Im sure you were not the only one who believed that when the Church leaves, He leaves. But, we both know He will be there, just as He was in the Old Testament days.I used to think the Holy Spirit was totally removed from the earth at the rapture.
Christian Community Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
Other end-times discussion
- Thread starter Andy C
- Start date
Anastacia
Let Him do to me whatever seems good to Him 2Sam15
I have only recently begun to think it's possible that fallen angels had offspring with humans. Evil has surprised me the last few years, so now, why should I be surprised if that happened.
But for me, I really hope that did Not happen. I dont like the idea of it.
I've met people who believe the DNA still remains... and that would mean half human/half demons couldn't be saved... which means some people will take it upon themselves not to witness if they deem someone to possibly be half demon. I've met those kinds of people and so I looked for other explanations to the Nephilim, hoping they're wrong.
Goodboy
Just waiting for the Rapture at this point!
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
It does not just sound like a contrast, it is a contrast. It could have just stated sons of God saw women or daughters without the "of men" comment. The Bible makes it clear that something other than men (Angles) saw daughters of men. Meaning that something (Angles) was not a man.
If you notice I only state what the Bible says. You say that Angles cannot impregnate a woman. Nice thought, but where does it say that in the Bible? You are just stating what it is you think with no Bible reference.
TCC, if you would not mind in a simple short response please tell me why the Bible would call them "sons of God" rather than just "Godly men" if that is who you think they were.
Men were not considered to be "sons of God" after the fall. This is a proven fact based on the Bible verse below, where it states how we could become "sons of God".
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
God Bless!
TCC
Well-known
Jesus tells us that angels don't marry Matt 22:30. The arguement is, but fallen onse that don't respect that can. Which is man's opinion. Not in the the bible. Where does it say that animals don't live forever after they die? It doesn't. But just because it does not say that does not make it true that they will.
Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Does that mean "according to their kind" or "made them" that they cannot mate with other species? No it does not say that. But we see from general revelation they don't. So general revelation tells us it means in part they mate and produce their own kind. If that is how God created and there is no example of angels marrying (other than our seeing the verse Gen 6 in question) it is biblically "clear" that God's creation produces its kind. Angels being much further away than species. And further, God tells us in His special revelation that general revelvation testifies to His character.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
And I will put hostility between you and between the woman, and between your offspring and between her offspring; he will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.”
God showed us in creation that he places barriers of species not to mate. I would imagine that would be an even greater divide with ontologically different creatures (far beyond a different species). So yeah, i'd say Gen 1 and Romans 1 plainly tells us this Goodboy.
John 1:12 is a fine verse. It means we are new creations in Him. What is your understanding of Psalm 82:6? Are those angels? Do angels die? Are angels on probation? They are mere men because they die like mere men. These in Psalm 82:6 show us that sons of God don't have to be holy in Old Testament use, but seem to charactorize special authority over others (leaders, judges, nobles). In new testament, yes. It is godly according the Christ likeness. In the old testament they can be oppressors. Because Psalm 82:6 were. So what seems to be the use in Gen 6?
So Psalm 82 gives us license to see that Sons of God in Gen 6 are mere men. Strong ones. But men. And apparently not very godly ones (although it would appear to be from the line of Seth--i will touch on that in a moment).
To me brother, the bible makes it very very clear why He would call them sons of God:
The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.(Gen 6:6). Right there in the context. He did not say he was sorry about making angels which would be the violators. Since God provides us His word Gen 6:6 to guide us, "sons of God" would likely mean this in that context:
God: "These [relatively] new creation of mine, men. These sons of my creation. These male creations of mine after my own image, inheritors of my image, these men i have created in leadership capacity with mighty gifting, and in the line of His seed to strike Satan's head, lust after women. Their hearts are turned towards their lust."
In that sense "sons of God" depicts not so much their godliness, but the godly line. It could be said that to make Gen 6:2 angels corrupts Gen 3:15:
And I will put hostility between you and between the woman, and between your offspring and between her offspring; he will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.”
To make "sons of God" angels suggests the lineage (even though clearly stated in Gen 3:15) is not as important as seeing angels falling and mating with humanity. Having a godly lineage in mind would set this group of men grouping above "your seed," as "His seed." The lineage through which Christ comes. Even those distinguished for the linease, "these very sons of mine" lust after women.
They were killed because they changed the gene pool? It says God was upset because of this: Gen 6:5:
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of [f]their hearts was only evil continually.
Now if the reason why God flooded the earth was because of fallen angel dna changed, that would have been the place to say it. But the bible very "clearly" says in very obvious plain sense fashion that God wiped them out because of their evil thoughts...like...lusting after women.
Lust may not seem that big a deal these days as porn is piped throughout the planet 24/7. But in early civilization that was cultivating, God's creation lusting after women all over the place would in theory be kind of a new thing. So it looks like God is pointing out Himself watching the fruit of the fall play out...and describing it from His heart and lineage sense. We could ask this qustion: Which is more a theme throughout scripture plainly: Lineage, or fallen angel residue? If you ask a man Heiser, he would tell you both. But to the common man and woman it is clearly the lineage BY A BILLION CONTRAST MAGNITUDE. And we look at Gen 6 and say, "Nah...can't be that. Must be more exotic...must be fallen angels." I think it is much more soberly in line with God rolling out Gen 3:15 concern and focus. From how God is telling the story, that would be its plain sense though, i believe.
If we look at Gen 4 we see Lamach's boastful heart. Boasting he will do more evil than Cain. In Genesis 5, do you know what funny term that is all about leading up to Gen 6? Lineage. Gen 4:23, 24 = Lamach's poem. Gen 4:25-26, lineage of Seth. So Gen 5 is just a lineage bridge. Gen 6 seems to pick up narrative from the end of Gen 4, with a lineage (chapter 5) interrupt. The ones marrying in Gen 4 were not angels but men. The context of Gen 6 uses marriage. Which in context would cement the sons of God to being men, contextually. Is how i would understand that. Hope this helps provide sense upon my view. Thanks for challenging me in. For i prayerfully consider where and how to look (honestly) to see what pans out most from context. The winners: Lineage, and sorrow unto making men. And the flood came because men had evil thoughts...not angelic ones. Yeah meant that as a outtro punch line. Feel free to reply as you might. Bless you dear brother.
Genesis 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Does that mean "according to their kind" or "made them" that they cannot mate with other species? No it does not say that. But we see from general revelation they don't. So general revelation tells us it means in part they mate and produce their own kind. If that is how God created and there is no example of angels marrying (other than our seeing the verse Gen 6 in question) it is biblically "clear" that God's creation produces its kind. Angels being much further away than species. And further, God tells us in His special revelation that general revelvation testifies to His character.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
And I will put hostility between you and between the woman, and between your offspring and between her offspring; he will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.”
God showed us in creation that he places barriers of species not to mate. I would imagine that would be an even greater divide with ontologically different creatures (far beyond a different species). So yeah, i'd say Gen 1 and Romans 1 plainly tells us this Goodboy.
John 1:12 is a fine verse. It means we are new creations in Him. What is your understanding of Psalm 82:6? Are those angels? Do angels die? Are angels on probation? They are mere men because they die like mere men. These in Psalm 82:6 show us that sons of God don't have to be holy in Old Testament use, but seem to charactorize special authority over others (leaders, judges, nobles). In new testament, yes. It is godly according the Christ likeness. In the old testament they can be oppressors. Because Psalm 82:6 were. So what seems to be the use in Gen 6?
So Psalm 82 gives us license to see that Sons of God in Gen 6 are mere men. Strong ones. But men. And apparently not very godly ones (although it would appear to be from the line of Seth--i will touch on that in a moment).
To me brother, the bible makes it very very clear why He would call them sons of God:
The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.(Gen 6:6). Right there in the context. He did not say he was sorry about making angels which would be the violators. Since God provides us His word Gen 6:6 to guide us, "sons of God" would likely mean this in that context:
God: "These [relatively] new creation of mine, men. These sons of my creation. These male creations of mine after my own image, inheritors of my image, these men i have created in leadership capacity with mighty gifting, and in the line of His seed to strike Satan's head, lust after women. Their hearts are turned towards their lust."
In that sense "sons of God" depicts not so much their godliness, but the godly line. It could be said that to make Gen 6:2 angels corrupts Gen 3:15:
And I will put hostility between you and between the woman, and between your offspring and between her offspring; he will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.”
To make "sons of God" angels suggests the lineage (even though clearly stated in Gen 3:15) is not as important as seeing angels falling and mating with humanity. Having a godly lineage in mind would set this group of men grouping above "your seed," as "His seed." The lineage through which Christ comes. Even those distinguished for the linease, "these very sons of mine" lust after women.
They were killed because they changed the gene pool? It says God was upset because of this: Gen 6:5:
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of [f]their hearts was only evil continually.
Now if the reason why God flooded the earth was because of fallen angel dna changed, that would have been the place to say it. But the bible very "clearly" says in very obvious plain sense fashion that God wiped them out because of their evil thoughts...like...lusting after women.
Lust may not seem that big a deal these days as porn is piped throughout the planet 24/7. But in early civilization that was cultivating, God's creation lusting after women all over the place would in theory be kind of a new thing. So it looks like God is pointing out Himself watching the fruit of the fall play out...and describing it from His heart and lineage sense. We could ask this qustion: Which is more a theme throughout scripture plainly: Lineage, or fallen angel residue? If you ask a man Heiser, he would tell you both. But to the common man and woman it is clearly the lineage BY A BILLION CONTRAST MAGNITUDE. And we look at Gen 6 and say, "Nah...can't be that. Must be more exotic...must be fallen angels." I think it is much more soberly in line with God rolling out Gen 3:15 concern and focus. From how God is telling the story, that would be its plain sense though, i believe.
If we look at Gen 4 we see Lamach's boastful heart. Boasting he will do more evil than Cain. In Genesis 5, do you know what funny term that is all about leading up to Gen 6? Lineage. Gen 4:23, 24 = Lamach's poem. Gen 4:25-26, lineage of Seth. So Gen 5 is just a lineage bridge. Gen 6 seems to pick up narrative from the end of Gen 4, with a lineage (chapter 5) interrupt. The ones marrying in Gen 4 were not angels but men. The context of Gen 6 uses marriage. Which in context would cement the sons of God to being men, contextually. Is how i would understand that. Hope this helps provide sense upon my view. Thanks for challenging me in. For i prayerfully consider where and how to look (honestly) to see what pans out most from context. The winners: Lineage, and sorrow unto making men. And the flood came because men had evil thoughts...not angelic ones. Yeah meant that as a outtro punch line. Feel free to reply as you might. Bless you dear brother.
@TCC-- A very well-reasoned response, brother. Definitely not without merit. My own thinking definitely leans this way, although as you no doubt read in my post upthread, I arrived at it from a different direction.
I enjoy seeing discussions such as these where, despite the often great differences in opinion, the focus is on the actual content of the differing views and not on the disagreements between brothers and sisters in Christ themselves.
I enjoy seeing discussions such as these where, despite the often great differences in opinion, the focus is on the actual content of the differing views and not on the disagreements between brothers and sisters in Christ themselves.
Goodboy
Just waiting for the Rapture at this point!
The sons of God
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
So the answer to the question of who was it who impregnated the daughters of men is who were the sons of God?
So let’s start by asking this question. What does the Bible mean when it uses the word “son”? Well I will show you it means one of three things. Either directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted. So with that definition Angels are considered sons of God and also Adam. However there is one special case of someone who is also a son. That is Jesus who is both the son of God and the son of man.
This is the same way we use the term son today. As we cannot create a son, we only use the two terms of directly descendant from or adopted. Why do I use the word directly? Because if a woman gets pregnant and has a male child, that is her son correct? If her son has a male child of his own, that is not his mother’s son but a grandson, which is different. So you can see why the word directly is important.
So if the word son in the Bible means directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted then the only thing Genesis 6:2 can mean by sons of God is what God directly created. God had no direct descendants at that time nor did he adopt anyone. What did God directly create? Angels!
How do I know this? Let’s look at some Bible verses.
These are all Angels that God created correct?
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
This is God’s only begotten son correct?
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jesus is also the son of man correct?
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
We Christians have been adopted and are now sons of God correct?
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
So I say again that the word son means you were either directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted. There were no men in Genesis 6:2 other than Adam that met the criteria of a son. Thus the only sons of God at that time had to be Angels.
Goodboy
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
So the answer to the question of who was it who impregnated the daughters of men is who were the sons of God?
So let’s start by asking this question. What does the Bible mean when it uses the word “son”? Well I will show you it means one of three things. Either directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted. So with that definition Angels are considered sons of God and also Adam. However there is one special case of someone who is also a son. That is Jesus who is both the son of God and the son of man.
This is the same way we use the term son today. As we cannot create a son, we only use the two terms of directly descendant from or adopted. Why do I use the word directly? Because if a woman gets pregnant and has a male child, that is her son correct? If her son has a male child of his own, that is not his mother’s son but a grandson, which is different. So you can see why the word directly is important.
So if the word son in the Bible means directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted then the only thing Genesis 6:2 can mean by sons of God is what God directly created. God had no direct descendants at that time nor did he adopt anyone. What did God directly create? Angels!
How do I know this? Let’s look at some Bible verses.
These are all Angels that God created correct?
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
This is God’s only begotten son correct?
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jesus is also the son of man correct?
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
We Christians have been adopted and are now sons of God correct?
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
So I say again that the word son means you were either directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted. There were no men in Genesis 6:2 other than Adam that met the criteria of a son. Thus the only sons of God at that time had to be Angels.
Goodboy
Goodboy
Just waiting for the Rapture at this point!
Mattfivefour,
While I am sure by now you know that I absolutely believe that Angles impregnated women in Genesis 6:2.
However, I totally agree with your last two statements above. I only responded to the "sons of God" discussion because someone else brought it up.
TCC
Well-known
The sons of God
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
So the answer to the question of who was it who impregnated the daughters of men is who were the sons of God?
So let’s start by asking this question. What does the Bible mean when it uses the word “son”? Well I will show you it means one of three things. Either directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted. So with that definition Angels are considered sons of God and also Adam. However there is one special case of someone who is also a son. That is Jesus who is both the son of God and the son of man.
This is the same way we use the term son today. As we cannot create a son, we only use the two terms of directly descendant from or adopted. Why do I use the word directly? Because if a woman gets pregnant and has a male child, that is her son correct? If her son has a male child of his own, that is not his mother’s son but a grandson, which is different. So you can see why the word directly is important.
So if the word son in the Bible means directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted then the only thing Genesis 6:2 can mean by sons of God is what God directly created. God had no direct descendants at that time nor did he adopt anyone. What did God directly create? Angels!
How do I know this? Let’s look at some Bible verses.
These are all Angels that God created correct?
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
This is God’s only begotten son correct?
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jesus is also the son of man correct?
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
We Christians have been adopted and are now sons of God correct?
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
So I say again that the word son means you were either directly descendant from, directly created from or adopted. There were no men in Genesis 6:2 other than Adam that met the criteria of a son. Thus the only sons of God at that time had to be Angels.
Goodboy
My simple point on JDF brother that i believe the gravity in context alone in Gen 1-6 is enough and likely most profound in disclosing best context of what "sons of God" means there.
Your research is awesome. Helpful. And a blessing. And thank you for it brother. However, i would defer to my previous sentence. Blessings.
Matthew6:33
Set your face like flint - Isaiah 50:7
The sons of God were NOT fallen angels. Change my mindThe sons of God were fallen angels. Prove me wrong
Ghoti Ichthus
Genesis 18:32, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Acts 5:29
I firmly believe humans and demons did interbreed, and the result was the Nephilim.
All of the Nephilim and other land-based creatures were killed in Noah's flood, except for the eight humans and the animals on the ark. Given what the Bible tells us about the population and evil, the last uncorrupted people on the planet were Noah and his family (8 people total), and Methuselah, who died seven days before the flood. The implication is that once a human bloodline was corrupted by non-human DNA, no one downstream could be saved, since they were now part of a non-human race, infused with demon DNA, and it is through male bloodlines that sin nature is passed. Since demons cannot be saved, neither can their offspring. And that shows why ALL corrupt flesh had to die in the flood, so it could not perpetuate the corrupt bloodlines on this side of the flood. Additionally, the Messiah had to be fully human and fully God. All the corrupt flesh had to perish in the flood to ensure no corrupt DNA in Christ's lineage, and no question that Christ fully human and fully God.
Since the end days will be as in the Days of Noah, the implication is that women and demons will procreate and there will be Nephilim again, with corruption of the human race with corrupt DNA, and only those, who are fully human, will be able to be saved.
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:1-20, KJV
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 7:18-24, KJV
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Matthew 17:26-30, KJV
All of the Nephilim and other land-based creatures were killed in Noah's flood, except for the eight humans and the animals on the ark. Given what the Bible tells us about the population and evil, the last uncorrupted people on the planet were Noah and his family (8 people total), and Methuselah, who died seven days before the flood. The implication is that once a human bloodline was corrupted by non-human DNA, no one downstream could be saved, since they were now part of a non-human race, infused with demon DNA, and it is through male bloodlines that sin nature is passed. Since demons cannot be saved, neither can their offspring. And that shows why ALL corrupt flesh had to die in the flood, so it could not perpetuate the corrupt bloodlines on this side of the flood. Additionally, the Messiah had to be fully human and fully God. All the corrupt flesh had to perish in the flood to ensure no corrupt DNA in Christ's lineage, and no question that Christ fully human and fully God.
Since the end days will be as in the Days of Noah, the implication is that women and demons will procreate and there will be Nephilim again, with corruption of the human race with corrupt DNA, and only those, who are fully human, will be able to be saved.
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:1-20, KJV
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 7:18-24, KJV
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Matthew 17:26-30, KJV
Perhaps, but I think its referring to the evil that filled mens hearts as in the days of Noah.
Might Hebrews 1:5 cause us to question "sons of God" being angels? I found an interesting website that addresses the topic of the Nephilim. The Sons of God Are Not Angels - Proven By The Bible Alone
I don't know either way but it has always been an interesting argument.
I don't know either way but it has always been an interesting argument.
I also place little importance on this issue, other than it can lead to interesting discussions. I do believe the fallen angels mated with women, but whatever actually happened was WAY before my time.
TCC
Well-known
Thanks. Looks like a good resource. I will check it out.
TCC
Well-known
Hebrews 1:5 says God never called an angel His Son. Never heard that one injected into the argument before. Blessings.
TCC
Well-known
From what i understand, the Days oof Noah just refer to partying and marrying and things will be like normal but very ignorantly evil. The comparison Christ's gives seems to be about the level of shock. They will be living it up. Then the flood. The flood in the NT looks to be the reaper angels from Rev 14 who will sweep up the evil. A Matthian passage some use for the rapture. Blessings.
Arguments with both sides using scripture have been made on this thread. I personally believe they mated with humans, but I also acknowledge the possibility I could be wrong. In other words, it doesn’t really matter to me, and one day soon, perhaps I will ask Him which view is correct.
Boy will we have a lot of questions (not unlike all of our fallen brothers and sisters these past 3 to 4 thousand years) when we get to heaven. There's the spiritual warfare of angels/principalities of nations, etc., the angel being held back that was going to visit Daniel, the angels around the garden of eden, the angels that opened, poured, and blew out the 21 Revelation judgments (which perhaps we'll see actually happen since it was a vision of the future?), the angel that slew 1000s, the angels that Gideon saw, the angels that appeared to the shepherds, the angel that rolled away the stone, and of course the fallen angels/nephilim/whatever.
Then there's the angel that grabs the FP and AC and Satan.......a MAJOR favorite of mine!
Lots to see and lots to ask/learn.
Then there's the angel that grabs the FP and AC and Satan.......a MAJOR favorite of mine!
Lots to see and lots to ask/learn.
I've always leaned in that direction myself, but not enough to feel sure of it. The Bible I have seems to say that. The resource I linked to above seems to explain that away somewhat effectively not but not well enough for me to be persuaded one way or the other.
