Conference yukon::christian_v7

    My understanding of this and I know not everyone will agree, but this
    is how the "giant" race was born.  Without getting into hebrew
    translations for sons of God and others, it simply means "fallen"
    angels having relations with women of the earth.
    
    Any specific details can be supplied upon request to verify this.
    
    Sylvain
    

    Hi Tom,
    
    Sons of God doesn't necessarily mean giants or angels or any other of
    the strange things I have heard.  There were, and are now, really only
    two kinds of people on the earth.  Either you are one of God's
    children or your not.  The sons of God seen here were from Adam and 
    Seth and his descendants.  The daughters of men were descendants of Cain.
    
    Thats my two cents, and that's what my Life Application Bible says.
    
    God Bless,
    Janet

    Thanks Janet,
    
    I was upset that I didn't have my Life Application Bible here
    with me to look it up.
    
    Pam

Janet's interpretation is certainly not the traditional one to be
found in the historic literature of Jewish and Christian bible
scholars.

The improper mixing of sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of
men, a forbidden mixing of humanity and divinity, similar to Eve's
transgression, increased the wickedness of the earth, further shortened
mankind's lifespan, and brought about the need for the Flood.

/john

    Thanks John,
    
    Time to get out the concordance and do some research!
    
    Pam

    John are you saying that you believe the hellenistic propaganda that
    _gods_ had relations with humans? There is nothing scriptural to
    support the claim that angels can have physical relations.
    
    
    pppllleeeeaaaasssseeeee!
    
       signed the conserative skeptic.
    

    I asked about this question in another note sometime this year...
    
    Andrew Yuille gave the *most* concise answer I've seen to date..
    
    I'll try and find it and then move all these notes to that topic with a
    pointer.
    
    In Him,
    Nancy

re .6

Hellenistic?

No, not at all.  Quite an old Jewish and Christian traditional interpretation,
in fact.

/john

Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible - Spiros Zodhaites

The identity of the "sons of God" is uncertain.  Three main tehories are 
advanced to identify the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men."  The
first theory is that the "sons of God" are fallen angels and the "daughters
of men" are mortals.  The wickedness for they are condemned is the unlawful
marriage between those who are supernatural and those who are mortal.  This
ancient viewpoint hinges in part on the assumption that Jude 1:6,7 refer to
these angels.  The proponents of this view insist, perhaps with some scriptural
backing, that the term "sons of God" refers only to angels (Job 1:6-12).
However, there is no precedent at this point from which we can conclude this
idea.  And if this sinb is, at least to a large extent, the fault of the angels,
why is man punished by the Flood?  When the proponents of this tehory are
reminded of the fact that Christ, in Matthew 20:30, says that angels do
not marry, they answer that He only said that they do not, not that they 
could not or did not.  Besides the mythological quality which this viewpoint
brings to the text, there is considerable theological difficulty with the
existence of human beings who are, at least in part, not descended from Adam
(Acts 17:26).
  The second theory as to their identity is the one most often held to
within conservative scholarship.  The "sons of God" are reckoned to be the 
godly line of Seth while the "daughters of men" are of the line of Cain.
Thus the sin with which they are charged is one which is common to the
whole of Scripture, and especially of the Pentatuch: the internmarriage
of the chosen people of God (the believers) with those who are unholy.
How can these men be considered holy whenthe Bible states that only
Noah was holy (Gen. 6:8,9)?  And why is the term "sons of God" not used
with this meaning in any other place?  Other people also question why only 
sons and not daughters are associated with the line of Seth.
  The last theory is one that is gaining popularity among conservatives.
Recent archealogical evidence has suggested that the phrase "sons of God" was 
sometimes used to describe kings (Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82:6-7).  Therefore,
the "sons of God" are immoral human kings who use their power to take
as many women and whatever women they choose.  It must be noted that the 
Scripture never describes human rulers as deities.  This theory rests upon 
the conjecture that the "giants" of verse four are the children of the union
described in the preceding verses.  The word "giant" comes from the 
Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew "nephalim" ("the fallen ones") which comes
from Naphal (5307), "to fall."  It is often associated with violence, and
so translated "overthrow, fall upon."  The term emphasizes their violence
and lack of respect for others.  however, neither the text nor the fact 
that they were "giants" supports the idea that they are a result of a union 
between angels and human beings.  No one believes that because the children 
of Anak, Goliath and his brothers, were giants that they were necessarily
the offspring of some supernatural union.
-----

MM

>Are you suggesting then that Eve's transgression is like sex with Angels?

Eve's transgression is explicitly stated:  She desired to be like God.

>How come the Sons of God are the good guys

They aren't, in this interpretation; they are fallen angels; bad guys.

>and the daughters are the bad guys.

They are bad not because they are women, but because they are humans who
have engaged in a forbidden relationship with fallen divine beings.

>Is this not another misogynst reading of scripture.

No.

/john

    the fallen angels people are referring to are called Nephilim.  In
    fact, I think Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a Nephilim.

I like the second theory in .10, though the third theory is gaining
popularity with me.

Angels?  I am inclined not to agree with this admittedly uncertain and
inconclusive speculation.

    Theory 3 especially if the word Elohim was used in the original Hebrew.  
    I ran into this while discussing Job 38:7 with an LDS Church member.  
    Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek 
    Dictionaries provides some interesting insight into the phrase 
    "sons of God."  The Hebrew word for God is Elohim in Job 38:7.  
    Elohim is defined in Strong's as:

- the plural of Eloah.  It's translated "gods" in the ordinary sense; but
  specifically used in the plural to refer to the supreme God.
- occaisionally applied by way of deference to magistrates (John 10:34-35 as
  well as in Exodus).
- sometimes used as a superlative for angels.
- there are no other alternatives (i.e., pre-existent spirits).

    It's pretty obvious that's what Job 38:7 is referring to - angels.  The 
    angels of heaven were rejoicing in God's creation.  Genesis 6:1-2 could 
    very well be referring to magistrates if Elohim is used.
    
    Mike

    
    Eve created in the image of Adam?!?
    
    

The bible says that all of humanity, both sexes, are created in the image
of God.

	So God created man [Patricia, _you_ are a member of the
	species "man"] in his own image, in the image of God
	create he him; male and female created he them.

	THEM equals "male and female" equals man (including men and women)
	created in the image of God.

The plain word of scripture is inclusive of both men and women.  Feminist
theologians would like to use the text of the King James Bible, which uses
a perfectly acceptable word "man", which includes men and women, to claim
that the God of the King James Bible does not value women.  They are wrong.

/john

re -1.

My understanding is that this passage says about the order of God's creation. 
The covering of head in church for women is a demostration to angels that
God's people is obedient to God's order.

Wally

    The replies in this conference always create a challenge to me to get
    in the Word, to know what it says, and to understand what is being
    conveyed.  I had never noticed 1 Cor 11:10 before, nor do I fully
    comprehend what its trying to say.  I plan to go and do some study on
    it (using a commentary, expository dictionary, etc).
    
    I thought 1 Cor 11:11-12 was interesting though, "However, in the Lord,
    neither is woman independant of man, nor is man independent of woman.  For 
    as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through
    the woman; and all things originate from God".
    
    Ephesians 6:9 sums it up pretty well by stating that, "there is no
    partiality with Him".
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible - Spiros Zodhaites

Paul is writing here to the Corinthians who customarily consented to Greek
traditions (e.g. men had their heads uncovered and the women covered
their's, which was contrary to Jewish tradition.  Even to this day, Jewish
me cover their heads at worship, while the women no longer do).  The question
which faced the Corinthians was what to do with the existing custom of their
day.  Paul's advice is to examine the symbolism of the custom and determine
whether or not it is contrary to God's Word or His order of creation.  Paul 
indicated that there is nothing wrong with this, for in creation God created
man, and from man came the woman (see note on 1 Tim. 2:9-15).  In spite of the
fact that he prays without a covering, man is still accountable to Christ (v.3).
It is clear from verse eleven that man and woman are equal in the Lord 
(Gal. 3:28 and 1 Pet. 3:7).  Although there is equality in Christ, the
husband is still head of the family.  it was God who caused there to be 
differences in males and females.  Since this custom of head coverings 
revealed what was evident in the creative order of things, the Greek 
custom was not to be looked down on by those upholding Jewish traditions.
In the event of having to choose between the two, the decision was left
entirely up to the Corinthian believers (v. 13).  The goal was to give the 
believers an opportunity to evaluate the customs and determine whether
or not they are in accordance to God's Word.  Scripture teaches that
existing customs, as long as they are not contrary to morals and Scripture,
are to be adhered to for the sake of unity among the believers
and not to be flaunted.  See Note on 1 Corinthians 14:33-40.
---------------------------------
(that note is long.  If you want it reprinted, I will do so.)
---------------------------------
1Corinthians 11:1  Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
  2  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep
the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
  3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the
head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
  4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
his head.
  5  But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered
dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
  6  For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a
shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
  7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
  8  For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
  9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
 10  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the
angels.
 11  Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord.
 12  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman;
but all things of God.
 13  Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
 14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it
is a shame unto him?
 15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is
given her for a covering.
 16  But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the churches of God.

>    I was alluding to 1 Corinthians (I believe chapter 11) where women are
>    told they must cover their heads in church because of the angels.
>    In the same chapter Paul also states that men are created in the image
>    of God and women are created in the image of man.  I'm sorry that I do
>    not have my Bible so I could post the reference.
>
>    I now realize that women needed to cover their heads in church because
>    their long flowing hair might tempt the angels.


Please see .22 for a scholar's explanation.  It was not about temptation
to angels (though I have heard this one before).  At issue was custom
of the Corinthians and not an injunction for all Christians to cover 
or not to cover their heads.

Second, as John said, the Bible does NOT say that women were created 
in the image of man.

Third, ordinal instance of creation does not imply superior/inferior.
Do you infer that from the text?  Do you infer that from some religions?

Lastly, my wife has long flowing hair and does not cover it in church,
and does not violate any Biblical ordinance by doing so (for reasons stated
above).  However, she is constantly tempting me, but I'm no angel.  ;-)

Mark

"For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and
reflection of god; but woman is the reflection of man.  Indeed, man was
not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for
the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.  For this reason a
woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the
angels.  Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or
man independent of woman."

      If I remember correctly from previous study, Paul was addressing
      a particular problem the people of Corinth faced.  It had to do with
      a certain Corinthian cult that did almost the opposite of what 
      many people do today.  They regarded life as having originated
      with woman, furthermore, that man had to be enlighted by woman from
      a rather sub-state.  Paul is disputing this, and using the Genensis
      creation account as one of his arguments against it.  He sums up
      his arugument with 1 Cor 11:11-12 as Bing noted:

      "However, in the Lord, neither is woman independant of man, nor is man 
       independent of woman.  For as the woman originates from the man, so 
       also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate 
       from God".
    
      There is a teaching series on tape put out by a fellow name Clay
      Maclean that goes into this as part of a look at women, womens' roles,
      and women's relationship with men in the Bible.  I thought the series
      was excellent and highly recommend it.  If you're interested, send me
      mail and I'll provide you with more information about it.

      Leslie

    My wife and I have an "Exposition of Genesis" by H.C. Leupold.  This
    commentary agrees pretty much with the theory #2 which Mark entered
    earlier.  The "sons of God" are the Sethites -- the ones just described
    in chapter 5 as having men in their midst who walked with God (like
    Enoch and Lemech, men who publicly worshipped God).  The "daughters of
    men" refers to all of the "daughters of mankind" which were
    unfortunately lumped together by the sons of God without regard to
    whether they loved God or not.  The Sethite men looked indiscriminately
    at the women who were "fair".  That is all they observe.  They ask or
    care nothing about anything else.  Whether these fair ones were Sethite
    or Cainite means nothing to them.  They chose "whichever they liked the 
    best.  That is the sad moral indifference that the author emphasises.
    
    As far as 1 Cor 11:10, my Ryrie study bible concurred with the point
    brought our earlier, that the women were to cover their heads as a sign
    of obedience in view of the angels.  Their disobedience would offend
    the angels who observe the conduct of believers in their church
    gatherings.
    
    I once someone say that God's Word is shallow enough for babies to wade
    in, but so deep that even the brightest of theologians could drown in. 
    We we probably never have all of the answers to all of our questions. 
    That's where trust in our awesome God comes in.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

    All of this is fine and dandy but it still leaves unanswered the
    question " where did the giants come from"?  
    
    Remember in Genesis satan *knew* that a redeemer was coming to "crush
    his head" he just didnt know when.  He teherfore attempted to poison
    the human race by defiling the daughters of men.
    
    We are *not* talking about *tall* people, we are talking about about a
    race of *giants( King Og, Goliath etc).
    
    Angels are not tall, they are large.  The Hebrew word used in Genesis
    to describe "sons of God" has been used a handful of times. Each and
    every time it means angels.
    
    Will expound more on Monday.  
    
    Interesting subject though. :)
    
    
    Sylvain

We've discussed this one several times over the years...  The first time
I've caught on a quick check was 22-MAY-1990, in the rolled over version 4
of this conference, ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V4, note 1042 for those who might
want to check back... ;-) 

I'm not sure where it is in this version, but I think it's come up a couple 
of times.

The three usual interpretations each have their problems
	- Godly line of Seth * Ungodly line of Cain
	- Dominant ruling classes taking 'lowerclass' wives
	- Angelic corruption of the seed of the human race.

I accept the last, because there are several NT passages (predominantly 
Jude :6, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:4) which readily make sense in this 
context, while without it, they are obscure to the point of preachers 
making nonsenical interpretations from them, through bad exegesis.

I'll put in my screed, which attempts to cover the view, including the 
problem of procreation through angels.

I apologise for the length, which it a bit meaty...

							Andrew

    The Hebrew phrase used for 'sons of God' in Genesis 6:2,4 is used only
    5 times in the O.T. - in verses 2 and 4; also in Job: 1:5, 2:1 and 38:7 -
    all the Job occurrences being translated as 'angels'. Hence these.  'sons
    of God' (ie made by direct creation, not by breeding in the species) were
    fallen angels = demons.  This is why the offspring were mutants (giants -
    literally 'long-necked' not just overgrown men, and distorted - eg the
    24-digit giant of 2 Samuel 21:20 / 1 Chronicles 20:6).

    The reason for the demonic interbreeding?  After the fall, God tells the
    devil in Genesis 3:15, it is the pure offspring of the woman who is to
    crush Satan's head. Thus Satan wants to corrupt the seed until there is
    no threat left to him.

    The result of this corruption is the judgement of the flood - presumably
    the mass of the human race has some degree of impure blood by this time.
    In Genesis 6:3, when God says (man's) days will be 120 years, He is
    saying how long there is until the flood, not the current life expectancy
    (which I used to think it was). The other warning was Methuselah's name,
    of course ('when he dies, it shall come').  He died within the year
    before the flood.

    The first obvious problem is that angels cannot reproduce (Matthew
    22:30). The significant point there is that the Matthew reference refers
    specifically to 'the angels in heaven'.  Two other references are
    relevant here, the only uses of the word 'oiketerion' for 'habitation',
    in the New Testament. In Jude :6, reference is made to 'angels who ...
    abandoned their own home (oiketerion), and 2 Corinthians 5:4: 'we ...
    wish ... to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling (oiketerion)' - ie an
    alternate state; the demons had regressed their natural state to a
    humanoid one, wherein they could reproduce with human women, to produce
    unnatural offspring. The resulting judgement to these demons is seen in
    2 Peter 2:4 - also associated with the judgement of Noah's time (v 5).
    Note that 1 Peter 3:19-20 also refers to this event, in terms of the
    imprisonment of rebellious fallen angels.  Note that the word usually
    translated 'preach' in this verse is not 'evangeliso', aimed at
    conversion.  It is 'proclaim' - to proclaim victory.  It does not imply
    the offer of salvation.  

    The other obvious problem is that this did not occur to any degree after
    the flood. Why didn't the devil just repeat the trick?  There are some
    giants after the flood, but they weren't able to infiltrate the human
    race to the extent that they did before - there seems to be a very
    effective project going to wipe them out.  I'll put the relevant
    references at the end, not to break into the flow, but various nations
    are involved, ending with David and his muscle men moving in on the last
    of the giant families.  Possibly the punishments referred to in the Peter
    passages may have had some effect, but this may not have been all.

    The only significant difference in lifestyle before and after the flood
    was the eating of meat (Genesis 9:3).  This involves shedding the blood
    of what they were going to eat.  Possibly not liked by demons, in the way
    strictly ordained by God in Genesis 9:4.  Hence they were weakened, as
    they could more easily get at people who didn't get involved with meat
    (ie vegetarians).  This is the weakest link in understanding this event,
    and can only be opffered tentatively, rather than as clear fact.
    However, the evidence adds up impressively, and there is certainly
    something there.  For certainly something sapped their effectiveness
    after the flood.  Other clues to this are: Romans 14:2; where the
    christian is told to be gentle with those whose faith is weak, the
    example given is of a vegetarian; identified as definitely so through
    weakness of faith; it's not just a matter of opinion.  Also in these days
    where witchcraft and demonic activities are on the increase, so is
    vegetarianism, - particularly instructed to those who are involved in the
    occult (I am given to understand that apparently it is in (a) witchcraft
    magazine(s)). My only problem here is that I thought that sort of
    involvement included pseudo-sacrificial rites, but that may be valid as a
    corruption; also I suspect that the blood is not given the reverence
    required in Genesis 9.

    I find this really exciting as a record of how God defeated one of
    the devil's attempts to overthrow the salvation plan, and of how
    the devil is still subtly trying to mislead us into falling into
    his trap.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------

     The giant references I mentioned...

2 Samuel 21:15 - 22.  In some versions 'Rapha' is translated 
'giant', whereas it is really the name of one of the families of 
giants (descendents of...)
   Ishbi-Benob, Saph, Goliath, <Un-named - killed 
   by Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother>
Same referred to in 1 Chronicles 21:4 - 6 (variants on the names)

Also Deuteronomy 2:10 - 12, 20 - 23, 3:11
  Giant families:        wiped out by:
   Emites,               not sure - referred to as in the past then.
   Anakites,             Israel under David
   Rephites,             Israel under David
   Horites               Edomites
   Og (from the Rephaites)  Israel - in the 1800s giant villages 
       were found there too.  Later, giant bones, corresponding to 
       the sizes mentioned were found.
   Zamzumites  (from the Rephaites)    Ammonites

    Note that the Moabites and Ammonites, who wiped out some giants, were
    protected by the LORD when Israel passed on their way to the Pronised
    Land.


Also relevant: 

Nephilim ('fallen ones'!):
 Numbers 13:33

Giant 'families': (Rapha, Anak, Emim, Zuzim, Horim/Horites)

Rapha ('fearful one', 'giant'):
 Joshua 12:4, 13:12, 15:8, 17:15, 18:16

Anak
   Numbers 13:22, 28, 33, Deuteronomy 9:2, Joshua 15:13,14, 
   Joshua 21:11, Judges 1:20, Deuteronomy 1:28, 2:10, 21, 
   Deuteronomy 9:2, Joshua 11:21, 22, 14:12, 15

Emim
   Genesis 14:5, Deuteronomy 2:10 - 11

Zuzim
   Genesis 14:5

Horim, Horites
   Genesis 14:6, 36:20, 21, 29, Deuteronomy 2:12, 22

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting tie-up is to do with mythology.  Genesis 6 
v 4 refers to 'heroes of old, men of renown' (NIV).  these could well 
be the origin of mythology - especially Greek mythology, where 
the 'heroes' were the offspring of women and 'gods' - or demons. 
So the mythological 'stories' would have a basis of fact (confirmed 
from the Bible - I love it!), though the myths themselves may well 
be innaccurate and coloured on the way to us.

The only other referene I could pick up[ quickly in this conferEnce was to 
note 124, which isn't quite in the right era ... ;-)
							Andrew

I entered this previously in note 71.65-71.67....

Maybe I'll do some cleaning up of my duplication sometime ... unless Nancy 
would prefer .... ;-) 

								Andrew

    I thought in the commentary that I read that it mentioned that the
    "sons of God" had been used to refer to other than Angels also.  I'll
    check again tonight.
    
    A couple of other points it made, was that Angels had not even been
    mentioned in Genesis before this reference to sons of God, where
    chapter 5 had just been talking about the Sethites.  
    
    It also talked not only about sexual relations, but the taking of
    wives.  I believe the NT talks about Angels don't take wives.
    
    I can post more detail if anyone is interested.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

As with all discussions, interesting or otherwise, concerning disputed
texts in the Bible, one must ask "how does this affect my belief in 
God, my belief in my salvation, my belief in the Bible?"

Whether you accept theory 1, 2, or 3, I think the answer to the above
question is "not a bit."

Just remember to keep things in their proper perspective.

Mark

    >"how does this affect my belief in God, my belief in my salvation, my 
    >belief in the Bible?"
    
    >Whether you accept theory 1, 2, or 3, I think the answer to the above
    >question is "not a bit."
    
    Amen!  Phil 1:6, Heb 4:16, Phil 3:9-10

Hi Bing,

The Hebrew phrase translated 'sons of God' in this context only appears in
the quoted places.  Other Hebrew phrases could be translated in this way, 
but this phrase is not translated in any other way.

�    A couple of other points it made, was that Angels had not even been
�    mentioned in Genesis before this reference to sons of God, where
�    chapter 5 had just been talking about the Sethites.  

In fact, chapter 5 only covers the direct line down to Noah.  Just the 
first-born...  It's also interesting to consider that this first mention of 
angels (apart from the cherubim guarding Eden) introduces them as 'sons of 
God', underlining their distinct and separate creation.

�    It also talked not only about sexual relations, but the taking of
�    wives.  I believe the NT talks about Angels don't take wives.

I covered that in my lengthy one.  You need to go into NT exegesis there...


								Andrew

Hi Mark,

If you're asking how this should help you to know God better - when I see
God's plan reaching from one end of the Bible to the other; when I see God
taking things I had passed over as obscure, and using them to throw light
on other areas of His Word; when I see His love triumphant over all the
subtle deceits of the devil, and the enemy shooting himself in the foot
every time - it rejoices my heart to see the glory of my God, and is an
expression of my confidence in His power to keep my eternity safe, through
the veiled days of my time on earth... 

Where I see an option which actively contributes to the glory of my God 
like this, it is worth careful consideration, so that others can share in 
the joy of His glory.

Hope this helps you to keep it in perspective!  ;-)

								Andrew

>If you're asking how this should help you to know God better - when I see

Not at all.  I'm never one for not exploring a topic.  I think you, and
everyone else knows that.  What I am saying is that in inconclusive matters
such as this, that have no direct bearing on the validity of God's Word,
or the theme of salvation, that it is a topic that should not be cause
for doubting God's Word.  There are several topics about which there is
no clear answer because there isn't enough information to give a clear 
answer.  You can bet these topics, while interesting, are not essential.
Some people would like to use these as additional reason to disbelieve.

So, did Adam have a navel?

Mark

Hi Mark,

	You missed my point.

					Andrew

    So what is the Hebrew phrase for 'angels' in this passage?

>	You missed my point.

Sorry about that.

    vs 2:
    
    That the sons <01121> of God <0430> saw...
    
    01121 - ben {bane}
    
    AV - son 2978, children 1568, old 135, first 51, man 20, young 18,
    young + 01241 17, child 10, stranger 10, people 5, misc 92; 4906
    
    1) son, grandson, children, member of a group
     1a) son, male child
     1b) grandson
     1c) children (pl, - male and female)
     1d) youth, young men (pl.)
     1e) young (of animals)
     1f) sons (as characterisation, ie sons of injustice [for unrighteous
         men] or sons of God [for angels]
     1g) people (of a nation) (pl,)
     1h) of lifeless things, ie sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
     1i) member of a guild, order, class
    
    0430 - 'elohiym {el-o-heem}
    
    AV - God 2436, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2,
    angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 01436 1, godly 1; 2606
    
    1) (plural)
     1a) rulers, judges
     1b) divine ones
     1c) angels
     1d) gods
    2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
     2a) god, goddess
     2b) godlike one
     2c) work or special possessions of God
     2d) the (true) God
     2e) God
    
    

So, is that 81 possible combinations?

1e and 2c for example?
1b and 2a?  and so on.

    Mark,
    
    I think it's the same as used in Job 2:1, where the sons of God came to
    present themselves before the Lord...
    
    Not sure where God "drew the line" that caused such angelic/human
    interaction to stop, but it seemed it was necessary.
    
    Bob

    I find it hard to believe that "sons of God" refers to the Godly line
    of Seth.  If the term "daughters of men" refers to the women of this
    world then why wasnt the term" sons of God" stated " sons of Seth, or
    or sons of Adam or *even* "sons of men" ?
    
    The Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT, translated in 285
    B.C reads, "the ANGELS OF GOD...took them wives of all they chose"
    (Gen 6:2)
    
    Only 3 other times in the OT is the term"sons of God" used besides Gen
    6.(Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:4-7) They all refer to angels.
    
    Forgive me if I am repeating things that were already mentioned, I just
    cant go back now and see what was said in order to avoid repetition. :)
    
    Now Jude 6,7 is also a key verse which supports this. 
     "and the angels which kept not *THEIR FIRST ESTATE, but LEFT THEIR OWN
    HABITATION, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto
    the judgement of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
    cities about them *IN LIKE MANNER, GIVING THEMSELVES OVER TO
    FORNICATION,AND GOING AFTER *STRANGE* FLESH*.
    
    This clearly indicates that a certain class of angels left their
    habitation and are specifically under judgement because they conducted
    themselves like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
    In fact God prepared a special place of punishment for these angels
    which sinned. The Greek word is TARTAROS and is translated "hell" 
    in 2 Peter 2:4. This is the only time that this word is used in the
    entire bible and it is located in the deepest recesses of hell,
    especially for the judgement of this sin.
    
    BTW this was also the view of other men of God such as
    Chrysostom,Augustine,Luther,and Calvin.
    
    I know not everyone will agree with this view and as Mark stated it
    really has no bearing on our salvation or walk with the Lord, however, 
    a greater understanding of Gods word and judgement are always necessary
    to confront sceptics and unbelievers.
    
                           In His Service:
                               Sylvain 

Angels it is then.  I have no problem with adopting this position.

Question: are angels all male?

    All the ones named in the Bible are male names.

hmmm...  a new contrversy?

>a new controversy

Isn't there enough scriptural evidence that angels (or more specifically,
the demonic angels in league with Satan) can appear to us in pretty much
whatever form they wish?

Serpents.

Men.

Temptresses?

Maybe as horrific frightening creatures, too?

/john

    or...
    
    angels of light.
    deceased loved ones.
    Jesus Christ.
    Men of the Bible.
    Mary.

re .47

Yep.  Which is why angels and apparitions must be approached with skepticism.

And why anything said by a messenger (Gk angelion) must be tested for
consistency with the revelation once committed by Christ to his Apostles.

And why no apparition can be trusted or judged to be "approved" until
after it is no longer appearing.  (The devil could speak the truth for
six months or six years and then, after gaining confidence, deviate
from the Gospel.)

/john

    Angels throughout scripture have *always* been described by the
    pronouns "HE" or "HIS".
    
    Sylvain

re .48

Yet I believe that genuine - unfallen - angels should be unmistakable,
because of the presence of God upon them.  Zechariah was struck dumb 
because he asked for further references from Gabriel, when it should have 
been enough that he stood in the presence of God.  Luke 1:18-20.

Agreed that we have to be very careful, and utterly sure over anything 
claiming to give a divine utterance or angelic intervention, but it's the 
presence of the LORD in it that we should recognise; not just the 'angel' 
itself.  I believe that all our lives we are being taught to recognise His 
voice, as in John 10:4 "His sheep follow Him because they know His voice..."


							Andrew

    Two things that I expected to see in this string but have not yet
    regard the incubus and succubus.  A dictionary definition of these two
    words are demons who have intercourse with men or women.  The names are
    still called in modern Satanism and Wicca.  I do not have detail on how
    these demons manifest today, whether through direct intercourse or through
    possession of a third party who then has intercourse.

Kent,

Incubus and succubus do not occur in the Bible, and the terms and 
descriptions may be true or false, as far as their demonic descriptions 
go.  ie - they're unreliable sources, and can't be used as positive
evidence.

I was under the impression that an incubus was one that prevented sleep, 
but I'm not conversant with these...

								Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    I agree that the incubus and succubus are not words that you will find
    in Scripture.  In fact I believe the origin of the words are more like
    12th to 15th century.  I guess my point is that the concept of sexual
    relations between human and spirit is not isolated to Scripture (if, in
    fact, that is what Genesis is referring to).  Regardless of the terms
    used to name the demons and classify their activity or the historic
    basis for the terms my point was that in modern times the concept of
    demonic intercourse may have bearing on whether or not it is possible
    to rightly interpret the Genesis passage as fallen angels having sexual
    relations with humans.
    
    I also believe that your impression is correct in that one of the terms
    may also be defined as a nightmare and the other as a seductress or
    temptress but the more common definition is sexual and demonic.
    
    Kent
    

    A pastor friend of mine knows a couple that used to be involved in the 
    occult.  He told me that demons used to have intercourse with her
    (among many other unmentionable and frightening things).
    
    Mike

    
    i just don't buy that stuff Mike. 
    
    jeff

    Ok, but what about Matthew 22:30?
    
    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,
    but are as the angels of God in heaven.
    
    This tells me either God has planned something even better than the
    union of marriage, or we'll all be eunichs (no not UNIX ;-) or something.
    
    And this being the case, how could beings "mate", unless at one time
    they could, and at another time were prohibited?
    
    Just pondering...
    
    Bob
    

        ...or we'll be too busy worshiping God to bother with such things.

    Personally I think Heaven will better then any orgasm we can experience
    on this earth!
    
    Our fulfillment is in CHRIST!
    
    

Hi Bob, 

re .56 - this is covered in an earlier note.  The angels in heaven have
heavenly bodies, which are not sexual, as Jesus indicated in Matthew 22:30.

Certain fallen angels left their rightful state as recorded in Jude :6, and
were cast out of heaven (eg Revelation 12:8).  It was in this state, as
non-heavenly angels, that they committed the gross acts recorded in Genssi
6.  The greek word used in Jude :6 for the state they abandoned -
oiketerion - is used only twice in the New Testament.  The other use is in
2 Corinthians 5:2, referring to the heavenly dwelling with which we long to
be clothed - the state which is our destination.  This is a parallel in the
other direction, which would seem to confirm at least the possibility of
this view. 

If you check back, this is covered with a lot more detail in an earlier note.

We seem to have ratholed a bit on a related topic, which I'll go on to as 
well, because heaven is rather significant to most of us ... ;-)

As far as our heavenly state goes, sexual activity is a key animal 
motivation.  So key, that it needs to be hedged around by many protective 
rules, and is still an immense target for sin and temptation.

In giving us this intense pleasure, and the bounds in which to use it, God
was offering us an opportunity to show our love for Him, in choosing to use
it aright. 

He was also showing His love for us, in bestowing so great a pleasure upon 
us.

Remember, He knows our frame and remembers that we are but dust; He created 
our inmost being, and knit us together in our mothers' wombs (Psalm 139:13...)
He chose to make the sexual experience a part of humanity.  Not only that; 
He gave it to both the saved and the unsaved...

Surely this isn't a hard thing for the Almighty?  And if this wasn't hard, 
what more intense pleasures do you think He may have for us in heaven? - 
pleasures that we could not imagine or bear in our mortal, sinful bodies?

Also bear in mind that marriage on earth is 'only' a picture of the
relationship of the church with the LORD Jesus Christ.  The church *is* the
bride of Christ.

The potential that this represents cannot be comprehended by our finite
minds.  But we can be assured that God's eternal heaven is no second-best
to what we enjoy here and now. 


							Andrew

    I've stumbled upon something in my personal studies that I think
    explains why young David picked up 5 smooth stones when going to slay
    Goliath.  Before I state what it is, I'd to ask what others think this
    means.  Why 5 smooth stones?  What does it mean?

    thanks,
    Mike

Re: .60  (Mike)

>                          -< David's 5 Smooth Stones >-
>
>    I've stumbled upon something in my personal studies that I think
>    explains why young David picked up 5 smooth stones when going to slay
>    Goliath.  Before I state what it is, I'd to ask what others think this
>    means.  Why 5 smooth stones?  What does it mean?

Perhaps that is how many that would fit in his pouch.

    re .60
    
    maybe smooth stones fly faster and straighter
    
    

Are you asking 'why 5', or 'why smooth'?  

The shape, texture, etc are chosen for effectiveness; to make sure they
will follow the planned trajectory.  We also need to be honed down to the
task, not to be deflected by cross winds, fly straight to the objective. 

There is a suggestion that David took _five_ stones because he could also
see four other giants (descendents of Rapha of Gath) outstanding amongst
the Philistines - as mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:15-22 (and 1 Chronicles 20:5-8);
Ishbi-Benob, Saph (Sippai), Lahmi (Goliath's brother), and the unnamed man
with 24 digits.

Had the Philistines not fled at the defeat of their champion, David was 
ready to pick off their other potential champions too.

							Andrew

    Goliath had 4 brothers.  So, David had one stone for each brother.
    
    That's what I heard anyway.  It made a lot of sense to me.
    
    Bing

    Isn't 5 the number of Grace?

    I never made the association before until I stumbled upon it recently. 
    I believe Andrew and Bing confirm what I've found - only the 3 appear
    to be Goliath's sons and 1 his brother.  I've also heard that the 5 stones 
    could be a symbol of the Torah, but it doesn't make as much sense to me.  
    If only Goliath were to be slain, David would've only picked up 1 stone.
    As Andrew pointed out 2 Samuel 21:15-22 discuss the deaths of the 4
    sons.
    
    Goliath and his sons were considered to be the last of the Nephilim
    (which is what Genesis 6 and Jude 6-8 talk about).  As is often the
    case in Biblical events, the translation of their names say much about
    who they are and what they represent.  Here are the translations of the
    names for Goliath and his family:
    
    Goliath     = exiled
    Ishbi-Benob = man of shame
    Saph        = place of containment
    Lahmi       = warrior
    unnamed     = type of antichrist
    
    All appear to be characteristics of Satan.  The last unnamed son is the
    real interesting one.  He had 6 fingers and 6 toes.  Since the number
    of man is 6, the 4th son appears to have 666 - a type of antichrist.
    
    All desired to destroy David (who's life has many types of Christ), but
    they were destroyed by David and his men.
    
    Mike

    Something I've been wondering about lately...

    We know that demons are fallen angels.  What puzzles me is why do
    demons seek embodiment and angels don't?  Is it just Satan's
    counterfeit of the Holy Spirit sealing the believer?  Or have they been
    changed in some way because of the fall?

    thanks,
    Mike

By embodiment you mean oppressing human beings?  I think it comes along with
the complete reversal of order between God's way and Satan's way.  In God's
order, self is downplayed, and the strong serve the weak.  God, being the
creator and strongest of all, "did not count equality with God a thing to be
grasped" and became human to serve His weak creations.  God's angels who
remain in His service adopt this same attitude, and so would always look upon
weaker human beings as some one whom they could serve.

Satan seeks the opposite: domination - the strong prey upon the weak and
force the weak to serve them.  So it makes perfect sense that demons would
look upon people as prey to be taken over and forced to serve the demons.

Paul

    RE: .67
    
    I dunno for sure, Mike, but could it be that since Satan and his
    "angels" were cast out of Heaven, i.e., lost their original dwelling
    place, that they might be impelled to seek another like God's on earth?
    Was not Lucifer's sin that he thought himself, or wanted to be regarded
    as, equal with God?
    
    Why would angels seek embodiment when they can remain with God in His
    dwelling place?
    
    Just a thought.
    
    /Wayne

    Paul, by embodiment I don't just mean oppression, but possession as
    well.
    
    Wayne, that is an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered!
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Hebrews 13:1
    
    Be not forgetful to entertain strangers for thereby some have
    entertained angels unawares.
    
    How do you figure this into your question?

    Could it be that angels might seek embodiment in service to their Lord?
    
    Ample evidence exists to suggest that angels have appeared in bodily
    form, not to mention the testimony of scripture as Nancy showed.
    
    Also remember that angels are very interested in (having a desire to
    "look into") the working of God in the affairs of man.  I take this to
    mean that angels are learning more of God as they observe His work in
    our lives.

�    We know that demons are fallen angels.  What puzzles me is why do
�    demons seek embodiment and angels don't?  Is it just Satan's
�    counterfeit of the Holy Spirit sealing the believer?  Or have they been
�    changed in some way because of the fall?

In agreement with the preceding, but chipping in nevertheless to add a few
points.

You know how the spirit in a person can be expressed.  At a 'normal' level,
this is just a human spirit.  At an inspired level, this should be the LORD
(Ephesians 5:18 - be 'being filled' with the Spirit), and we should be
expressing the Spirit of our Father in heaven. 

The enemy is directly oppposed to this, instead of being loving and gracious,
he is selfish and greedy.  Wants to possess.  But almost always has to be very
subtle or we'd be frightened off at the start. 

For unfallen angels to impose themselves in humans would be to usurp the place
of God, so they would automatically then be fallen angels... 

Wayne, there is an infinite difference between angels (or even demons)
appearing in human form, which doesn't have physical dependence on creation,
and the other case of them possessing a human, who has a spirit of their own. 

'Even angels long to look into these things' in 1 Peter 1:12, I take to mean
that salvation - the amazing work of making one who has been lost become saved
- is about incomprehensible to angels, who are already eternal, so have not the
capability of faith, hence cannot be saved, once lost. 

Concerning the fallen angels desire for a habitation, Jude :6 is relevant,
concerning:
   "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority, but abandoned 
    their own home" 
The word used there for 'home' is oiketerion, which is used only twice in the
New Testament.  The other occasion is 2 Corinthians 5:2, where it refers to the
believers' longing to be clothed with the 'heavenly dwelling'.  As if the fall
of these angels left them without a natural spirit body, so occupying a human
is some sort of relief to them - as in Matthew 12:45, where the displaced
spirit goes and gets 7 worse fiends to share this home. 

Nancy,
    
    "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers for thereby some have
     entertained angels unawares."
							Hebrews 13:1
    
Isn't referring to possession, but rather to blessing.  The instance this is 
generally references to is in Genesis 18:..., where Abraham's practise of 
general hospitallity led him to welcome the LORD and two angels into his home.


								Andrew

    Thanks, Andrew.  At least I suspected the right things ;-)

				;-)