Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless of whether Jude and Peter agreed with the Enochic legend is neither here nor there. This point may easily be lost on us, reading as we do from our distance from the original context. All we know for sure is that Peter and Jude used the story of Angels that 1 Enoch tells as a teaching paradigm for their contemporary audience. Mike, however, the idea that Angels had rebelled in Gen 6:1-4 is mute. Never is there any indication of a battle between Angels, and Angels falling from heaven to earth.
All you're doing is dismissing what the text says. Genesis 6:4 states that the sons of God took wives for themselves. The phrase 'sons of God' - bə·nê hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm is used five times in the Hebrew old Testament (Gen. 6:2,4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1, and Job 38:7), and each time it is used for angels.
Both Peter and Jude specifically say that angels were involved and that they sinned. In 2 Peter 2:4 Peter writes that the angels sinned and were cast into Tartarus. And Peter is talking about the Genesis 6:4 event because he places the time frame at the time of the flood in 2 Peter 2:5.
Jude in Jude 1:6 states that the angels that were involved didn't keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode. As a result they are being kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the last day.
Both Jude and Peter are clearly stating that angels were the perpetrators. And this is exactly how 1 Enoch understands it.
People who reject the fallen angel view of Genesis 6:4 appeal to the Sethite view or to the Divine kingship view, both of which fall short.
The Sethite View:
In the Sethite view the idea is that the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 refers to righteous men from the line of Seth who married the daughters of Cain. However, nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is the term 'son of God' ever used for Seth or for the descendants of Seth. And nowhere are the female descendants of Cain ever called the daughters of men.
Furthermore, if the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 were mere men then how is it that their union with other mere human women resulted in a race of giant offspring? The Septuagint refers to the offspring as γίγαντες - giants.
The Divine Kingship View:
In the Divine Kingship view it is claimed that the sons of God are human kings or magistrates who claimed divinity or stood as representatives of God over the people. This view basically runs into the same problems as the Sethite view.
The only view that holds up is the supernatural view in which the sons of God are angels who came to earth and mated with human women who gave birth to hybrid giants called Nephilim. This is the view expressed in 2nd temple period Jewish literature as well as by both Peter and Jude.
The only view that holds up is the supernatural view in which the sons of God are angels who came to earth and mated with human women who gave birth to hybrid giants called Nephilim. This is the view expressed in 2nd temple period Jewish literature as well as by both Peter and Jude.
Because something is expressed in literature does not mean you make a doctrine out of it as if these things actually existed. However, they can reveal great truths about the human condition, as do the poets and/or film makers. But I wouldn't call it reality.
Because something is expressed in literature does not mean you make a doctrine out of it as if these things actually existed. However, they can reveal great truths about the human condition, as do the poets and/or film makers. But I wouldn't call it reality.
Spoken by someone who doesn't even believe that angelic beings exist. They do. So do demons.
The only view that holds up is the supernatural view in which the sons of God are angels who came to earth and mated with human women who gave birth to hybrid giants called Nephilim. This is the view expressed in 2nd temple period Jewish literature as well as by both Peter and Jude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Because something is expressed in literature does not mean you make a doctrine out of it as if these things actually existed. However, they can reveal great truths about the human condition, as do the poets and/or film makers. But I wouldn't call it reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Spoken by someone who doesn't even believe that angelic beings exist. They do. So do demons.
It's a story not founded on fact, but you can believe whatever you like.
All you're doing is dismissing what the text says. Genesis 6:4 states that the sons of God took wives for themselves. The phrase 'sons of God' - bə·nê hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm is used five times in the Hebrew old Testament (Gen. 6:2,4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1, and Job 38:7), and each time it is used for angels.
Both Peter and Jude specifically say that angels were involved and that they sinned. In 2 Peter 2:4 Peter writes that the angels sinned and were cast into Tartarus. And Peter is talking about the Genesis 6:4 event because he places the time frame at the time of the flood in 2 Peter 2:5.
Jude in Jude 1:6 states that the angels that were involved didn't keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode. As a result they are being kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the last day.
Both Jude and Peter are clearly stating that angels were the perpetrators. And this is exactly how 1 Enoch understands it.
People who reject the fallen angel view of Genesis 6:4 appeal to the Sethite view or to the Divine kingship view, both of which fall short.
The Sethite View:
In the Sethite view the idea is that the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 refers to righteous men from the line of Seth who married the daughters of Cain. However, nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is the term 'son of God' ever used for Seth or for the descendants of Seth. And nowhere are the female descendants of Cain ever called the daughters of men.
Furthermore, if the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 were mere men then how is it that their union with other mere human women resulted in a race of giant offspring? The Septuagint refers to the offspring as γίγαντες - giants.
The Divine Kingship View:
In the Divine Kingship view it is claimed that the sons of God are human kings or magistrates who claimed divinity or stood as representatives of God over the people. This view basically runs into the same problems as the Sethite view.
The only view that holds up is the supernatural view in which the sons of God are angels who came to earth and mated with human women who gave birth to hybrid giants called Nephilim. This is the view expressed in 2nd temple period Jewish literature as well as by both Peter and Jude.
The "sons of God" are explained in the Targum to Genesis 6:4 and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya; the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the names of Shamhazzai, Uzza, and Uzziel, the leaders of the fallen *angels in Enoch , but does not say that they were angels: Yoma 67b alludes to the sins of Uzza and Uzziel; Niddah 61a states that Sihon and Og were descendants of Shamhazzai. In Deuteronomy 3:11 *Og is described as a giant, and this theme was developed to a large degree in aggadic legend. In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: "Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days"–identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in a late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel; another passage in the same document says the Nephilim were descendants of Cain (Aggadat Bere****, ed. S. Buber, introd., p. 38). The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. The standard medieval Bible commentators generally followed the classical aggadah in rejecting the mythological interpretation and asserting that the marriages in Genesis 6 were human. Some variant opinions about the "sons of God" are offered–e.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they "fell short" of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel). - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nephilim
Still doesn’t explain how the essence (dna?)of the angel can be transmitted via a human host without majik.
I asked this before...how can angels manifest a tangible human body out of nothing? (the times when angels have appeared to people in human form, they even ate food, drank liquids, etc.)
These were not ghosts or illusions, they were real human bodies, that had mass...so how was this accomplished?
Also, where did this mass/ body go, when they returned to angel form?
All you're doing is dismissing what the text says. Genesis 6:4 states that the sons of God took wives for themselves. The phrase 'sons of God' - bə·nê hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm is used five times in the Hebrew old Testament (Gen. 6:2,4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1, and Job 38:7), and each time it is used for angels.
Both Peter and Jude specifically say that angels were involved and that they sinned. In 2 Peter 2:4 Peter writes that the angels sinned and were cast into Tartarus. And Peter is talking about the Genesis 6:4 event because he places the time frame at the time of the flood in 2 Peter 2:5.
Jude in Jude 1:6 states that the angels that were involved didn't keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode. As a result they are being kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the last day.
Both Jude and Peter are clearly stating that angels were the perpetrators. And this is exactly how 1 Enoch understands it.
Quote:
Gen 6:1 When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.
Gen 6:3 So the LORD said, “My Spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years.”
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God would sleep with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.
Gen 6:5 But the LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time.
Gen 6:6 The LORD regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”
The context is clear on the reason for the Flood.
We are told that the sin of man (Gen_6:5) results in the divine annihilation of not only man but animals, creatures that move on the ground, and birds of the air (Gen_6:7). If angels were the culprits that brought so much wickedness ... Why is God’s judgment not directed toward them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
People who reject the fallen angel view of Genesis 6:4 appeal to the Sethite view or to the Divine kingship view, both of which fall short.
The Sethite View:
In the Sethite view the idea is that the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 refers to righteous men from the line of Seth who married the daughters of Cain. However, nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is the term 'son of God' ever used for Seth or for the descendants of Seth. And nowhere are the female descendants of Cain ever called the daughters of men. Furthermore, if the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 were mere men then how is it that their union with other mere human women resulted in a race of giant offspring? The Septuagint refers to the offspring as γίγαντες - giants.
The Divine Kingship View:
In the Divine Kingship view it is claimed that the sons of God are human kings or magistrates who claimed divinity or stood as representatives of God over the people. This view basically runs into the same problems as the Sethite view.
The only view that holds up is the supernatural view in which the sons of God are angels who came to earth and mated with human women who gave birth to hybrid giants called Nephilim. This is the view expressed in 2nd temple period Jewish literature as well as by both Peter and Jude.
Well I understand the mighty heroes of old, the famous men (Gen_6:4) to be the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and daughters of men not the Nephilim.
Also, the phrase "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. . .” in the Genesis 4 narrative seems just to be a parenthetical statement. (Gen_6:4) simply mentions a group called the Nephilim who were on the earth in those days. So the “biblical” text does not specifically tell us the Nephilim were the children of the “sons of God”. “
The context is clear on the reason for the Flood.
We are told that the sin of man (Gen_6:5) results in the divine annihilation of not only man but animals, creatures that move on the ground, and birds of the air (Gen_6:7). If angels were the culprits that brought so much wickedness ... Why is God’s judgment not directed toward them?
It is. As both Peter and Jude stated, the angels that were involved in the Genesis 6 affair are currently confined. Peter specifically calls that place of confinement 'Tartarus.' There they await the day of judgment.
Quote:
Well I understand the mighty heroes of old, the famous men (Gen_6:4) to be the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and daughters of men not the Nephilim.
Also, the phrase "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. . .” in the Genesis 4 narrative seems just to be a parenthetical statement. (Gen_6:4) simply mentions a group called the Nephilim who were on the earth in those days. So the “biblical” text does not specifically tell us the Nephilim were the children of the “sons of God”. “
I never said that the mighty heroes of old are the offspring of the Nephilim if that's what you're saying. The Nephilim ARE the mighty heroes of old. The Nephilim are the offspring of the union between the sons of God which are angelic beings, and the daughters of men. And that's what the second temple period Jewish literature says.
If you want to dismiss what Peter and Jude wrote , as well as what is written in 1 Enoch, that's your choice. But the supernatural view is the only one that holds up and is in keeping with the supernatural world view of people in that period. Neither the Sethite view or the Divine Kingship view of Genesis 6:4 adequately do so.
I will never have to question myself as to why I left the Church of Fundamentalism with its false doctrines of fallen angels, demons and Satan. It's amazing how gullible and foolish or ignorant people can be, even in the 21st century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
