuagint, which is based on corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts. He talks of the OT only using the phrase “sons of God” to refer to angels, but the NT which is based on better promises and a better covenant calls Adam the son of God when it discusses Christ’s genealogy. And the scriptures I mentioned in my first point negates his “sons of God” argument, since Elohim, speaking in the first person, calls Israel his son and calls Solomon his son so there was no need for the Hebrew term “ben ha Elohim” to be used.
Missler also in his teachings believes the sons of Anak, like Goliath, were a continued attempt by fallen angels to corrupt the human bloodline and were ultimately an attempt to corrupt Christ’s bloodline. He stated this in a recent broadcast of GodTV’s “Apocalypse and the End Times” show. But scripture doesn’t bear this out. Missler also believes that these fallen angels will continue to mate with humans in the last days before Christ returns. If that’s the case, why didn’t Jesus warn us about it when he gave his Revelation to John? Additionally, Missler believes the fallen angels are the aliens who are abducting humans and experimenting on them.
michael
/ January 5, 2011Thanks for the links, David.
Oh, and Harry – bones are not theories. Question: how do you define a bipedal hominid which walks erect, makes tools, has a social structure, but is not Homo Sapien?
If it’s not human – what is it?
No need to attack me for “clinging to science” – as if there were no such thing as a good, ethical scientist, and everything they do and say should be cast into doubt. Where does this attitude come from?
Sure, there have been corrupt liars in the field f science, and there have also been corrupt liars in the world of religion.
You put yourself out there by claiming to have special knowledge about this passage. I contend that indeed you do not – and there is not only room for the angel/human theory – but some evidence to support it.
But I could be wrong about it. It’s not going to rock my world either way, and I’m sure as heck not going to make claims on the internet that the Almighty has revealed this to me.
I have my opinions about the theory and I’ve stated them here along with a few suggested reading materials. Both books I listed were written by scientists with credibility – and which faced great opposition in their fields because of the anti-evolution content.
But I’m open. Can you say that?
Yes the Bible is the Word of God – but it wasn’t written to be a science textbook. It was written so that we might enter into a relationship with God. There are things left out of the Word – mysteries for us to discover: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”
harryagaylord
/ January 5, 2011Bones aren’t theories–that’s correct. But the interpretation of what the bones mean is a theory. I have no problem with science. I just have a problem with the way Darwinists interpret science. I don’t claim to have special knowledge. I’m just going by what the words in Genesis say. My opinion is the minority opinion on this matter. Most Christians who talk about the passage in Genesis 6 that I’ve heard talk about it make the same claims you do about angels marrying humans.
And as far as your being “open” is concerned, you came here with the idea of getting me to change my opinion to match yours. So your claim of being “open” is rather disingenuous.
michael
/ January 5, 2011Just read that article, which pretty well sums up the angel/human breeding concept – so thanks again David.
I’d just like to add here as a tack-on to my previous post, that the founders of modern science were all believers. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Pasteur, etc. These profound thinkers knew that God was a God of order and design, and that much could be learned about His goodness through a careful study of His creation. Through their attention to study and “out-of-the-box” thinking (but grounded in the Word), these men changed the course of history and technology and social development.
I would like to also add that the man responsible for the “Big Bang” theory was Georges Lemaître – a physics professor and also a priest. The godless within the scientific community ridiculed his theory by calling it the “Big Bang” – but of course now they will never tell you that a believer came up with it and pretend that they themselves thought of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
As history points out, some of these great minds were persecuted and rejected by the Church, because their teachings weren’t considered “accepted truth” as they taught it (see Galileo). In these cases, the Church was responsible for driving a wedge between the scientific community and the truth of God’s Word.
I am hoping to live to see a reconnection and healing of the rift between the Church and the scientiofic community. But that means that both must be willing to reject lies and politics… it might be a hopeless dream after all.
Sorry to digress, I just have seen poor leadership and corruption as well as beauty, nobility, and goodness in both camps. I have learned to be slow to judgment on things that are left unclear.
harryagaylord
/ January 5, 2011Again, I’m not against science. I’m against scientific theories that contradict God’s word. God’s word far surpasses the reliability of what man says and God’s power to preserve his word far surpasses the ability of Satan and humans to corrupt his word or what it means. I have done plenty of posts showing how the correct interpretation of scientific findings prove how true God’s word is, but I don’t believe we need science to prove that God’s word is 100% true. And I have used the Big Bang theory in a few of my posts as scientific proof of God’s existence.
michael
/ January 5, 2011From Josephus:
“For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.”
Antiquities, Book 1, Chap 2-3
harryagaylord
/ January 6, 2011Josephus is an excellent source for some matters of history, but he did not write by divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and some of what he wrote can be taken with a grain of salt. We don’t need Josephus to understand God’s word. That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. Having said that, in his preface to Antiquities he acknowledges “…those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy…However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of…”
He acknowledges that some of what he wrote is Jewish philosophy or traditions, not necessarily all of it is historical.
michael
/ January 5, 2011From Justin Martyr:
“God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . .” (p. 363, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
harryagaylord
/ January 6, 2011So Justin Martyr believed that demons (devils) are the children of humans and angels. Interesting. The Bible says that demons are fallen angels. Satan, in fact, is a demon. Justin Martyr’s theological views in this instance don’t hold up to what we find in scripture.
Angels could not have married humans since Paul, by the Holy Spirit, said that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” That “one blood” was the bloodline passed down from Adam and Eve. That’s the only blood any human has ever had on the Earth. If angels had been in the mix, Paul couldn’t have made this truthful statement. The term “hath made” means that God originally made, has throughout history continued to make, and continues to make, all humans from one bloodline.
michael
/ January 5, 2011There really are so many quotes about this topic from various sources that I could post these for several days. I’ll just add this one more for today.
From Philo of Alexandria (a man who knew the Apostle Peter):
“But he [Moses] relates that these GIANTS were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; as they did on this occasion, when forming connections with women for the production of giants. . . .” (The Works of Philo, page 811).
harryagaylord
/ January 6, 2011Just because someone knew Peter doesn’t mean their beliefs are valid. Peter knew a lot of people and not every person he knew agreed with Christian doctrine. Here is some interesting info about Philo of Alexandria who corrupted some of the ancient manuscripts–
Philo mixed Stoic philosophy of Greece with Plato and the Old Testament. He believed scriptures should not be taken literally but that they had hidden meanings. This belief in hidden meanings comes from Plato’s belief that the physical realm was simply a veil for the idea behind it and only the idea of a physical thing is real. Plato advocated the state control of all religion and state control of children. Philo held to these philosophies and mixed them into the manuscript he wrote which became part of the Alexandrian text.
Edward Allen
/ April 26, 2011I ask one question, have you read the Book of Enoch? Also how would you explain Jude 1:6 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. How do you explain giants? I respect the time you placed in this article but allow God to give you full insight so that you aren’t accused of not fully looking at all God’s revelation.
God Bless You
harryagaylord
/ April 26, 2011I’ve explained all of this in my previous comments. If you want to hold to man-made tradition that twists God’s word into saying angels mated with humans, that’s your choice, but that’s not what the Bible says.
The book of Enoch is not scripture. In the days when the apostles wrote their letters, there were counterfeiters writing forgeries in their names, as Paul points out in 2 Thessalonians 2:2. This is true of some of the Old Testament teachings also. The book of Enoch is deuterocanonical, or apocryphal. Apocryphal books were known to quote from other texts and traditions, including the Bible. So Jude, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit was not quoting the book of Enoch, but another source that the book of Enoch plagiarized.
Having said that, Jude 1:6 is talking about how the angels who joined Satan did not keep, or guard, their original territory in heaven that God gave them and like the rebellious Israelites who were led by Moses, they had their blessings of ownership in the Promised Land taken away. The angels lost their place in heaven and instead inherited hell, which God originally created for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). Some of these devils are in hell’s jail awaiting the day of judgment when they will be placed forever in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10). This is what Jude is talking about and has nothing at all to do with angels mating with humans. Angels never mated with humans.
harryagaylord
/ April 26, 2011And I already explained all I need to about giants in my previous comments. Genesis clearly says giants were already around when the sons of God married the daughters of men. Giants were (and are) 100% human.
Victoria
/ May 26, 2011Harry- I just want to say, great job in explaining the truth of what the Bible says. All of the books, articles and reading materials presented by David were weak. Satan is a deceiver and he will twist the truth with a little lie to stumble a believer because his job is to deceive or distract. Everything we read and hear must be tested against the Bible, and if it contradicts the Bible then throw it out! Thank you for your steadfast faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. God bless you!
harryagaylord
/ May 26, 2011Thank you, Victoria. God bless you too. Christendom would have fewer doctrinal troubles if we would just do what you said. For most of us, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak when it comes to wanting to read the Bible and take God at his word instead of clinging to our man-made, traditional doctrines. Thanks be to God that one day he will present to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle that stands holy and blameless [Ephesians 5:27] and I look forward to that day when all false doctrines will be purged from among us.
Victoria
/ May 26, 2011By the way, the reading materials for all the others were also weak.
JJ
/ June 11, 2011Hello Brother Harry, if you do not mind may I please request you to hear a sermon by Pastor G. Craig’s Lewis – Truth Behind Hip Hop Part 5. You may or may not want to believe it but would be great if you hear it. God bless
mario
/ June 13, 2011I’m on the angel/human side. I know this is a late post but my question is harry if sons of god were “believers” then why in the next verse did god see that wickedness was great? wouldn’t there be less wickedness if believers were breeding? And in genesis 6:1 why would it say then MEN began to multiply and then later refer to us as sons of god noticing daughters of men? Wouldn’t we have noticed them already since we were multiplying? And Victoria this is why Christians seem to have Contradictions people read versus’ once and assume they know what they. He didn’t show any truth he only fogged it. Harry no insult but read the bible more and get a better understanding of it before you try to teach its word.
harryagaylord
/ June 13, 2011Wickedness was great because, as happened to Israel, the believers married unbelievers and made spiritual compromises. This is why Paul tells us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Since the beginning of our existence, when there is spiritual intermarriage, the believers get the short end of the stick. Genesis 6:1 is simply stating that the Earth was being populated with a lot of people. This doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. The men who called upon the name of the Lord wanted the daughters of the unbelievers. You’re reading into it what it doesn’t say based on your traditions. Verse 3 clearly says God had a beef with MEN, HUMANS, not with fallen angels. If angels took the daughters of men and angels are more powerful than men, as explained in the Bible in many places, why would God blame humans for being overpowered by the angels who took their daughters as wives? And if angels were involved in this, they would be just as guilty as humans, but God did not mention his anger toward angels. The end result of the intermarrying was that sin multiplied because the believers compromised, just like what’s happening today. What happened back then and what happened to ancient Israel is going on today before our very eyes. There’s nothing new under the sun.
Your traditions of men have fogged what you see. Your judgment against me falls flat since it is obvious that you’re the one who lacks knowledge of what this passage actually says. So practice what you preach. You’ve brought nothing new to this argument.
David
/ June 14, 2011Really? The reason why nothing new is brought to the argument is because almost every opposing viewpoint is obfuscated with emotional techniques.
The only reason why I’m not surprised to see more replies being shared that favor the the angel-view of Genesis 6, is because they probably see how quickly the opposition is put in their place.
If the primary reason for this site’s existence is to puff up one side over the other, then I truly feel like we’re almost there.
On the other hand, if this site’s purpose is to help us ALL to rightly divide the Word of Truth, as 2 Timothy 2:15 commands, so everyone can clearly see what God is communicating to us at this time in history… then we have a ways to go.
In His Grace – I’m continuing to pray for you man!
harryagaylord
/ June 14, 2011If anyone is using emotional techniques, it’s you. As I told Robert in a previous comment, anyone who looks at comments for this post can clearly say most of them are from dissenters and only a few agree with me, so your observation is a skewing of the facts. And you’re only skewing the facts because you’re upset that I won’t let you repeat over and over the same weak arguments you’ve presented before or that I won’t give you infinite opportunities to tear down what I’ve said when you’ve already had plenty of opportunities to do so previously, but you failed in your previous attempts.
And you can take your condescending tone elsewhere. You’re not the one who died for my sins so I don’t have to cater to your faulty opinions just to suit your ego. And I didn’t start this website or put up this post to be Mr. Popularity of Christendom. I speak what I believe God has shown me and I have already proven that I welcome dissenting opinions, so don’t sit there and insult me or try to guilt-trip me by your false claims that I’m puffing up one side over the other just because I have shown you where your opinions lack merit.
David
/ June 16, 2011Why won’t you discuss the similarities between the passage with Job and John? You said you don’t want to post weak repeated arguments. But I have not seen that argument posted and it does not seem to be lacking in substance.
As I stated in my last reply – I’m not trying to fight you, I’m trying to debate the issue.
You are not my enemy and I am not yours. Some day we’ll be on the other side of the curtain and we both be in Christ’s presence.
What do you say?
In His Grace – David.
harryagaylord
/ June 16, 2011I not only implied I was weary of weak arguments, I also mentioned the fact that you’ve already had ample opportunity to present several arguments and you failed to tear down what I said. You claim you’re not trying to fight me just debate me, but a debate is an argument and last I checked, an argument is a verbal fight. My post on this issue is rock solid, but you don’t seem to care that my points are rock solid. It goes against your tradition and obviously traditions are so much more important than truth that you aren’t interested in letting them go in light of truth. No one with any argument can get around the fact that fallen angels are not sons of God. The ones who try to get around it usually hold to the false doctrine of Christian Universalism–the belief that all of God’s fallen angels, including Lucifer, will one day be reconciled to God, so they can still be called sons of God. This will never be true.
Neither can any argument get around Acts 17:26, that God hath made of one blood all nations of men. That statement applies to the times before, during, and after the flood.
David
/ June 17, 2011I want to set the record straight. Because you keep saying that I’m falling back to my traditions. Quite frankly, I haven’t looked at what Roman Catholic teaching is on this topic. I was raised in that church but it’s been almost 3 decades since I’ve followed that tradition. About the time I went off to school/work on my own, I found that the “religion” presented by Catholic churches was lacking.
Fortunately, God brought me into a circle of friends and a body of believers, who dug into the Word – which we clung to instead of the pulpit. I’ve been actively attending bible-based churches over the years since, then.
And it’s only been the last 10 years that I’ve looked more closely at this issue of Genesis 6. As I look back at my “traditions” I would have probably aligned with the Sethite view or at best the Tyrant view of it. The Angel view of this passage would have been the furthest thing from my mind.
So Please! Please stop telling me, telling yourself and telling your readers that David is still slogging through his hand-me down traditions.
Thank you.
harryagaylord
/ June 17, 2011I’ll stop saying you’re following traditions when you actually stop following tradition. The fairy tale that fallen angels married the daughters of men is a tradition, it’s Jewish folklore that became Christian folklore.
Robert
/ June 14, 2011It is interesting to note, Harry, that you’ve completely side-stepped my post. What are you afraid of? And why are you only picking and publishing those posts for which you have a ready answer, that you have been regurgitating for the past few years?
Your eyes are obviously covered in darkness (John 8:44)
harryagaylord
/ June 14, 2011I have no fear of anyone who comments here. If you will take note of all the comments left for this post, you will notice most of them try to tear down what I say and only a few agree with me. And you will notice that several commenters attempted several times to tear down my post but they failed miserably. When I don’t allow comments it’s because you commenters are only interested in attacking and not listening. And you think I’m supposed to let you bring up the same issues over and over again, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, when I have addressed your issues in previous comments. So, yes, I delete comments that cover areas I’ve already addressed because if I don’t you’ll return with the same comment worded differently without any new angle. As the blogger for this site, I reserve the right to run this blog as I see fit and if you disagree then so be it. Since I don’t hold public office and I don’t have to kiss up to people for a popularity contest, I don’t lose sleep at night when you complain about my not displaying all of your comments.
greg
/ June 14, 2011I have always wondered about Psalms 82:6-7 “I have said, Ye are god’s; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
My question is, if they are going to “die like men” they must not be men?
The first verse of this chapter says “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Any thoughts about these verses, and what they mean, Harry?
harryagaylord
/ June 14, 2011Greg, you’re using eisegesis (reading into the scriptures what you want to get out of them) and not exegesis (getting out of the scriptures what is really being said) for this passage. The Lord Jesus himself addressed this scripture in John 10:
The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because he was a man and claimed to be God. Then Jesus pointed out the fact that the law called men gods. He was asking them “How can you stone me for being a man who claims to be God, when your law calls men gods when they received his word and were set as judges over the people?”
The context of Psalm 82 is that God will judge the gods (human judges) who he set over the people to judge righteously because they refused to mete out justice, showing favoritism toward certain people and neglecting their duties to the poor, fatherless, and the afflicted (Psalm 82:2-4). They used their office without godly knowledge or understanding and were full of darkness, thinking very highly of themselves and this put the whole justice system out of whack (Psalm 82:5). God was telling them he had originally called them to the office of judge as children of the most High, but since they shirked their godly duties he would remove them from office. They thought that they were invincible in their lofty position, but he would show them they were mere mortals who would die just like any other man and would die like the sinful princes of their day.
greg
/ June 15, 2011Harry – I was using neither eisegesis nor exegesis. I was simply asking for your thoughts on these verses. Thanks for your opinion on this passage.
greg
/ June 18, 2011I don’t think I have seen this question answered.
You contend that Seth’s sons were “the sons of God” and were believers and followers of God, correct? Why didn’t these godly folks get on the ark?
Maybe you could also answer these two, I just thought of:
Why does the “sons of God” marrying daughters of men produce giants? and then only “male” giants? We never once read of a female giant. The bible calls them “men of renown” Whenever the bible mentions “nephillim, they are always male.
I know that we have some basketball players that reach 7′, but these giants in the bible would have dwarfed those guys, Goliath was over 11′ tall, and Og, king of Bashan, was somewhere near 13 and a half feet tall, this is based on the fact that his bed was 14′ long and 7′ foot wide.
Please don’t call me bad, or that I don’t believe in God’s word, I would hope by now that you know that I do, or that I’m following tradition, I was not reared up to believe this, I have studied God’s word and these are legitimate questions that I have about the theory that “the sons of God” were a godly line of Seth marrying daughter’s of men, that created a race of wicked, male giants.
harryagaylord
/ June 18, 2011Greg, I was hesitant to even deal with your comment because all of the information I’ve shared already touch on your questions. This makes me question your intent.
Seth’s descendants were the sons of God. His godly line appears in Genesis 5. His descendants each had several offspring, but the only offspring who appear by name are the ones who lead to Noah. You’ll notice each one “begat sons and daughters”, but those sons and daughters names aren’t given. Even Noah had siblings, according to Genesis 5:30. But Noah, who would’ve had a bunch of uncles, aunts, and cousins by the time he came along, was the only one saved with his wife and kids. So obviously the majority of Seth’s descendants who were believers did what the Israelites did centuries later. The men of Israel married women God told them not to marry. They committed whoredoms with the daughters of Moab and Midian [Numbers 25]. After they returned from exile, they took “strange wives” [Ezra 10:1-11]. Notice how these scriptures don’t mention what the women did. So the majority of the males in Seth’s line did what the Israelite did centuries later.
You asked why these godly folks didn’t get on the ark. Well, why is it that a whole older generation of the Israelites that left Egypt didn’t make it to the Promised Land, with the exception of two of them? God called the nation of Israel his son in Exodus 4:22, but only two of that older generation settled the Promised Land. Why? Answering that question accurately will answer yours.
[Why does the “sons of God” marrying daughters of men produce giants? and then only “male” giants? We never once read of a female giant. The bible calls them “men of renown” Whenever the bible mentions “nephillim, they are always male.]
I already answered this. Giants were roaming the Earth BEFORE the sons of God married the daughters of men (these daughters of men more than likely descended from Adam and Eve’s other children, see Genesis 5:4). How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Obviously you’re not listening. “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown,” [Genesis 6:4]. Giants were in the earth already and AFTER THAT, which is after the giants were roaming the earth, sons of God married daughters of men and the children of their mixed marriages were mighty and men of renown. The giants were called the Hebrew word “nephilim,” and all giants were human, from Adam and Eve, from one blood.
If you’re familiar with the Old Testament, you should know it is patriarchal. It emphasizes what males do more than what females do. Men have a more prominent role. There very well could have been female giants, but they’re not mentioned. So what? Big deal. It doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. And it doesn’t make your false belief true about fallen angels marrying humans. You are following traditions of men that have been handed down for centuries. You may not have been reared up to believe it, but you have bought into the tradition. Additionally, in your nephilim-always-being-male argument, you forgot that when God said he “shall not always strive with man” in Genesis 6:3 and predicted their destruction, the word “man” applied to all humans male and female as it does in many places in the Bible. So nephilim probably was not always referring to males.
Simple Man
/ July 9, 2011Harry,
Hey brother I’m just a simple man which often leads me to think in a simplistic way so please, bear with me and here goes,
First of all I am in total agreement with you and would rather spend time accepting the Scripture instead of trying to disprove it. I would also like to encourage you to not be concerned with being outnumbered when standing for the truth,(seen that one a few times before ain’t we?).
Secondly, still keeping it simple,
Why didn’t Moses say angels if he meant angels? There are fifteen references to angels in the Pentateuch and each time it refers to angels it calls them angels—never the sons of God. The only exception is Genesis 3:24 when he calls them cherubim. (from Don Stewart, the Bible Explorer)
And my third and last point/question, since my cache of knowledge must be approaching a critical low, is simply this;
If for any one second in time, Satan and/or his demons could take it upon themselves to reproduce with, and infect the human race, why would they have ever stopped? Obviously he and his crew didn’t perish in the flood! Also, why would they need or take the time to marry? Why not just rape ‘em all? Although some may say that the phrase “took wives” may not necessarily mean marriage, nothing in this context means otherwise and the Hebrew makes this clear,
“The sons of God took wives.” The Hebrew verb here, laqah, commonly describes marital transactions, including taking a wife for oneself (4:19;11:29; 12:19; 20:2,3; 25:1; 36:2,6; Exod 34:16). (Victor Hamilton, Don Stewart).
Again I apologize for the rationale and will quietly wait for the firing squad of the educated to squeeze.
Keep up the good work brother, I admire your patience and perserverence, and may God continue to bless you!
(no post expected, support will continue regardless)
James Hammond Eve III
/ September 14, 2011We certainly have some bright people here, brighter than i am. Egos are rampant, however. Name calling starts early. Some major part of this is posturing, esp right at the beginning by someone who offers criticisms but no alternatives, based on what, his superior intellect which to him is quite apparent. If i werent already a Christian i dont know where i would be after reading all this.
My respect to Harry, the originator, thank you.
Miguel
/ September 27, 2011Y NADIE SE PUEDE PREGUNTAR, SI UNO AFIRMA QUE EL DILUVIO AYUDO A LA DESTRUCCION DE GIGANTES y otros afirman por la cantidad de pecado, ,,, pero quiero decir esto en breve ,,, SI Supuestamente Dios aprovecho el diluvio para destruir gigantes? es que entonces Dios se equivocaría en no poder exterminar del todo a los gigantes en la época de David? y si ya se acabo la exterminacion del pecado supuesto de ángeles y las mujeres, entonces porque salen a relucir de nuevo los gigantes en el caso de David? sera que algún ángel escondido se metió de nuevo pario con alguna mujer en los tiempo de David? y si en los tiempos de Job una traducción diferente le llama HIjos de Dios y otras no, créeme que también eran los angeles porque se menciona satanas? no sera mejor que satanas aun se sigue vistiendo de LUZ y fue asi queridos amigos que hasta hoy el se sigue disfrazando de LUZ (entre los cuales) en muchas ocasiones ni lo distingues cuando escuchas a un supuesto teleevangelista, el es padre de mentira, que aun asi ni los angeles que se presentaron ante DIos lo pudieron reconocer,,, en realidad esta pagina fue la unica que dio una claridad a lo que otras no mencionan,,, gracias el que hizo esta pagina Amen
Rough Translation: AND NO ONE CAN ASK IF ONE SAYS THE FLOOD AIDED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GIANTS and others say the amount of sin,,,, but I want to say this briefly, if Supposedly God used a flood to destroy the giants? could God then have made a mistake in not being able to completely exterminate the giants at the time of David? and if he had already supposedly just exterminated the sin of angels and women, then why did he allow giants to be brought up anew in the case of David? Wouldn’t it be that any fallen angel would end up with any woman in the time of David? and if in Job’s times different translations calls them sons of God and others do not, would you believe me also that they were [good] angels because Satan is mentioned [separately]? It would not be better that Satan, although he keeps on dressing in light and it was so dear friends that to this day he is still disguised in light (among them)on many occasions, often not distinguished. When you listen to a supposed televangelist, he is the father of lies, which even the angels who stood before God could not recognize. in fact this page was the only one that gave clarity to what others do not mention, thanks to the one who made this page. Amen
andrei
/ October 13, 2011first of all the name: harryagaylord.. what does it mean?
next, i am on the angel view but…
angles cannot mate …
there is a seed of Satan Gen 3:15
2 rows of teeth, six fingers, six toes 1 cron. 20:6 …..
one key word: Technology
basically since its clear that there were fallen angels, there is a seed of satan so how would it be possible to go around doing this if you cant mate? Technology
andrei
/ October 13, 2011within technology keyword: DNA
Cupid Reagan
/ November 8, 2011All that any of you have proven to me is that the word has been changed, interpreted, revised, altered, etc. over and over throughout the years. You are all so quick to argue the words used and their meanings, but you fail to recognize that your beliefs are tied directly to whichever version of the word(s) that you accept. This is why I’ve always been skeptical. From day one, even as a child, when a pastor tried to give me a King James Version of the Bible to me, I remember asking him instead for the original because I don’t want a version of something I’m supposed to 100% believe in. I want the real thing…only the real thing. Why? Well, look at all of this arguing going on basically based on the semantics of it all…what has been allowed to happen…what, if you do believe the actual words of God as printed, should have never been altered because he says “do not” do it.
Now, do not think that I am a non-believer. I love and do believe in God. What I am fully convinced of is that man has continually gotten it wrong and has also changed things to suit his particular needs at points in history. The fact that such confusion fills the Earth (this is just one forum out of thousands that prove so) leads me to believe that we may again soon see another “version” of the Bible put into publication…and it still won’t be the original…which bothers me to no end. I wish he would just come back already.
harryagaylord
/ November 8, 2011Cupid, in your arguments, you make some unfounded assumptions. Your first assumption is that only the originals are valid. Then you make the assumption that all Bibles have been altered by man and are therefore unreliable. You have bought into what the secular world has fed to you without doing research. If all of what man does is fallible and must be dismissed or seen with skepticism, then how do you even know that your view that we MUST have originals is valid when that is what fallible humans have told you?
Your arguments are self-defeating. You claim our beliefs are tied to a particular Bible version, but your beliefs are tied to what you’ve heard from fallible humans, including yourself. So how do you even know your own beliefs are valid? How do you even know the manuscripts were changed throughout the years when you don’t even have the originals to compare them to?
If you were to do research instead of speculation, you would know that the words used in the KJV agree with the oldest manuscripts in existence. For example, the oldest manuscript for Isaiah is in Hebrew, dating back to the 100s BC, and the KJV matches it in its English translation both in the words used and in their meaning. There are even ancient historical sources outside of the Bible from early believers who quote the Bible they had in ancient times in the first two to three centuries of the church. Those early believers include Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Irenaeus. Their quotes from the Bible match what is written in the KJV.
The KJV uses a family of manuscripts called the Masoretic text and the Majority text. There are over 5,000 Bible manuscripts in existence and the KJV agrees with 99% of them, based on studies done of the manuscripts. Other versions are based on 1% of existing manuscripts. Those versions include the New King James, NIV, NASB, TNIV, RSV, and all other non-kjvs. So can you really put 99% on the same level of reliability as 1%?
The kjv has been proven 100% reliable in its historical accounts, in its science, and in its spiritual principles that have been documented in changed lives, including miraculous healings using the name of the Lord Jesus. God never said he would only preserve his word in the original manuscripts and only in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. That’s why there were scribes to make copies of his word throughout history. The scribes who feared God took great pains to make sure they copied everything correctly down to the smallest letter and smallest punctuation.
And God, who is almighty and never lies, promised he would preserve his word forever. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said his word is “not hidden from thee” that we can’t possibly know it because of man’s alterations. He also said it is not “far off”, such as in heaven where no living human can possess it. Additionally he said it is not “beyond the sea” in some foreign land where we have to spend thousands of dollars to go there to acquire it.
Psalm 119:89 says God’s word is settled in heaven, meaning it pre-existed all manuscripts and published Bibles and continues to exist long after copies of the manuscripts or Bibles disappear. He has the power to see that it continues on Earth even when evil men destroy certain copies of it. God isn’t concerned about originals, which is why he told Jeremiah to throw an original manuscript in the river in Jeremiah 51:63. Yet here’s the kicker–Jeremiah 51 are the words Jeremiah wrote down on the original manuscript he threw in the river, but we still have Jeremiah 51 today.
Jeremiah 36 gives an account where an evil man destroyed an original manuscript and how God handled it. Baruch wrote down the words God told to Jeremiah about judgment against Judah. When the words were read in public, the king’s servants took the original scroll to king Jehoiakim. When the king heard a few lines of God’s prophetic words, he grabbed the scroll from his servant, cut it up with a penknife then threw the original in the fire. When God saw it, he approached Jeremiah again and told Jeremiah to have Baruch write another scroll with his words. God gave him the same exact words to write down and even added more words to what was originally written. The words from that original scroll that Jehoiakim burned up appear in Jeremiah 36.
The Bible says over & over that God’s words will stand forever and it hasn’t been proven wrong yet even when the most powerful men on Earth have tried to destroy it throughout the centuries. So your unbelieving words from a hardened heart are unfounded. Furthermore, you were educated using books that weren’t the originals, but you still learned from the copies you had and you graduated–right? Even when those books may have had man-made errors, you accepted what you were taught from those books, so why is it that you feel the need to single out the Bible as something to be completely rejected when it has proven more reliable than books you learned from in school?
Anonymous
/ November 8, 2011I’m in agreement with Harry.
Question though. Could it possibly be that “giants” doesn’t necessarily refer to actual physical stature, but perhaps intellect, wealth or power? No doubt to the fact there were actual physical giants then (and now).
This is a position I have heard argued, and curious on thoughts.
harryagaylord
/ November 8, 2011I’ve also heard this argument before. To get the answer I believe we have to look at all the instances where the word “giants” is used in the Old Testament to get a feel for how Moses, who wrote Genesis, would have used the word. In every single instance where the word is used in the OT, it is used to speak of physical stature and never is it used for intellect, wealth, or power apart from the physical power of the giants. So I believe the argument that it doesn’t necessarily refer to physical stature is an incorrect assumption.
Shalom
/ November 13, 2011I have been studying this subject and wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that when Elohim (God) created man, he was created perfect just as the angels were and His – YHVH’s Glory was their covering until sin arose and they fell at which time the YHVH’s glory departed from them and they lost their dominion, power and authority given them by YHVH, and He gave them coats of sin. (both physical and spiritual because they became spiritually and physically naked) They are put out of the garden as a merciful act so as not to eat from the Tree of Life and live in a fallen state forever. Now we are in the process of being restored back to His-YHVH’s original plan and purpose. Yahusha ha Messiach’s death burial and resurrection was the fulling of the Promise to Adam and Eve that redemption and restoration would take place, When He died and rose He took back His creation from the power of hell, death and the grave and to who so ever will may come to Him (Teshuvah-repent-turn back). He always was and always will be in control of all things, however i am referring to man being given back His power, authority and dominion again in Yeshua ha Messiach (Jesus Messiah)
However while man is in a fallen/blind nature and state and the seed of satan planted in him or the yetzer harah (evil inclination) and if man allows satan to rule his life rather than accept Yeshua (Jesus as Savior) then they would be open to being used mind, body by satan and strongholds set up in their lives which they could continue to pass to their generations ie offspring DNA is altered by many different means throughout generations so in this way a man could be uses by a fallen angel to alter mans DNA. But man also has been given free will and that is never taken from him, so until or unless each ones blindness is removed by YHVH/Yeshua and they repent of their wicked deeds including the lies inherited through their forefathers they will continue to multiply these seeds of the enemy.
This is difficult to describe however anyone who hears the Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit) will understand what I am saying here. Thank you brother harry for what you have written her. Blessings and Shalom
bc10
/ January 26, 2012I believe it was angels because their offspring were giants yes that offends some people but not all the daughters of cain were evil now give me a break thats the only way your arguement fits
Joanna
/ February 18, 2012I was just wondering, just a ? cause I am not understanding, if angels cannot mate, then where does the anti-Christ come from? Isn’t that supposed to be from satan, who is a fallen “angel”? I am confused
harryagaylord
/ February 18, 2012Good question. It’s important to remember that if a person is “from Satan”, this doesn’t mean they physically came from Satan as his physical offspring. Jesus called Judas the “son of perdition” in John 17:12. And he told some of the Jews in John 8:44, “ye are of your father the devil”, but the devil wasn’t literally their father. He was their father in the spiritual sense. This is how it will be with the Antichrist. He will be a human used and possessed by Satan like Judas was used and possessed by Satan to carry out what Satan wants (see Luke 22:3, Revelation 13:2-4).
Francis X.
/ May 4, 2012I think the giants of Gen 6:4 were Neanerthals or Cro-Magnons or some other early phase of human evolution. Not taller so much as bigger and more ape-like. Or maybe the passage is based on encounters with dinosaur bones that the authors of Genesis thought were from skeletons of antedeluvian giants. How they had sex with human women and produced offspring, I don’t know. Perhaps God allowed interspecies viability back then. And perhaps they got the women drunk, as Noah’s daughters did with Noah.
Harry A. Gaylord
/ May 4, 2012This comment is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.
justin
/ May 7, 2012All I have to say is your pride is frightening. I’ve read everyone’s point of view and you use an old technique that Hitler used, I’m not equating you to Hitler so don’t even try to Hillary me by saying I have. You create an us and them environment which creates hostility rather than discussing the possibility of anyone else’s accuracy you immediately raise your opinion by citing credentials and how you are right and noone else is. You side step any issues when you cannot defend against them. You regurgitate the same stance with an unyielding arrogance as if you alone are the only one to understand the bible. Well the devil himself can quote scripture. There were valid points from individuals who merely wanted to discuss and you attack their character and judge their faith and loyalty to god. You should be ashamed to be so proud.
I’m offended by your tongue and your skewed use of the word. You use it for your own purposes standing in the light or authority just like Hitler. Well I have news for you, you are NOT infallible and you are and will always be wrong in the light of God no matter how much you crave it. You will fall to your face before god and how dare you tell others what the father was saying as if you were there. We are to stick together as Christians and support one another and seek answers together not one knowing the truth beyond our own understanding of the word and since we are human we will NEVER understand the word the way it should be because we have our pride the need to be right and in your case be recognized as being right even when you’re not. The bottom line is god is love. I feel no love but criticism toward your brothers. You are not divine and the holy ghost is not exclusive to you. The ghost is our consciousness and the voice of god directing his children to live in accordance with his will which is love.
Do you realize that EVERY SINGLE war in the name of God was because the individuals involved insisted they were right. Had u been king and those contrary to your beliefs another country this blog would suffice for acts of war. The facts are nobody can be proven right even if you cite the entire bible. I find it rude that you attack anyone with an idea asking you, one with a grasp of the bible, for your opinion, and don’t fool yourself u possess an opinion not truth. You are discouraging people from seeking god, asking questions, ans trying to understand the world god gave us. It is extremely dangerous to follow blindly anything especially authority. God doesn’t want us to follow blindly but to seek him out of love else he would have created robots but he gave us free will. He wants us to choose to come to him not because we are told to.
we are curious creatures and like you have said god cannot be proven wrong so I never understand the feud between science and religion science is merely understanding the power of god but you act as if science is man’s attempt to usurp god and its not. I think much of what has been said deserves pondering and I respect peoples right and ability to think independently and unique to my own beliefs. I’m comfortable enough to hear them out and even change my own opinions if they make sense because I do not know everything and I learn daily by keeping my mind open. Ii also know enough to know your pride is your cross. It isn’t a deadly sin for nothing. You have some growing up to do, and I am standing up for those you have knocked down with your insistance on being right by not even hearing others out. I’m not sure what the purpose of your site is, but it certainly is not sharing and exploring ideas. To me, it is a tool for your own self aggrandizement and a medium to be heard. I’ll pray for your humbleness and that you allow god to remove your pride.
Most preachers and preists fall victim to this forgetting that we are to teach Jesus’s love and not getting lost in pettiness. Remember how Jesus lived and preached. This is my own personal belief, but I feel all the doctorines of the world essentially say the same thing and are culturally exclusive so that god can reach everyone. We were born Christians, but ask yourself had you been born Muslim or Jewish would you be so solid in those beliefs nit knowing anything differently. It is the insistance of being the only one who is right that creates discord but when we realize that we are all right is when we will be able to obtain peace. Perhaps that will be the one church you speak. A church that reveals Tue universal truth in all religions; we were created divinely and were created to love our father and all of our brothers. I’ll pray for that day when we see past our own pride. God bless you and everyone else seeking to live their lives throuh father.
Harry A. Gaylord
/ May 7, 2012Justin,
You’ve betrayed yourself by your lengthy comment. It’s clear toward the end of your blah, blah, blah that you are a moral relativist. You say, “I feel all the doctorines [sic] of the world essentially say the same thing” and “A church that reveals Tue [sic] universal truth in all religions.” So you are also a Universalist. The true Jesus & true God as found in the Bible proclaims in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.” The Bible goes on to say about the Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” So all religions of the world don’t say the same thing and there is only truth in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ is God, the only spiritual truths are found in the Bible.
This is why you falsely accuse me of pride. This is why you’re frightened. I refuse to bow down to your false god or your false doctrines which have been created in man’s image, not God’s. You have “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever,” [Romans 1:25]. This is why you’re really upset with me. I know the truth & stand firmly on it without wavering, unlike you, and you wish I would waver like you. Yes, the devil quotes scripture, but he twists it to make it mean what it doesn’t really mean, as you have done in your comments. I have rightly divided the word of God. You on the other hand make a lot of false statements & false allegations.
You are simply projecting onto me what you are guilty of–vain pride. In your pride you have questioned God’s word & claim I “skewed” it because I refuse to compromise like you have in your own pride. You would have us believe that we can interpret God’s word however we wish according to our own understanding, when the Bible commands us in Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” But your fear toward God is taught by the precepts (doctrines) of men [Isaiah 29:13].
Not only do you cling to the false beliefs of relativism and universalism, you have the false belief that “We were born Christians.” No one is born Christian. Becoming a Christian is a personal choice that an individual makes, for “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” Romans 10. It is then, and only then, that one becomes a Christian. That’s Christianity 101 and since you don’t know that simple truth, then it becomes clear that the spirit by which you speak is not the Spirit of God. You preach a different Christ and a different gospel. Therefore, your comment can be dismissed as anathema. God’s word commands us to test the spirits and when comments don’t line up with God’s word they should be dismissed, like I’ve mentally done with your comment and other comments here.
When someone knows the truth and is confident in the truth, it’s not pride, nor is it using truth for their own purposes, nor is it going against God’s love. It means that the person has humbly listened to what God’s Spirit has said by God’s grace. You also contradict yourself when you claim “since we are human we will NEVER understand the word the way it should be because we have our pride…” If we can never understand it as you claim, then how is it that you so vehemently state that I am full of pride? If we can’t understand it, then how do you presume to know what God’s love is? If we can never understand it, then how can you declare “the ghost is our consciousness and the voice of god directing his children to live in accordance with his will…”? You say we can’t understand God’s word, then contradict yourself by claiming you understand it enough to place yourself in a position to say I’m wrong but you’re right. You have made yourself out to be a liar.
greg
/ May 10, 2012Joanna – You are onto something. I too believe that Satan will father a child, and that child will be the Antichrist. Satan is a copycat, so just as Jesus was born of a woman, so shall the antichrist be born of a woman. I believe the Antichrist will have the “spirit” of Judas. The KJV uses the phrase “son of Perdition” only twice, once in ref to Judas, the other in ref to the Antichrist. Judas is the “only” person in the scripture that is said of “he went to his own place”
God does not want us to be ignorant of these things.