PDA

View Full Version : Please Help The origin of demons and evil spirits



graceforme
Sep 20th 2008, 11:33 AM
A friend of mine posed this question to me. I didn't find an answer that seemed satisfactory. Maybe someone here can help us. Here's the question as she gave it to me:

Can you please help me? Where do Satan's demons and evil spirits come
from? Are demons and evil spirits fallen angels? I have read all Dake's
commentaries, which, according to him, they are not. But if they're not,
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?? God created all beings except Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (Even Satan was an angel of God.) So, if they are different to fallen angels, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
Thanks!

Thanks in advance for your help.
God Bless.

Bladers
Sep 20th 2008, 12:48 PM
demons are spirit and are fallen angels which fell with satan. satan was before, was one of the highest ranked angels. But because he got jealous of God, he wanted to be like God. And gathered 1/3 of the angels in heaven and made war with Micheal and his angels. But they lost, and there was no place found for them in heaven, so they cast them to the earth.

Job 1:7 - The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

Coptichristian
Sep 20th 2008, 01:37 PM
The OP raises a good question. What created evil? Did God? Can something purely good create evil? Or is evil eternal?

My puny mind has not grapsed the answer to these questions, if indeed there is one.

Kahtar
Sep 20th 2008, 01:41 PM
Evil - the absence of Good.Darkness - the absence of light.Jude and Enoch had some interesting things to say about the origins of demons, but it's very controversial.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 20th 2008, 01:42 PM
Demons are angels who rebelled against God.

livingword26
Sep 20th 2008, 01:59 PM
Demons are angels who rebelled against God.

I agree. In the following verse, Satan is described as a great red dragon. And the stars that he drew to the earth are the angels that he convinced to follow him.

Rev 12:3-4
(3) And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
(4) And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Rev 12:9
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Mat 25:41
(41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

diffangle
Sep 20th 2008, 02:40 PM
Isa 45:7 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=45&v=7&t=KJV#7)I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these [things].


Jud 1:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jud&chapter=1&verse=6&version=kjv#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.

legoman
Sep 20th 2008, 02:48 PM
Ah diffangle beat me to it.

God created evil (Isaiah 45:7).

But perhaps the more interesting question is why did he create evil?

Legoman

talmidim
Sep 20th 2008, 02:55 PM
A friend of mine posed this question to me. I didn't find an answer that seemed satisfactory. Maybe someone here can help us. Here's the question as she gave it to me:

Can you please help me? Where do Satan's demons and evil spirits come
from? Are demons and evil spirits fallen angels? I have read all Dake's
commentaries, which, according to him, they are not. But if they're not,
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?? God created all beings except Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (Even Satan was an angel of God.) So, if they are different to fallen angels, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
Thanks!

Thanks in advance for your help.
God Bless.Hello graceforme,

What Kahtar says is true. The answer is somewhat controversial. But it really isn't very complicated.

Angels are beings created to minister in both the spiritual and physical realms and the have physical bodies that are designed for that task. In every account in scripture and all ancient Hebrew writings, they are depicted as having a physical form, though different in nature from our own.

'Demons', what are often referred to as unclean spirits in the New Testament, are just that - spirits. They possess no physical form. In some ancient writings like the book of Enoch among others, they are revealed to be the children of fallen angels (male) and the daughters of men (female) as told to us in Genesis 6. When these children physically die, because they are unclean they are cursed that their spirit must remain here on earth, experiencing all of the lusts of the flesh but having no physical form with which to satisfy their thirst, hunger, fatigue, etc. And so they seek to possess the bodies of others.

Fallen angels and demons are both cursed. And those fallen angels that interbred with the daughters of man have already been judged and are bound under darkness (Jude). Their children are not bound, but their disembodied spirits roam the earth in agony, seeking to possess the weak and unrighteous. A distinguishing feature between the two is that angels already have a body and therefore do not seek to possess another. Demons (unclean spirits) on the other hand, do not have a physical form and do seek to possess other's bodies.

Those who are filled with the Holy Spirit have nothing to fear though, because unclean spirits cannot coexist in the same body with Him. They are the Temple of Adonai.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and fiction surrounding this topic, but if you stick to what the scriptures actually say and ignore the traditions of men, you should be alright. Another term used for these children of fallen angels is Nephilim. It comes from the Hebrew for 'fallen' and is used in scripture to describe the offspring of these fallen angels.


Be Blessed in Him,
Phillip

divaD
Sep 20th 2008, 03:24 PM
demons are spirit and are fallen angels which fell with satan. satan was before, was one of the highest ranked angels. But because he got jealous of God, he wanted to be like God. And gathered 1/3 of the angels in heaven and made war with Micheal and his angels. But they lost, and there was no place found for them in heaven, so they cast them to the earth.

Job 1:7 - The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."



Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.



This could not have possibly occured before man was created. Look at verse 9. It's pretty clear that this war occurs within this earth age, and not in eternity past. This verse says that he deceiveth the whole world. How is that possible before there was a world full of people for satan to deceive? When did we know of him as the old serpent? In Gen ch 3. And besides, in Job, we see that satan presents himself before the Lord on several occasions. When was the time of Job? After the flood. So if satan was cast out of heaven prior to this, then how do we explain that he presented himself before the Lord in the book of Job?
We know the scene must be in heaven, because satan told the Lord that he had come from walking to and fro in the earth.

What is my point? Rev 12 does nothing to prove or clarify where demons originated from.

But getting back to this war in heaven and satan and his angels being cast to the earth. We see in 2 Thessalonians 2 that God shall send them strong delusion. If one actually reads the next ch in Rev, Rev 13, one can see that once satan is cast to the earth, this strong delusion starts occuring. But once again, and getting back to my point, by putting this war in heaven, in eternity past, we fail to see the real point of this war and what it does to the inhabitants of the earth at that time.

Richard H
Sep 20th 2008, 07:02 PM
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.



This could not have possibly occured before man was created. Look at verse 9. It's pretty clear that this war occurs within this earth age, and not in eternity past. This verse says that he deceiveth the whole world. How is that possible before there was a world full of people for satan to deceive? When did we know of him as the old serpent? In Gen ch 3. And besides, in Job, we see that satan presents himself before the Lord on several occasions. When was the time of Job? After the flood. So if satan was cast out of heaven prior to this, then how do we explain that he presented himself before the Lord in the book of Job?
We know the scene must be in heaven, because satan told the Lord that he had come from walking to and fro in the earth.

What is my point? Rev 12 does nothing to prove or clarify where demons originated from.

But getting back to this war in heaven and satan and his angels being cast to the earth. We see in 2 Thessalonians 2 that God shall send them strong delusion. If one actually reads the next ch in Rev, Rev 13, one can see that once satan is cast to the earth, this strong delusion starts occuring. But once again, and getting back to my point, by putting this war in heaven, in eternity past, we fail to see the real point of this war and what it does to the inhabitants of the earth at that time.

So the pride of Lucifer and his gathering angelic followers occurred prior to the fall of man.
[Lucifer became known as Satan – the ‘prince of the power of the air’ (Eph 2:2) – having lost his position as archangel, but having access to those on the Earth.]
The expulsion (the war in Heaven) of Satan and 1/3 of the angels from Heaven is yet to come.

Right?

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 07:14 PM
The OP raises a good question. What created evil? Did God? Can something purely good create evil? Or is evil eternal?

My puny mind has not grapsed the answer to these questions, if indeed there is one.

Hi It depends what you mean by 'evil'

If you mean the 'evils' that can come on us as a result of circumstances (which is what Isaiah meant when he said that God created evil) then there is a sense in which God created 'evil' because He created the natural world which bring these 'evils' on us.

If you mean moral evil, moral evil is not something that was created, it is the result of freewill action. God created man capable of doing evil but He did not create the evil that man does. Man 'created' that.

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 07:49 PM
A friend of mine posed this question to me. I didn't find an answer that seemed satisfactory. Maybe someone here can help us. Here's the question as she gave it to me:

Can you please help me? Where do Satan's demons and evil spirits come
from? Are demons and evil spirits fallen angels? I have read all Dake's
commentaries, which, according to him, they are not. But if they're not,
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?? God created all beings except Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (Even Satan was an angel of God.) So, if they are different to fallen angels, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
Thanks!

Thanks in advance for your help.
God Bless.

In my view we recognise the presence of Satan in the Garden of Eden. We recognise the presence of evil angels in Genesis 6.1-4. We recognise the existence of devils/demons from Deuteronomy. But we are nowhere told when they came into existence or where they came from (as Calvin makes clear).

divaD
Sep 20th 2008, 11:09 PM
So the pride of Lucifer and his gathering angelic followers occurred prior to the fall of man.
[Lucifer became known as Satan – the ‘prince of the power of the air’ (Eph 2:2) – having lost his position as archangel, but having access to those on the Earth.]
The expulsion (the war in Heaven) of Satan and 1/3 of the angels from Heaven is yet to come.

Right?



Hi Richard H.

The first part of your question I honestly have no definite answer. Part of me wants to believe that the devil fell in the garden when tempting and deceiving man, because this is when and where God cursed the serpent, another part of me can't reconcile that to the fact that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was present before the fall occured. Obviously evil was already in existence.

Now to the last part of your question, yes, the battle is future. Another clue would be this.


Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.



There is no way this could have occured in eternity past. And this is directly linked to the war in heaven, and satan and his angels being cast out. What this shows is this, this war has to occur after the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, otherwise verse 10 and 11 make no sense, since this is a direct result of satan and his angels being permanetly cast out of heaven.

Richard H
Sep 20th 2008, 11:25 PM
Hi Richard H.

The first part of your question I honestly have no definite answer. Part of me wants to believe that the devil fell in the garden when tempting and deceiving man, because this is when and where God cursed the serpent, another part of me can't reconcile that to the fact that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was present before the fall occured. Obviously evil was already in existence.

<snip>

Thanks for the answer, divaD.

Ya know I always assumed that Satan became Satan before the creation.
Your pointing out that he (or was it just snakes?) was cursed by God for having tempted Eve AND the tree of the knowlege..., is something to consider.

Richard

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 12:53 AM
The first part of your question I honestly have no definite answer. Part of me wants to believe that the devil fell in the garden when tempting and deceiving man, because this is when and where God cursed the serpent, another part of me can't reconcile that to the fact that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was present before the fall occured. Obviously evil was already in existence.



Consider the knowledge of good and evil, then consider the 10 commandments. The tree was not the tree of evil, the tree of good, nor the tree of good and evil. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And it doesn't say that the devil created evil, just that he fell.

brakelite
Sep 21st 2008, 01:29 AM
Lucifer was the covering cherub, the most powerful angel in heaven and the closest to God. That all angels are endowed with free-will and are not robots is attested to by the fact that Lucifer began to take pride in his position and then lusted after more, probably the position held by Christ Himself. We do not know when this took place, before man was created or after. But in the garden we see the first glimpse of the now re-named and fallen angel, Satan. He takes possession of the serpent, (not just an ordinary snake I believe) and speaks to Eve. That she doesn't find this particularly extraordinary, that a serpent should speak, is interesting to say the least.
The earth and all it's creatures and plants etc was given to man. The earth was his. He was given rule over it, and it was his to take care of, protect, and preserve and enjoy for ever. Man's decision however to choose to believe and obey Satan rather than God cost him dearly. He not only lost the earth, but his life also. Both were forfeited to Satan. Man, and the earth, now belonged to the prince of darkness, and he was not going to give them up.
Jesus came to redeem man from Satan's power, and offer man a new heaven and new earth after the resurrection. Until this time, Satan had access to heaven for certain occasions as described in Job, he was earths representative in heavenly councils it would appear. Possibly the others at those councils which Job described are from other worlds. I personally do not have a problem accepting this line of reasoning.
At the temptation of Jesus, Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would but worship Him. This would not be a temptation if the kingdoms of the world did in fact not belong to him. Even Jesus called Satan the prince of this world, for Jesus kingdom was of another.
After the crucifixion however, I believe that any sympathy or feeling of loss that the angels in heaven may have felt for (Lucifer) and his angels after his fall was forever expunged from their thoughts. They now knew what evil had resulted from his pride. That to preserve his own kingdom and life, Satan was willing to go to the lengths of murdering the Son of God. He was willing to murder his own Creator. This showed beyond any shadow of doubt the depths of wickedness and evil that sin produces.
Then, was there that war in heaven. Satan was cast out, and all his angels, and with great wrath, knowing he has now but a short time, makes war on the church. He is even now even more willing to go to any lengths to preserve his life and existence. As revelation tells us, when the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven to the earth, Satan gathers his armies and with one final ditched effort attempts to attack it. The good news folks though is that he loses. He has already lost you, for your names are written in the Lamb's book of life. If we put on the whole armour of God we can withstand any attack and be assured of victory. And we will be present when Jesus creates the new heaven and the new earth, which will be the capital of the universe where the Father and the Son abide with us forever.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 21st 2008, 02:05 AM
Hello graceforme,

What Kahtar says is true. The answer is somewhat controversial. But it really isn't very complicated.

Angels are beings created to minister in both the spiritual and physical realms and the have physical bodies that are designed for that task. In every account in scripture and all ancient Hebrew writings, they are depicted as having a physical form, though different in nature from our own.

'Demons', what are often referred to as unclean spirits in the New Testament, are just that - spirits. They possess no physical form. In some ancient writings like the book of Enoch among others, they are revealed to be the children of fallen angels (male) and the daughters of men (female) as told to us in Genesis 6. When these children physically die, because they are unclean they are cursed that their spirit must remain here on earth, experiencing all of the lusts of the flesh but having no physical form with which to satisfy their thirst, hunger, fatigue, etc. And so they seek to possess the bodies of others.

Fallen angels and demons are both cursed. And those fallen angels that interbred with the daughters of man have already been judged and are bound under darkness (Jude). Their children are not bound, but their disembodied spirits roam the earth in agony, seeking to possess the weak and unrighteous. A distinguishing feature between the two is that angels already have a body and therefore do not seek to possess another. Demons (unclean spirits) on the other hand, do not have a physical form and do seek to possess other's bodies.

Those who are filled with the Holy Spirit have nothing to fear though, because unclean spirits cannot coexist in the same body with Him. They are the Temple of Adonai.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and fiction surrounding this topic, but if you stick to what the scriptures actually say and ignore the traditions of men, you should be alright. Another term used for these children of fallen angels is Nephilim. It comes from the Hebrew for 'fallen' and is used in scripture to describe the offspring of these fallen angels.


Be Blessed in Him,
Phillip
OK, I can see where you're coming from on this, although I'm not prepared to agree - yet. Let me ask you this: If these "spirits" are without physical form, how did the Bible come to describe them as "giants"?

OldChurchGuy
Sep 21st 2008, 02:32 AM
A friend of mine posed this question to me. I didn't find an answer that seemed satisfactory. Maybe someone here can help us. Here's the question as she gave it to me:

Can you please help me? Where do Satan's demons and evil spirits come
from? Are demons and evil spirits fallen angels? I have read all Dake's
commentaries, which, according to him, they are not. But if they're not,
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?? God created all beings except Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (Even Satan was an angel of God.) So, if they are different to fallen angels, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
Thanks!

Thanks in advance for your help.
God Bless.

There is a theory that because the Satan (Hebrew for "Accuser") is seen as being in God's presence as recorded in the book of Job that the Satan was not originally understood by the Jews as the source of evil.

Fast forward to the Southern Kingdom prior to falling to the Babylonians. The Northen Kingdom has fallen a few centuries earler to the Assyrians so the Southern Kingdom people were convinced they WERE the chosen people.

With the fall of the Southern Kingdom, the leaders were at a loss to explain why they were now conquered. The Babylonians in turn were conquered by the Persians who saw the world as a battle between the forces of good and evil. The Jewish leaders were exposed to this idea, so the theory goes, and adopted it because it helped explain why the Babylonians conquered them.

The Jewish leaders took this idea back to Jerusalem and it had a few centuries to grow and be refined by the time of Jesus.

Since we do not have the original manuscripts I'm not sure anyone can prove the origins of the Satan or evil in the world. It is a matter of belief.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 03:24 AM
OK, I can see where you're coming from on this, although I'm not prepared to agree - yet. Let me ask you this: If these "spirits" are without physical form, how did the Bible come to describe them as "giants"?

The bible does not describe them as giants.

Gen 6:4
(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 bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 21st 2008, 03:44 AM
The bible does not describe them as giants.

Gen 6:4
(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 bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.OK, that's true, and I stand corrected (thank you, that's what I get for posting without double-checking the Scripture first, huh? :D), but it does describe these offspring here in your own post as "mighty men...men of renown". So the question still stands: If these offspring are spirits without physical form, how did they acquire this description?

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 04:07 AM
OK, that's true, and I stand corrected (thank you, that's what I get for posting without double-checking the Scripture first, huh? :D), but it does describe these offspring here in your own post as "mighty men...men of renown". So the question still stands: If these offspring are spirits without physical form, how did they acquire this description?

I don't think they are spirits. They are described as men.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 21st 2008, 07:16 AM
I guess I'm going to need to hear from talmidim on this one....

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 02:42 PM
I guess I'm going to need to hear from talmidim on this one....

Many people have very convincing arguments at why the sons of God (people like you and me) and the daughters of men (those who do not know God) must have had giants, evil spirits or some kind of cross breed for children. But that is not what the bible says. They had men. Just like everyone else does. Perhaps the book of Enoch says differently, but there are 2 problems with that. Number 1, it would conflict with the bible, and number 2, I'm sure that's one of the reasons its not in the bible.
I think this particular misconception is dangerous because the creates 2 races that do not exist in the bible. A mystical group of people called the "sons of God" that are from some other time, and of course their cross breed children, who are responsible for the contamination of the human population, removing humanities responsibility for its own evil.

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 02:52 PM
And also, here is the Strongs translation of the word "giant" as used in Genesis 6:4

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephîyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 03:01 PM
So the pride of Lucifer and his gathering angelic followers occurred prior to the fall of man.
[Lucifer became known as Satan – the ‘prince of the power of the air’ (Eph 2:2) – having lost his position as archangel, but having access to those on the Earth.]
The expulsion (the war in Heaven) of Satan and 1/3 of the angels from Heaven is yet to come.

Right?

Hi, Hmmm.

Satan came into existence and committed evil before the fall. Yes.

When did his evil angels fall? We are not told although Genesis 6.1-4 suggests that it was before the Flood.

Satan and his angels were in my view cast out as a result of the death and resurrection of Christ as in my view Revelation 12 clearly teaches.

Sold Out
Sep 21st 2008, 03:07 PM
A friend of mine posed this question to me. I didn't find an answer that seemed satisfactory. Maybe someone here can help us. Here's the question as she gave it to me:

Can you please help me? Where do Satan's demons and evil spirits come
from? Are demons and evil spirits fallen angels? I have read all Dake's
commentaries, which, according to him, they are not. But if they're not,
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?? God created all beings except Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (Even Satan was an angel of God.) So, if they are different to fallen angels, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?
Thanks!

Thanks in advance for your help.
God Bless.

Concerning the fall of Satan and his banishment from Heaven:

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Rev 12:7-9

Satan's 'angels' are demons:

"But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." Matt 12:24-28

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Matt 25:41

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 03:17 PM
Lucifer was the covering cherub, the most powerful angel in heaven and the closest to God. That all angels are endowed with free-will and are not robots is attested to by the fact that Lucifer began to take pride in his position and then lusted after more, probably the position held by Christ Himself. We do not know when this took place, before man was created or after. But in the garden we see the first glimpse of the now re-named and fallen angel, Satan. He takes possession of the serpent, (not just an ordinary snake I believe) and speaks to Eve. That she doesn't find this particularly extraordinary, that a serpent should speak, is interesting to say the least.
The earth and all it's creatures and plants etc was given to man. The earth was his. He was given rule over it, and it was his to take care of, protect, and preserve and enjoy for ever. Man's decision however to choose to believe and obey Satan rather than God cost him dearly. He not only lost the earth, but his life also. Both were forfeited to Satan. Man, and the earth, now belonged to the prince of darkness, and he was not going to give them up.
Jesus came to redeem man from Satan's power, and offer man a new heaven and new earth after the resurrection. Until this time, Satan had access to heaven for certain occasions as described in Job, he was earths representative in heavenly councils it would appear. Possibly the others at those councils which Job described are from other worlds. I personally do not have a problem accepting this line of reasoning.
At the temptation of Jesus, Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would but worship Him. This would not be a temptation if the kingdoms of the world did in fact not belong to him. Even Jesus called Satan the prince of this world, for Jesus kingdom was of another.
After the crucifixion however, I believe that any sympathy or feeling of loss that the angels in heaven may have felt for (Lucifer) and his angels after his fall was forever expunged from their thoughts. They now knew what evil had resulted from his pride. That to preserve his own kingdom and life, Satan was willing to go to the lengths of murdering the Son of God. He was willing to murder his own Creator. This showed beyond any shadow of doubt the depths of wickedness and evil that sin produces.
Then, was there that war in heaven. Satan was cast out, and all his angels, and with great wrath, knowing he has now but a short time, makes war on the church. He is even now even more willing to go to any lengths to preserve his life and existence. As revelation tells us, when the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven to the earth, Satan gathers his armies and with one final ditched effort attempts to attack it. The good news folks though is that he loses. He has already lost you, for your names are written in the Lamb's book of life. If we put on the whole armour of God we can withstand any attack and be assured of victory. And we will be present when Jesus creates the new heaven and the new earth, which will be the capital of the universe where the Father and the Son abide with us forever.

Hi I can almost agree with you. However your assumption that Ezekiel 28 (and Isaiah 14) speak of Satan is pure speculation. The covering cherub was the king of Tyre. Some of the temples in Tyre and its area were built is such a way as to imitate and portray the garden of Paradise and the king considered that he was raised by the gods to occupy it. Thus he saw himself in semi-divine terms as described sarcastically by Ezekiel. There are no real grounds for seeing these verses as referring to Satan.

The king of Babylon did take part in rites in which he was portrayed as a semi-divine figure. Isaiah 14 was precisely how he felt about himself. Again there are no real grounds apart from speculation (and a lack of knowledge of ancient ritual 'mythology') for thinking that this refers to Satan.

Nor am I satisfied that we can interpret Job to refer to other worlds. The Bible is always careful not to speculate on such matters. Why should the other angels not also be reporting about their activities on earth (compare Daniel 10).

Otherwise a masterly summary.

Best wishes.

Sold Out
Sep 21st 2008, 03:22 PM
Also Jude 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,"

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 03:27 PM
Many people have very convincing arguments at why the sons of God (people like you and me) and the daughters of men (those who do not know God) must have had giants, evil spirits or some kind of cross breed for children. But that is not what the bible says. They had men. Just like everyone else does. Perhaps the book of Enoch says differently, but there are 2 problems with that. Number 1, it would conflict with the bible, and number 2, I'm sure that's one of the reasons its not in the bible.
I think this particular misconception is dangerous because the creates 2 races that do not exist in the bible. A mystical group of people called the "sons of God" that are from some other time, and of course their cross breed children, who are responsible for the contamination of the human population, removing humanities responsibility for its own evil.

Hi The problem with your view is that the bene elohim ('sons of God') is a title only used of angels in the Old Testament.

We would therefore need huge evidence to interpret it in any other way and we do not have such huge evidence.

Any Hebrew reader would read angels here. Thus we have here (as Peter and James bring out) a case of spirits (angels) crossing into the world of men. That is why the Flood was necessary in order to cleanse the world of these half-breeds.

The so-called giants were actually 'nephilim', and this word always indicates unusual beings of one kind or another (it may come from Hebrew naphal - 'to fall' and thus mean 'fallen ones'. But that is not certain).

There are no real grounds for denying involvement of angels. Was this when they (apart from Satan ) first 'fell'?.

While the Book of Enoch (which agrees with this view) cannot be cited as Scripture, it is Jewish tradition and demonstrates how many Jews actually interpreted the Hebrew.

Best wishes.

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 03:39 PM
Hi The problem with your view is that the bene elohim ('sons of God') is a title only used of angels in the Old Testament.

We would therefore need huge evidence to interpret it in any other way and we do not have such huge evidence.



That is not fact, but quite debatable. In fact the new testemant seems to debunk this theory here:

Heb 1:5

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV




Any Hebrew reader would read angels here. Thus we have here (as Peter and James bring out) a case of spirits (angels) crossing into the world of men. That is why the Flood was necessary in order to cleanse the world of these half-breeds.

Please list the scripture you are referencing. Thanks.




The so-called giants were actually 'nephilim', and this word always indicates unusual beings of one kind or another (it may come from Hebrew naphal - 'to fall' and thus mean 'fallen ones'. But that is not certain).

Unusual indeed. Half breeds of demons and man, no.

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephîyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.




There are no real grounds for denying involvement of angels.

I believe I have shown that there are many reasons.




While the Book of Enoch (which agrees with this view) cannot be cited as Scripture, it is Jewish tradition and demonstrates how many Jews actually interpreted the Hebrew.

Best wishes.The Jews interpretation of scripture got them into quite a bit of trouble with the Messiah didn't it. No offense meant to any present day Jews.

Oregongrown
Sep 21st 2008, 03:59 PM
The OP raises a good question. What created evil? Did God? Can something purely good create evil? Or is evil eternal?

My puny mind has not grapsed the answer to these questions, if indeed there is one.

I see it simply as the absence of Good(The One True God). It could also be like darkness. Is there actually darkness or is it just the absence of Light?

More questions hey:) God bless all, denise:)

talmidim
Sep 21st 2008, 09:23 PM
OK, I can see where you're coming from on this, although I'm not prepared to agree - yet. Let me ask you this: If these "spirits" are without physical form, how did the Bible come to describe them as "giants"?Shalom LL,

The unclean spirits I was referring to are the spirits that remain after the physical bodies of the nephilim die. They are not of the lineage of Adam, but come into the world another way, via fallen angels.

When we die, we depart from our physical form and are 'present with the Lord'. Not so with nephilim. Their bodies die and they remain as unclean spirits. Both scripture and ancient Hebraic writing reveal that these unclean spirits have no part in the redemption or the resurrection of man. I hope this clears up my earlier post.

Be Blessed,
Phillip

graceforme
Sep 21st 2008, 10:27 PM
Wow! This has become a really interesting discussion. I think I'll direct my friend to the board, and she can read all the thoughts (which are great, by the way!)

Thank you all so much for taking the time to help with this.

Many blessings to all.

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 21st 2008, 10:32 PM
Ah diffangle beat me to it.

God created evil (Isaiah 45:7).

But perhaps the more interesting question is why did he create evil?

Legoman

I believe the word evil in this verse refers to chaos...not the absence of good. Notice how it is used contrary to the word peace.

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 21st 2008, 10:38 PM
Hello graceforme,

What Kahtar says is true. The answer is somewhat controversial. But it really isn't very complicated.

Angels are beings created to minister in both the spiritual and physical realms and the have physical bodies that are designed for that task. In every account in scripture and all ancient Hebrew writings, they are depicted as having a physical form, though different in nature from our own.

'Demons', what are often referred to as unclean spirits in the New Testament, are just that - spirits. They possess no physical form. In some ancient writings like the book of Enoch among others, they are revealed to be the children of fallen angels (male) and the daughters of men (female) as told to us in Genesis 6. When these children physically die, because they are unclean they are cursed that their spirit must remain here on earth, experiencing all of the lusts of the flesh but having no physical form with which to satisfy their thirst, hunger, fatigue, etc. And so they seek to possess the bodies of others.

Fallen angels and demons are both cursed. And those fallen angels that interbred with the daughters of man have already been judged and are bound under darkness (Jude). Their children are not bound, but their disembodied spirits roam the earth in agony, seeking to possess the weak and unrighteous. A distinguishing feature between the two is that angels already have a body and therefore do not seek to possess another. Demons (unclean spirits) on the other hand, do not have a physical form and do seek to possess other's bodies.

Those who are filled with the Holy Spirit have nothing to fear though, because unclean spirits cannot coexist in the same body with Him. They are the Temple of Adonai.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and fiction surrounding this topic, but if you stick to what the scriptures actually say and ignore the traditions of men, you should be alright. Another term used for these children of fallen angels is Nephilim. It comes from the Hebrew for 'fallen' and is used in scripture to describe the offspring of these fallen angels.


Be Blessed in Him,
Phillip


If this is the case, then supposedly, they were destroyed in the Noahic Flood, and they exist now as disembodied souls. From what I understand, according to the interpretation, they do not have spirits:

Ecc 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it

They are basically souls that are in limbo....they will be judged eventually, but for now, they just roam the earth. Even so, I;m not sure how much stock I put into this interpretation.

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 21st 2008, 10:43 PM
Thanks for the answer, divaD.

Ya know I always assumed that Satan became Satan before the creation.
Your pointing out that he (or was it just snakes?) was cursed by God for having tempted Eve AND the tree of the knowlege..., is something to consider.

Richard

I think that God was cursing the serpent, rather than Satan himself. I don't think it gives any indication when Satan was cast out of heaven.

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 21st 2008, 10:57 PM
The bible does not describe them as giants.

Gen 6:4
(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 bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

They were giants. I believe they are referred to as the Nephilim. The passage states that there were giants in the earth when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. This verse is describing how these creatures came about.

It is also stating that these were the mighty and renowned men of that age.

At that time, they had a physical form...they were giants...but no longer, because they were destroyed in the Noahic Flood. Now they are the disembodies souls of those giants, existing today as demons.

livingword26
Sep 21st 2008, 11:10 PM
This is a very interesting story, but just that. In my opinion of course.

Ethnikos
Sep 21st 2008, 11:46 PM
I need some help too. Someone told me that we can not be good because we inherited unclean spirits. I think he gets this from some Gnostic philosophy. Jesus cast out unclean spirits and gave the Apostles power to do the same. But it seems crazy to think that everyone has one. Any ideas?

petepet
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:01 AM
I need some help too. Someone told me that we can not be good because we inherited unclean spirits. I think he gets this from some Gnostic philosophy. Jesus cast out unclean spirits and gave the Apostles power to do the same. But it seems crazy to think that everyone has one. Any ideas?

The best thing is not to believe what everyone tells you. :-)))) Look to the Scriptures.

It is quite clear that Jesus did not think that everyone had an evil spirit otherwise He would have been busy casting them all out in everyone He met.

Gnostic philosophy believed that the flesh was evil and the spirit was good. Thus a man had to get release from his evil flesh either by over- indulging the flesh (antinomianism) or by asceticism.

petepet
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:11 AM
That is not fact, but quite debatable. In fact the new testemant seems to debunk this theory here:

Heb 1:5

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV

Please list the scripture you are referencing. Thanks.

Unusual indeed. Half breeds of demons and man, no.

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephîyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

I believe I have shown that there are many reasons.

The Jews interpretation of scripture got them into quite a bit of trouble with the Messiah didn't it. No offense meant to any present day Jews.

Sorry, I do not see how the New Testament can debunk the use of the phrase bene elohim in the Old Testament and it certainly is a Fact that in the OT bene elohim always means angels. Your citation dose not mention 'sons of God', therefore it is irrelevant to the argument (that bene elohim always means angels IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the nature of the language bene elohim cannot appear in the New Testament.

There are many cases of demonic marriages today producing demon possessed chidren. Genesis 6 is simply presenting a complicated issue in simple terms.

You cannot quote an out of date Hebrew lexicon to prove a point. No one is actually sure about the derivation of nephilim.

I simply cited the JEWISH tradition in oder to demonstrate how Jews in New Testament times saw the phrase bene elohim. It is irrelevant whether all that they said was right or not.

divaD
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:32 AM
I think that God was cursing the serpent, rather than Satan himself. I don't think it gives any indication when Satan was cast out of heaven.



Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.



These verses identify the serpent as being satan himself. According to Revelation 12:1-15, he is still called a serpent, except he is now bigger, fiercer than what he was in the garden. When God cursed the serpent in the garden, I believe He was cursing satan, because the serpent and satan are one and the same.

livingword26
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:40 AM
Sorry, I do not see how the New Testament can debunk the use of the phrase bene elohim



Well the new testament verse I listed says that God has not called angels His sons. I think thats relevant whether in the new or old testament.

Heb 1:5
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV




in the Old Testament and it certainly is a Fact that in the OT bene elohim always means angels.

No, its not a fact. The term "Sons of God" is only used 5 times in the OT, the word angel is used 117 times. Both Genesis and Job use both terms. If it meant angel, it would have said angel.




Your citation dose not mention 'sons of God', therefore it is irrelevant to the argument (that bene elohim always means angels IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the nature of the language bene elohim cannot appear in the New Testament.

Again, this verse says that God has not called angels His sons. It doesn't matter that its on the NT.

Heb 1:5

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV





There are many cases of demonic marriages today producing demon possessed chidren. Genesis 6 is simply presenting a complicated issue in simple terms.

That is, again, an interesting story. Could you possibly prove to me in some way that there is one case of a demon marrying a human and producing children?




You cannot quote an out of date Hebrew lexicon to prove a point. No one is actually sure about the derivation of nephilim.

I simply cited the JEWISH tradition in oder to demonstrate how Jews in New Testament times saw the phrase bene elohim. It is irrelevant whether all that they said was right or not.So, I cannot quote a well respected and often used concordance, but you can tell us , what you say is Jewish tradition, and what you say is more believable than what I quote?

crush
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:20 AM
Well the new testament verse I listed says that God has not called angels His sons. I think thats relevant whether in the new or old testament.

Heb 1:5
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV


I think it's unfair to use Heb 1:5 in the manner that you are using it, as the writer is trying to convey the message that Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God, born of God, to the Earth.

In the context, Angels/Humans are not qualified to be the Sons of God, even though Christ was the first born of many brethren, etc... We are not the direct offspring of God in the manner that Jesus was.

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:34 AM
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.



These verses identify the serpent as being satan himself. According to Revelation 12:1-15, he is still called a serpent, except he is now bigger, fiercer than what he was in the garden. When God cursed the serpent in the garden, I believe He was cursing satan, because the serpent and satan are one and the same.

Yes, I can see how verse 15 would apply directly to Satan, but what about verse 14? How would this part of the curse apply to Satan?

On your belly you shall go
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life

talmidim
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:40 AM
Hi Welder4Christ,

If this is the case, then supposedly, they were destroyed in the Noahic Flood, and they exist now as disembodied souls. From what I understand, according to the interpretation, they do not have spirits:

Ecc 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it

They are basically souls that are in limbo....they will be judged eventually, but for now, they just roam the earth. Even so, I;m not sure how much stock I put into this interpretation.Thanks for your response. The interpretation offered is completely consistent with the plain reading of the text of Genesis. Souls aren't destroyed by floods. Only bodies are. And even with that, it doesn't preclude another set of angels doing the same thing that the first set did. As a matter of fact, ancient Hebrew writings indicate that very thing. And that scenario is substantiated in scripture.

As quoted earlier, Gen 6:4 states, '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.' And this one verse gives us a number of amazing statements. The context of the entire chapter is about the state of man in general and the notable exception of Noah and his family. So we should examine this verse in that context.

The verse starts by naming 'giants'. And this interpretation is probably accurate, but not complete. In the Hebrew the word is Nun, Pey, Lamed and is pronounced Nephal, with variations based on usage. Because of this, it is interpreted several ways by translators seeking to fit their interpretation of the individual words to their theology. But the most ancient Hebrew references point to the root word of the same spelling.
H5307 נפל nâphal naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

Most people use Dr. Strong's concordance to find the definition of Hebrew words. But few actually know who Dr. Strong was and what his concordance really is. Strong's Concordance - which is not a Lexicon in the proper sense - but is instead, an index of the KJV, written by an English Christian professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary, a Methodist University. So it is understandable that Dr. Strong's theology is sometimes reflected in his work. In short, 'giants' or 'bullies' more likely refers to giants and bullies that are also 'fallen' in a spiritual sense.

So my read of the context of this verse goes something like this:

There were giants in the earth in those days; (before the flood)
and also after that, (after the flood)
when the sons of God ('bene Elohim' rendered 'angels every where else in scripture)
came in (another Hebraic idiom implying sexual relations)
unto the daughters of men, (the 'angels' being exclusively male and the 'daughters of men' being exclusively female)
and they bare children to them, (to the angels)
the same (the children, the giants, the bullies, the fallen)
became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (big people with a bad reputation)

The verse you quote (Ecc 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it) is about the children born to Adam that were born of the spirit the Elohim breathed into the dust. But this isn't the case with those beings that were fathered by fallen angels. For we know that they have a different spirit, right?

And BTW, (Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?) speaks of the relationship between the Father in heaven and the Messiah on earth, as His 'only begotten Son'. It does not contradict the usage of the idiom 'bene Elohim' in Gen 6:4 and Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 meaning 'angel', as it is clearly used in those instances.

That is how I see it anyway.

Be Blessed.

livingword26
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:35 AM
The verse starts by naming 'giants'. And this interpretation is probably accurate, but not complete. In the Hebrew the word is Nun, Pey, Lamed and is pronounced Nephal, with variations based on usage. Because of this, it is interpreted several ways by translators seeking to fit their interpretation of the individual words to their theology. But the most ancient Hebrew references point to the root word of the same spelling.
H5307 נפל nâphal naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.



I need to point out here, because your point is not clear, that the hebrew word you are quoting, 5307 nâphal, is not the word used in the verse being discussed, but the root word it came from. The word, 5303 nephîyl, is the word being used. Now if you don't like the Strong's concordance, then don't use it. But I think if you are going to change what the bible says, then you need to list your refrences and post exactly what they say. Otherwise, what your posting is conjecture and not, what the bible says.

livingword26
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:42 AM
There were giants in the earth in those days; (before the flood)
and also after that, (after the flood)
when the sons of God ('bene Elohim' rendered 'angels every where else in scripture)
came in (another Hebraic idiom implying sexual relations)
unto the daughters of men, (the 'angels' being exclusively male and the 'daughters of men' being exclusively female)
and they bare children to them, (to the angels)
the same (the children, the giants, the bullies, the fallen)
became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (big people with a bad reputation)



Sorry, one more thing, the phrase "also after that" where you added the expanation "after the flood". That is not accurate

Gen 6:4-8
(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 bore 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.

God decided to destroy man after the wickedness had taken over, because of Gods Sons going into unbelieving daughters of men and having bully's and tyrants born to them.

livingword26
Sep 22nd 2008, 11:48 AM
I noticed that even though you put down the Strongs Concordance, you quote it



H5307 נפל nâphal naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

Most people use Dr. Strong's concordance to find the definition of Hebrew words. But few actually know who Dr. Strong was and what his concordance really is. Strong's Concordance - which is not a Lexicon in the proper sense - but is instead, an index of the KJV, written by an English Christian professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary, a Methodist University. So it is understandable that Dr. Strong's theology is sometimes reflected in his work. In short, 'giants' or 'bullies' more likely refers to giants and bullies that are also 'fallen' in a spiritual sense.

livingword26
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:21 PM
'Demons', what are often referred to as unclean spirits in the New Testament, are just that - spirits. They possess no physical form. In some ancient writings like the book of Enoch among others, they are revealed to be the children of fallen angels (male) and the daughters of men (female) as told to us in Genesis 6. When these children physically die, because they are unclean they are cursed that their spirit must remain here on earth, experiencing all of the lusts of the flesh but having no physical form with which to satisfy their thirst, hunger, fatigue, etc. And so they seek to possess the bodies of others.


Ok, lets do a synopsis. Your claim that the "Sons of God" as referred to in Genesis 6:4 are fallen angels that mated with human females after the flood, and produced demon possessed children (posts#9 and #47). To prove this theory, you have misrepresented the bible to state that the Giants(who werent the sons of God anyway) were not the Nephilim described in Strongs number 5303, but instead they were Naphal as described in Strongs 5307 (see post 47). You altered it further by stating this happened after the flood (see post 47 the actual scripture on post 49), and though you attempt discredit Dr. Strongs motives by claiming he would alter the text to fit his theology, you use it in your post (also post 47) I have disproven these misconceptions in posts 48, 49 and 50. I would also like to add that not only does the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon agree with the Strongs, but so do the commentaries of John Wesly, Adam Clarke, Albert Barns, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown and Keil & Delitzsch.
I have listed the Scripture as it is written, backed up by a respected concordance, as well as a lexicon, and several well know commentaries on the bible to prove that the bible means what it says. You have listed unknown "anceint hebrew refrences" to prove that it is wrong, as well as placed this all after the flood, when plain scripture says otherwise. (see post 48 and 49) All this to created a race of present day hybrids of demons and man. I would have to add one more questin to this. If God did not intend angels to mate with humans, why did He give them the physical ability to do so?

livingword26
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:49 PM
Here are 2 commentaries, with which all that I listed above agree.

Keil & Delitzsch

Gen 6:1-8 -
The genealogies in Gen 4 and 5, which trace the development of the human race through two fundamentally different lines, headed by Cain and Seth, are accompanied by a description of their moral development, and the statement that through marriages between the “sons of God” (Elohim) and the “daughters of men,” the wickedness became so great, that God determined to destroy the men whom He had created. This description applies to the whole human race, and presupposes the intercourse or marriage of the Cainites with the Sethites.

Albert Barns

Gen 6:1-8 -

- The Growth of Sin

4. נפילים nepîlîym “assailants, fellers, men of violence, tyrants.”
Having traced the line of descent from Adam through Sheth, the seed of God, to Noah, the author proceeds to describe the general spread and growth of moral evil in the race of man, and the determination of the Lord to wipe it away from the face of the earth.
Gen_6:1-4
There are two stages of evil set forth in Gen_6:1-4 - the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition.

divaD
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:40 PM
Sorry, one more thing, the phrase "also after that" where you added the expanation "after the flood". That is not accurate

Gen 6:4-8
(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 bore 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.

God decided to destroy man after the wickedness had taken over, because of Gods Sons going into unbelieving daughters of men and having bully's and tyrants born to them.



Actually, I have somewhat of a different take on what this means. Perhaps you're saying the same thing? I really can't tell.

It appears to be directly linked to what follows in this verse. I see it saying something such as this.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after a period of time therefore, 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.

This makes the most sense to me, since it would require a period of time to produce children and for them to become mighty men which were of old, men of renown. To say this is referring to after the flood, this would be reading something into the text that is not there. 'and also after that' is explained by the when, in the remainder of the verse, and not by after the flood. BTW, I know you are not claiming this, so this is not directed at you, but is directed in general, since many hold this to mean that it's referring to after the flood.

talmidim
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:49 AM
Hello livingword26,

Actually, it is what the scriptures say. I pointed out that the word in question was spelled the same in both cases. It seems that you would have me blindly accept the word of a Methodist theologian as to its meaning. And not only that, you seem to think that everyone should agree with your point of view - and your hand picked commentators!

All I was saying is that Dr. Strong interpreted the same word in Hebrew with a different definitions elsewhere. And the only way of telling which is the correct definition is the context of the passage. And I was not disparaging Dr. Strong or his work. I was only acknowledging that his theology could have easily influenced his choice of definition.

The passage says, 'in those days and also after that'. After what? I was simply stating what I thought 'after that' meant. No need to get surly. You have an opinion. Good for you. But you won't find me calling you a liar or disparaging you simply because we disagree.

I think you have misread what I wrote and are reacting a little too strongly.

Your claim that the "Sons of God" as referred to in Genesis 6:4 are fallen angels that mated with human females after the flood, and produced demon possessed children (posts#9 and #47). Wrong.
1) I said that 'bene Elohim' was confirmed as a reference to angels everywhere else it is used in scripture and in ancient Hebrew writings. Scripture defines scripture, remember?

2) The verse said that they took wives of the daughters of men and produced children - not me.

3) I never said that their children were demon possessed. I said that they were the source of unclean spirits.

To prove this theory, you have misrepresented the bible to state that the Giants(who werent the sons of God anyway) were not the Nephilim described in Strongs number 5303, but instead they were Naphal as described in Strongs 5307 (see post 47). You altered it further by stating this happened after the flood (see post 47 the actual scripture on post 49), and though you attempt discredit Dr. Strongs motives by claiming he would alter the text to fit his theology, you use it in your post (also post 47) Wrong again.

1) The 'giant' spoken of in the verse were the children of the unholy union - the giants were not the angels.

2) I never said that the angels were 'bene Elohim'. I said that scripture defines the Hebraic idiom 'bene Elohim' as referring to angels. I can call you a genius all day, but that doesn't make you one. It can just be a figure of speech. See my point?

3) I didn't alter anything. I inserted my commentary clearly delimited in blue. I simply showed how I read the verse. You are welcome to disagree with my perspective. You are not welcome to insinuate that I am practicing any type of deception.

You have shown that you are in complete agreement with the majority of Christian commentators. And that is fine. But you have shown that you are completely intolerant of any independent thought in others. And that is a shame. And actually, I cannot take credit for this viewpoint. It was the majority view prior to the Romanization of Christianity. It just happens to be the plain meaning of the text when read from a Hebraic perspective.

talmidim
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:04 PM
Here are 2 commentaries, with which all that I listed above agree.

Keil & Delitzsch

Gen 6:1-8 -
The genealogies in Gen 4 and 5, which trace the development of the human race through two fundamentally different lines, headed by Cain and Seth, are accompanied by a description of their moral development, and the statement that through marriages between the “sons of God” (Elohim) and the “daughters of men,” the wickedness became so great, that God determined to destroy the men whom He had created. This description applies to the whole human race, and presupposes the intercourse or marriage of the Cainites with the Sethites.

Albert Barns

Gen 6:1-8 -

- The Growth of Sin

4. נפילים nepîlîym “assailants, fellers, men of violence, tyrants.”
Having traced the line of descent from Adam through Sheth, the seed of God, to Noah, the author proceeds to describe the general spread and growth of moral evil in the race of man, and the determination of the Lord to wipe it away from the face of the earth.
Gen_6:1-4
There are two stages of evil set forth in Gen_6:1-4 - the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition.Well livingword26, even your commentators acknowledge that there is a lot of supposition going on in their attempts to explain what they do not believe. We see the same thing going on with 'evolutionary creationists'. They try to twist His word to suit their lack of faith in what He plainly stated to His servant Moses.

livingword26
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:14 PM
Well livingword26, even your commentators acknowledge that there is a lot of supposition going on in their attempts to explain what they do not believe. We see the same thing going on with 'evolutionary creationists'. They try to twist His word to suit their lack of faith in what He plainly stated to His servant Moses.

Indeed what is plainly stated is what we must believe. Without all the commentaries, lexicons, concordances and unknown ancient Hebrew writings, it still says the same thing. Nothing about fallen angels mating with humans, or soulless offspring roving the earth after their deaths. Just plain old Gods children taking unbelievers as spouses and falling away from God. Its just as clear as when God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh. No hidden meanings, or days that means thousands of years. I also would ask you again, if God did not mean for angels to mate with humans, why did He give them human reproductive systems? And last of all. Do you really think that God told Moses to call demons "sons of God"?

talmidim
Sep 24th 2008, 03:48 AM
I can't help but notice that you ignored my prior post without so much as a nod, much less an apology. And so I REALLY don't think that this one will yield any fruit. You seem more ready to pick a fight than discuss scripture. But stranger things have happened. So I will give it one more try.
Indeed what is plainly stated is what we must believe. Without all the commentaries, lexicons, concordances and unknown ancient Hebrew writings, it still says the same thing.That is an interesting attitude. You don't need the benefit of the language or the culture in which the scriptures were written. You don't need the context of scripture or history.

Truth is, you don't know what these scriptures say. You know what people have told you it says.

Nothing about fallen angels mating with humans, or soulless offspring roving the earth after their deaths. Just plain old Gods children taking unbelievers as spouses and falling away from God.Actually, the original Hebrew term 'bene Elohim' or 'bene HaElohim' IS a Hebraic idiom for angels. And it is recognized as such, even by mainstream Christian scholars. They just make this unreasonable exception for THIS one verse.

What you espouse is really a new interpretation. Back in the 5th century C.E. when the literal interpretation of Genesis 6
was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment, the Roman Catholic church adopted the 'Sethite' invention. The literal 'angel' view was the majority view until that time.

Its just as clear as when God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh. No hidden meanings, or days that means thousands of years.Surprise, surprise! There is much to be learned by studying the seven days of creation. But that is another story.

I also would ask you again, if God did not mean for angels to mate with humans, why did He give them human reproductive systems?I guess you better ask Him. All I know is that He told Moses that they had children with the daughters of man and their offspring were big and bad.

And last of all. Do you really think that God told Moses to call demons "sons of God"?You still don't understand. Bene Elohim is a Hebraic idiom for angels. Not demons. Not fallen angels. Just angels.

But angels fall when they disobey Elohim. But that doesn't make them demons. That just makes them fallen.

Their illegitimate children are mortal. They die. And when they die, their spirits remain on earth. It is THOSE spirits that are called unclean spirits or demons. Understand?

Now since we are asking questions:


Where do these verses talk about Seth in the first place?

And why is it that only the MALE descendants of Seth produce giants when they mate with 'bad' women?

And if your view is correct, and if the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so?

And why doesn't the theory include the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?

Let me know what you figure out.

livingword26
Sep 24th 2008, 10:42 AM
Never mind. There's really not any point to continue.

graceforme
Sep 24th 2008, 11:13 AM
I didn't intend to start a war by asking the question - "Where do demons and evil spirits come from?" I was going to direct my frient to this thread to read the posts, but now I have thought better of it. She would probably only become more confused by the controversy that is taking place.

But I do appreciate the fact that you all took so much time to post your thoughts. I guess I'll suggest she go to her own pastor and take what he tells her as the truth. It's not a salvation issue anyway. To tell you the truth, I'm becoming rather confused myself, so I am unsubscribing to this thread.

But, have a wonderful, Christ-filled day.

Paladin54
Sep 24th 2008, 12:57 PM
Here is an excellent resource regarding this matter:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=388

petepet
Sep 24th 2008, 02:38 PM
Well the new testament verse I listed says that God has not called angels His sons. I think thats relevant whether in the new or old testament.

Heb 1:5
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV

What that verse says is that Jesus was called 'My Son' in parallel with 'the Father'.

In fact Israel was called 'my son' (but not My Son) - Exodus 4.22. But the term bene elohim as for example used in Job 1 refers to angels.

No, its not a fact. The term "Sons of God" is only used 5 times in the OT, the word angel is used 117 times. Both Genesis and Job use both terms. If it meant angel, it would have said angel.

What then did Job mean by it?? Angels are also elsewhere called 'spirits'. The OT is wide in its use of terms.

Again, this verse says that God has not called angels His sons. It doesn't matter that its on the NT.

Heb 1:5

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
KJV

See above

That is, again, an interesting story. Could you possibly prove to me in some way that there is one case of a demon marrying a human and producing children?

You clearly do not understand demonic marriage.

So, I cannot quote a well respected and often used concordance, but you can tell us , what you say is Jewish tradition, and what you say is more believable than what I quote?

When I said you could not quote it I simply meant because it was out of date. (You can of course quote anything you like, but not as ahving authority if it is out of date). No modern Hebrew scholar would be dogmatic about the origin and meaning of nephilim. We just do not know.

talmidim
Sep 25th 2008, 10:09 AM
Here is an excellent resource regarding this matter:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=388Hello Paladin54,

I have read that work before and I have found a number of assumptions that bothered me. Like the reference to Heb 1:14 as a proof that angels do not have physical bodies. Contrary to Brother Latke's view, there are many scriptures that show that they do, in fact, have physical forms. Just because the author of Hebrews said they are ministering spirits does not negate the fact that they were created to minister in both the physical and the spiritual realms; a fact also revealed in scripture.

At Abraham's tent, angels had their feet washed and dried. They took food and ate. These same angels physically grabbed Lot and pulled him back into his house. And throughout scripture, angels do many physical acts that cannot be explained of exclusively 'spiritual' beings.

I am sorry my friend, but that article makes too many assumptions that are not substantiated by the literal readint of scripture and raises more questions than it answers. And while Pastor Litke is an accomplished Baptist minister and scholar, I cannot in good conscience, accept his work in this matter, as it goes against the plain meaning of the text of scripture.

As I mentioned in another post, the Sethite view became popular in the 5th century Roman church for more political reasons than any other. And unfortunately, many of our most preciously held Protestant views were shaped in the darkest days of the Roman influence. I am afraid that we haven't come out of her far enough yet. But I'm confident that Messiah will set that oversight straight soon enough.

Be Blessed,
Phillip

talmidim
Sep 25th 2008, 10:22 AM
I didn't intend to start a war by asking the question - "Where do demons and evil spirits come from?" I was going to direct my frient to this thread to read the posts, but now I have thought better of it. She would probably only become more confused by the controversy that is taking place.

But I do appreciate the fact that you all took so much time to post your thoughts. I guess I'll suggest she go to her own pastor and take what he tells her as the truth. It's not a salvation issue anyway. To tell you the truth, I'm becoming rather confused myself, so I am unsubscribing to this thread.

But, have a wonderful, Christ-filled day.Hello graceforme,

Do not be alarmed. This matter has always been steeped in controversy. And some people take it personally.

There was a time that I took everything that my church leaders said as the final answer. But there was a revealing poll taken that shed some light on the truth of the matter. The poll asked of people if they thought that their church leaders had ever lied to them. The overwhelming majority said yes. And the fact is that they are only human.

My suggestion is to pray and ask the Spirit of Truth to lead you in your study. There are many that can help us in our investigation of the scriptures. But don't blindly follow what others say. He is our Teacher, our Master and our Father. And He is not the author of confusion.

Be Blessed in Him,
Phillip

petepet
Sep 25th 2008, 10:27 AM
Hello Paladin54,

I have read that work before and I have found a number of assumptions that bothered me. Like the reference to Heb 1:14 as a proof that angels do not have physical bodies. Contrary to Brother Latke's view, there are many scriptures that show that they do, in fact, have physical forms. Just because the author of Hebrews said they are ministering spirits does not negate the fact that they were created to minister in both the physical and the spiritual realms; a fact also revealed in scripture.

At Abraham's tent, angels had their feet washed and dried. They took food and ate. These same angels physically grabbed Lot and pulled him back into his house. And throughout scripture, angels do many physical acts that cannot be explained of exclusively 'spiritual' beings.

I am sorry my friend, but that article makes too many assumptions that are not substantiated by the literal readint of scripture and raises more questions than it answers. And while Pastor Litke is an accomplished Baptist minister and scholar, I cannot in good conscience, accept his work in this matter, as it goes against the plain meaning of the text of scripture.

As I mentioned in another post, the Sethite view became popular in the 5th century Roman church for more political reasons than any other. And unfortunately, many of our most preciously held Protestant views were shaped in the darkest days of the Roman influence. I am afraid that we haven't come out of her far enough yet. But I'm confident that Messiah will set that oversight straight soon enough.

Be Blessed,
Phillip


Your argument about the angels who ate with Abraham is two edged. God also ate with Abraham. Do you believe that God has a physical body? God is Spirit (John 4.24). If He wishes to assume a human body He can do so, as could the angels, but it does not mean that He is limited to a body. Usually, although not always, He is described in terms of 'fire'.

No Scriptures prove that angels have physical bodies. They only demonstrate that often they appear in that way. (Nor do they have wings and haloes :-))) ).

Angels are so great in power that they could not possibly be limited to physical bodies. Consider Daniel 10. Angels appear as they wish (consider the angel of the Lord in 2 Samuel 24 and the angel who stood on the land and the sea in Revelation 10). We are much better advised not to try to argue too confidently about things which really are beyond our ken.

Best wishes.

DavidStrickland
Sep 25th 2008, 10:39 AM
1) I said that 'bene Elohim' was confirmed as a reference to angels everywhere else it is used in scripture and in ancient Hebrew writings. Scripture defines scripture, remember?


I've read several times in this thread about the implied abundance of times bene Elohim is translated as Angel. Can you provide a couple of those examples besides of Course Job 1 which has already been discussed.

talmidim
Sep 25th 2008, 01:29 PM
Your argument about the angels who ate with Abraham is two edged. God also ate with Abraham. Do you believe that God has a physical body? God is Spirit (John 4.24). If He wishes to assume a human body He can do so, as could the angels, but it does not mean that He is limited to a body. Usually, although not always, He is described in terms of 'fire'.

No Scriptures prove that angels have physical bodies. They only demonstrate that often they appear in that way. (Nor do they have wings and haloes :-))) ).

Angels are so great in power that they could not possibly be limited to physical bodies. Consider Daniel 10. Angels appear as they wish (consider the angel of the Lord in 2 Samuel 24 and the angel who stood on the land and the sea in Revelation 10). We are much better advised not to try to argue too confidently about things which really are beyond our ken.

Best wishes.Hey Petepet,

It is written that no one can see the face of the Father and live, so there are many who believe that this was the pre-incarnate Messiah that ate with Abraham. It is also written that the Son is one with the Father and is Deity too. Don't ask me how that works as I haven't a clue. But in any case, scripture clearly relates some very physical activities by all concerned in that story. And I believe that it happened just as the Almighty Creator related it to Moses.

As to limiting the physical or spiritual manifestations of angels, that was certainly not my intent. I was only trying to demonstrate that they do posses physical forms that can be manifested in a number of ways. But angels physical forms, nonetheless. And my point is that unclean spirits are never in scripture, depicted as having any physical form. It is a clear contrast made in scripture between the two, indicating to me that demons are not fallen angels, as some claim.

Thanks for your observations and responses in this thread. I find that I agree with much of what you have posted. Oops, gotta go or I'll be late for work. I'll post more later.

Be Blessed,
Phillip

Emanate
Sep 25th 2008, 03:04 PM
No Scriptures prove that angels have physical bodies. They only demonstrate that often they appear in that way. (Nor do they have wings and haloes :-))) ).


I suppose that next you will expect us to believe that angels do not carry around a bow and heart arrows.