Fallen angels

This topic contains 417 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  stoner37766 10 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #3734
     itsme 
    Participant
    • Topics started 13
    • Total replies 34

    hey guys
     just putting this up cause i didn't want to do it in feedback in suggestions place.  but ringo, i found there is somewhere in the Bible that talks about fallen angels and stuff.
      Isaiah 14
        12 How you have fallen from heaven,
    O morning star, son of the dawn!
    You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!
    13 You said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to heaven;
    I will raise my throne
    above the stars of God;
    I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
    on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [3]
    14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”
    15 But you are brought down to the grave,
    to the depths of the pit.

    #3735
     itsme 
    Participant
    • Topics started 13
    • Total replies 34

    oh, another verse reffering to it is in Ezekiel 28

    #3736
     ringo111 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 169

    Isaiah 14
    1 The LORD will have compassion on Jacob;
    once again he will choose Israel
    and will settle them in their own land.
    Aliens will join them
    and unite with the house of Jacob.
    2 Nations will take them
    and bring them to their own place.
    And the house of Israel will possess the nations
    as menservants and maidservants in the LORD's land.
    They will make captives of their captors
    and rule over their oppressors.

    3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

    How the oppressor has come to an end!
    How his fury [1] has ended!
    5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked,
    the scepter of the rulers,
    6 which in anger struck down peoples
    with unceasing blows,
    and in fury subdued nations
    with relentless aggression.
    7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
    they break into singing.
    8 Even the pine trees and the cedars of Lebanon
    exult over you and say,
    “Now that you have been laid low,
    no woodsman comes to cut us down.”

    9 The grave [2] below is all astir
    to meet you at your coming;
    it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you-
    all those who were leaders in the world;
    it makes them rise from their thrones-
    all those who were kings over the nations.
    10 They will all respond,
    they will say to you,
    “You also have become weak, as we are;
    you have become like us.”
    11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
    along with the noise of your harps;
    maggots are spread out beneath you
    and worms cover you.

    12 How you have fallen from heaven,
    O morning star, son of the dawn!
    You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!
    13 You said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to heaven;
    I will raise my throne
    above the stars of God;
    I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
    on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [3]
    14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”
    15 But you are brought down to the grave,
    to the depths of the pit.

    16 Those who see you stare at you,
    they ponder your fate:
    “Is this the man who shook the earth
    and made kingdoms tremble,
    17 the man who made the world a desert,
    who overthrew its cities
    and would not let his captives go home?”

    18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
    each in his own tomb.
    19 But you are cast out of your tomb
    like a rejected branch;
    you are covered with the slain,
    with those pierced by the sword,
    those who descend to the stones of the pit.
    Like a corpse trampled underfoot,
    20 you will not join them in burial,
    for you have destroyed your land
    and killed your people.

    The offspring of the wicked
    will never be mentioned again.
    21 Prepare a place to slaughter his sons
    for the sins of their forefathers;
    they are not to rise to inherit the land
    and cover the earth with their cities.

    22 “I will rise up against them,”
    declares the LORD Almighty.

    “I will cut off from Babylon her name and survivors,
    her offspring and descendants,”
    declares the LORD .
    23 “I will turn her into a place for owls
    and into swampland;
    I will sweep her with the broom of destruction,”
    declares the LORD Almighty.

    *It is talking against a specific King who took power over Israel, The man thought he would be like GoD, But GoD had other plans. This is not talking about an angel.

    *lines like the following show plainly, that it is talking of a man. Not an angel

    Quote
    16 Those who see you stare at you,
    they ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth
    and made kingdoms tremble,

    Quote

    20 you will not join them in burial,
    for you have destroyed your land
    and killed your people.

    #3737
     ringo111 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 169

    Ezekiel 28

    A Prophecy Against the King of Tyre

    1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

    *it is just talking about a king, that is deluded to think he is as good as GoD, or even sits on GoD's thrown. A delusion, not a fact. The same as tyhe last one. It says. “you say to yourself” Not that they are on GoD's thrown, but that they had delusions of grandure.

    #3738
     Is 1:18 
    Participant
    • Topics started 14
    • Total replies 3,242

    Hi itsme,
    Im really enjoying your posts, you and I are on a similar same wavelength with the end time and creationist stuff. Ive had periods of my life where ive been almost obsessed with both topics and have emersed myself in information and ive basically reached a lot of the same conclusions that you have. I think the Isa 14 and Ez 28 passages are definately allusions to the fall of lucifer but, as with a lot of OT scripture, there is a dualism presented where two things are in view. The same thing applies in Matt 24 when in vs 2 Jesus describes what will happan in 70 AD when the Roman sack Jerusalem then in vss 4 onwards he goes on to describe what will happan in the tribulation. You have to be sensitive to that in the Bible, its not always in a logical sequence (as we are used to).
    I find it interseting that you find the book of Revelation easy to understand. Its taken me years to get a handle on what I think is a very difficult but intriguing book. One thing I have learned is that you have to have be very familiar with the OT, there are over 800 references to the Old Testament in Revelation (its only 400 verses long). For instance:

    Rev 5 – Ruth
    Rev 19:11 – Zech 14
    Rev 17,18 – Isa 13, 14 & Jer 50, 51
    Rev 20: Isa 65 -17-24

    …to name a few. You need to search out the keys to understanding – but they are scattered throughout the whole OT.

    Take care and God Bless

    #3739
     itsme 
    Participant
    • Topics started 13
    • Total replies 34

    Quote
    *It is talking against a specific King who took power over Israel, The man thought he would be like GoD, But GoD had other plans. This is not talking about an angel.

    the part i specifically want to mention is in verse 12 where it says
    Isaiah 14: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    The Hebrew for this expression–“light-bringer” or “shining one”–is translated “Lucifer” in The Latin Vulgate, and is thus translated in the King James Version. But because of the association of that name with Satan, it is not now used in this and other translations. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. The application of the name to Satan has existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 is an explanation of Isa. 14:12, which many authorities believe is not true.

    #3740
     ringo111 
    Participant
    • Topics started 6
    • Total replies 169

    Bright one , or shining one makes more sense, though im sure it would have something more to do with title than appearence. For he was talking about a specific man.

    GoD refers to people in such ways when they think themselves like that, there are plenty of others im sure that think they as good as god.

    I so do not think it is a duelism at all, I personally think that this duelism talk is extreamly dangerous when GoD is specifically talking to one man. Shure when its a general rule, then of coarse it applies, but for a specific command, or specific rebuke, things can be learned like, “dont think yourself as good to be seated equal to GoD, or GoD will kik your ass” but as for then saying that that man is on par with satan??

    #1 neither men were On GoDs side to begin with. No parrellel with the theory of satan as an angel, according to that theory satan was ment to be the head angel of worship, a ruler of a third of the angels. But these kings, were against GoD to begin with, never on GoD's side.

    #2 Both of these are destroyed or made low that all men will see them, and gloat over them,(at least happens to one of them) but only we have Jesus seeing satan fall. Satan is a spirit being, kings of earth dont gloat over him.

    Notice he did not say, “you were seated.” But that they thought they were seated.

    I still dont think satan is an angel at all, cause GoD locks away the angels that sin in chains. Awaiting Judgement.

    Satan is not locked up, he roams the earth and accuses in heaven at times.

    *the only parellel that does not line up with any other scripture, but only with a theory perpetuated by someone, i dont know who, Guess its just a popular myth past down. Maybe a teaching of the Catholic church. That parrellel with the theory Does not even match. LOL , I was going to say, that it was the fact that Satan wanted to take GoDs thrown, as the theory goes. But In these scriptures, they only wanted equality with GoD, and not to overthrow him. Like the myth of the fall of satan says. So the only parrallel that exists is that satan fell from a position of glory acording to the myth. Thats being ignorant of the fact that these kings had no glory with god to begoin with. So really, there are no real parrellels at all. It just seems like it, if you dont look through it in depth.

    So point #3 is

    #3 The kings are accused of wanting equality with GoD, to be seated as a GoD. But according to the theory of satans fall from Gods favour, Satan wanted to overthrow GoD and take his thrown.

    Well ,, thats what i think.. What about you?? hmm… U like my thinking??

    #3741
     itsme 
    Participant
    • Topics started 13
    • Total replies 34

    Quote
    I still dont think satan is an angel at all, cause GoD locks away the angels that sin in chains. Awaiting Judgement.

    i do likey your thinking but i don't exactly agree with it all…

    You see, i still believe that satan is an angel. it is not explained in scripture but there ARE some angels that are locked up, and there are some angels that are not…

    Matthew 25

    41″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.

    Revelation 12

    7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

    The dragon (Satan) who was indeed hurled down to the earth which i still believe he IS an angel, though a fallen one, and he had angels with him.
    I mean, i would think that would mean that there are angels roaming the earth as well as locked up…right? what do you think about this?

    #3742
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,834

    Ezekiel 28
    2
    Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre
    +
    12 Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre

    I think that Ezekiel 28 is a prophecy against 2 persons/beings, not 1 . One is the ruler and the other is the king. Perhaps they are both men, but I think that the first one is a man and the second is an angel.

    The second person is described with the folowing titles or attibutes that no human could possess:

    • the model of perfection,
    • perfect in beauty.
    • You were in Eden,
    • You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
    • You were on the holy mount of God;
    • you walked among the fiery stones.
    • You were blameless in your ways
    • till wickedness was found in you.

    I don't think any man could have any of these attributes except for perhaps Adam, but then Adam wasn't a Cherub, he was a man and the only human besides Christ and Eve who was/is perfect.

    So the prophecy is to the ruler and then perhaps to the Spirit behind him.

    Luke 4:5
    5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
    6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.

    Although the words of the Devil cannot be trusted, Jesus didn't contest what he said. Satan is the spirit behind the kingdoms of the world, a fitting description then regarding the King of Tyre who is obviously in authority to the ruler. Also who was in Eden besides Adam and Eve?

    #3743
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 903
    • Total replies 18,834

    Just a thought: The fiery stones mentioned in verse 14, could be the planets. It bit far out perhaps, but it is generally accepted that planets suitable for life must be hot inside. Cold planets are thought to be unsuitable for life and are generally barren like the moon. Imagine if the angels were able to explore Gods universe.

    There are approximately 100 billion stars in our gallaxy and about 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. If our solar system contains an average number of planets, then there would be about 100,000 billion planets of which many should be hot. Thats a pretty big place to explore, yet God is going to destroy it all because of sin.

    #3744
     Anonymous
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 0

    hey guys,

    have you ever read cs lewis' cosmic trilogy? it offers interesting perspectives about life on other planets, and our own…

    but didn't jesus say something like – i forget where the “war in the heavenlies” thing comes from, but isn't there something that says the devil rebelled with a third of the angels? its late and i can't think…

    fallen angels is a pretty interesting topic though… what do we think about the nephilim, or the sons of god?? are these angels or men? – everyone has a different opinion on this one!!

    cheers,

    nate.

    #3745
     Anonymous
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 0

    stupid intuitive computer!!! jac is my wife, if anyone's interested…

    nate.

    #3746
     itsme 
    Participant
    • Topics started 13
    • Total replies 34

    hey, yeah, i really don't remember where it says something like that either, but i do remember it and its very interesting. And man, CS luis is good…i like his books.

    #3747
     Is 1:18 
    Participant
    • Topics started 14
    • Total replies 3,242

    Hi Nate,
    There is an allusion to satan taking 1/3 of the angels in Rev 12:4 (stars are often used idiomatically of angels), but im not sure if thats the one you mean. Nephilim were the result of the union btwn the sons of God and the daughters of men – so the fallen angels were their biological fathers (so to speak). This is also refered to by Peter and Jude in the NT (2 Pet 2:4,5 and Jude 6,7)

    I got the following from khouse.org:
    “The B'nai Elohim is a term that refers to angels. It occurs four times in the Old Testament 2 and is rendered “Angels of God” in the ancient Septuagin translation. The intrusion of certain angels into the human family resulted in unnatural offspring termed Nephilim, which derives from the Hebrew naphal (to fall), or the Fallen Ones. (The Greek Septuagint renders this term gigantes, which actually means “earth-born.” This is often misunderstood to mean “giants”–which they also happen to have been, incidentally.”

    Goliath was likely one, as were the giants in the land that the Jewish spies (Joshua, Caleb et al) saw in Num 13:33. Its interesting that giant earth-dwelling people feature in almost all ancient culture's mythology (e.g star people – N. A Indians, titans – Greek). Some people believe that this genetic tampering of the human gene pool was a key reason why God flooded the world (save Noah and family), the purity of the line that the messiah would arrive by had to be preserved. The fact that the prominent section of scripture that addresses the Nephilim (Ch 6) immediately preceeds the flood chapters (7 & 8) in Genesis adds weight to this argument I think.
    God Bless

    #3748
     Anonymous
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 0

    hey is1:18,

    yeh, that is generally my understanding too… but i have heard the “sons of god” also being described as the descendants of seth, having relations with the daughters of man (of cain)… sounds a bit strange to me, but that's probably because it clashes with my understanding.

    cheers,

    nate.

    #3749
     Is 1:18 
    Participant
    • Topics started 14
    • Total replies 3,242

    Hi Nate,
    Found this on khouse.org/articles/biblestudy, it's a part of a pretty comprehensive rebuttle of the sethite view of Genesis 6. I agree with the reasoning so i thought i'd post it FYI:

    Origin of the Sethite View

    It was in the 5th century a.d. that the “angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The “angel” view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

    Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional “angel” belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox “angel” position with the “line of Seth” interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal “angel” view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

    Problems with the Sethite View

    Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the “Days of Noah.” Some of the many problems with the “Sethite View” include the following:

    1. The Text Itself

    Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the “Sethite” view. (In data analysis, it is often said that “if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.”)

    The term translated “the Sons of God” is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, “Sons of Elohim,” which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to “godly leadership” is without Scriptural foundation.

    The “Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain” interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the “angels” and the women of the Earth.

    If the text was intended to contrast the “sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain,” why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the “sons of Cain” and the “daughters of Seth?” There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

    And how does the “Sethite” interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

    The Biblical term “Sons of Elohim” (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a “son of God.” The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God. Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels. The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.

    The attempt to apply the term “Sons of Elohim” in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

    2. The Daughters of Cain

    The “Daughters of Adam” also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

    And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
    It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, “the daughters of Adam.” There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the “sons of Adam?” Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

    Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God, it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

    3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

    The concept of separate “lines” itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later. Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

    4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

    There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, “The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers,” whose sonship is “distinctly a New Testament revelation.”

    The “Sons of Elohim” saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

    It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.

    If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

    5. The Unnatural Offspring

    The most fatal flaw in the specious “Sethite” view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to “giants” does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

    Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce “monsters,” but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

    The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in N
    oah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.

    Why were the offspring uniquely designated “mighty” and “men of reknown?” This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

    A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of reknown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?)

    #3750
     Anonymous
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 0

    interesting…

    i must say, i've never held with the sethite theory – it just doesn't make any sense to me – but i also disagree with a couple of things in the argument you pasted… they're both rather pedantic, but…

    point 4 says, “No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others.” my impression was always that noah's family were only saved because of noah's righteousness, not because of themselves…

    the second one is from point 5, where it says, “A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of reknown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?)” i think this is a silly point to make, seeing as i can't say i can remember any women of renoun in the bible… i mean, there was a woman judge, there was ruth, there was esther… but none of these were of “renoun” – in that they never went into battle, fought, conquered, made a name for themselves, etc…

    but i agree with everything else… i'm not sure why people can go to absolute extremes when they're defending a position which (to me at least) seems perfectly reasonable… its as though the more points you make the more cogent the argument will be… oh well…

    from nephilim and fallen angels, is it a short step (leap) to dragons? i've always wondered whether the serpent in the garden of eden was actually a dragon, and that after the fall – when he was cursed to crawl on his belly – this was when he took on the form of the modern snake… its just an idea – and not at all reasonable – but i've always been curious as to why all, or most at least, mythologies of the earth have dragon references…

    cheers,

    nate.

    #3751
     Is 1:18 
    Participant
    • Topics started 14
    • Total replies 3,242

    Quote (Guest @ Aug. 29 2004,06:51)

    point 4 says, “No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others.”  my impression was always that noah's family were only saved because of noah's righteousness, not because of themselves…

    the second one is from point 5, where it says, “A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no “women of reknown” are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only “Y” chromosomes available in this line?)”  i think this is a silly point to make, seeing as i can't say i can remember any women of renoun in the bible… i mean, there was a woman judge, there was ruth, there was esther… but none of these were of “renoun” – in that they never went into battle, fought, conquered, made a name for themselves, etc…

    but i agree with everything else… i'm not sure why people can go to absolute extremes when they're defending a position which (to me at least) seems perfectly reasonable… its as though the more points you make the more cogent the argument will be… oh well…

    .


    Hi Nate,
    Yes fair enough. Genesis 7:1 makes it clear that Noah's righteousness was a reason he and his family were saved, but was it the only reason? If there really was a gene pool problem with hybrid Nephim roaming around im sure his genetic purity was important as well. Otherwise the line the messiah would come through would be at risk. Given the stakes were so high (i.e. the salvation of every man and woman) a global flood or some other event that comprehensively addressed this genetic contamination may have been God's only option.

    The woman of renown issue. “Mighty men who were of old, men of renown” seems to be a title Moses used for the nephilim – an identifier. I don't think the author meant to convey that there were no woman of renown in the Bible (having heard his commentaries of Ruth and Ester – I know he doesnt hold this view). The point I think he was trying to make was that these nephilim were all MEN of renown. That is, no woman Nephilim appeared to be kicking around – and this would be a little strange if nephilim were truely the offspring of the 'sons of seth' and the daughters of men (i.e. regular human offspring). The Y chromosome comment was an attempt to be facetious I think.

    Interesting point you make about dragons – the serpent mentioned in Gen 3 is I believe better translated as 'the shining one'. Thats what ive heard, but I stand to be corrected on that. The mention of dragons in mythology intrigues me as well – if you take a literal view of the Genesis creation account (and I do) then dinosaurs would have, at one time, co-existed with early humans. This is because death and suffering didnt enter the equation until Adam/Eve fell – therefore no created thing could have died before the fall, no matter what timeframe you impose. The answers in genesis (AIG) website has a lot of good info on this. Interestingly, reptiles (thats essentally what dinosaurs were – big reptiles) don't stop growing until they die and if the very old ages that people lived to thousands of years ago applied to them also, then it would make sense that lots of big reptiles were running around with us.
    regards

    #3752
     Anonymous
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 0

    hey is1:18,

    i think it was lucifer that was translated shining one, or morning star… can't say i remember very well either… i think that job was talking about what is commonly known as dinosaurs when he mentions behemoth and leviathon – though the latter sounds a little like a dragon… i don't hold with the hippopotomus and crocodile translations…

    i still like to think that the serpent in the garden was a dragon… what i want to know is, when the serpent said to eve to eat the fruit, why didn't she go, “aarrgghh – a talking snake!!” maybe animals in the garden weren't dumb… hmm…

    cheers,

    nate.

    #3753
     itsme 
    Participant
    • Topics started 13
    • Total replies 34

    Quote
    i still like to think that the serpent in the garden was a dragon… what i want to know is, when the serpent said to eve to eat the fruit, why didn't she go, “aarrgghh – a talking snake!!” maybe animals in the garden weren't dumb…

    hey, whatsup? ok…
    back then, it was so different. why she didn't think it strange, a talking snake and all, is a mystery to me as well as to others, but i don't think we can immagine how different it was back then. maybe the animals were smarter, but i know they didn't go around trying to kill adam or eve.
    Can you imagine remembering more than 44,000 names, facts and stuff. Adam had to name ALL of those animals, and he remembered it all. could you immagine, remembering all those names. i cant even remember twenty five and get them straight without messing up the order and which goes where.
    But also, i don't know, its just a thought, but everything could have still been new to them, so Eve didn't really figure it was too much out of the ordinary for a snake to be talking. But those are just what i think, cause to me its still a mystery.

    Quote
    i think it was lucifer that was translated shining one, or morning star… can't say i remember very well either

    yeah, i would think that too; in lets say the NIV, it says morning star or shining one, but if you look up the same verse in KJV or something in those matters, then it says lucifer…I just looked it up the other day actually and i might have actually posted it on this topic earlier on, but i can't be sure.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 418 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2019 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account