|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:31 am
real eyes realize jack0076970 Out of curiosity, where does the suggestion come from that they could be fallen angels as opposed to men? That's just a thought that occurred to me. The fallen angels, their disobedience, and the wickedness in Noah's time are all described in Genesis 6 together (and it almost seems to imply that it's because of these fallen entities that humanity got worse; at the very least, their arrival on earth and having children with human women coincides with the time that humans became more evil and violent). The only "special case" I could see, if we're going with preaching during the grave, are these fallen entities or their offspring. They're not under any covenant and thus have no promise of redemption. I'm not negating the possibility of Jesus going to humans that weren't discipled yet and thus liberating them from their sins by preaching to them after his resurrection, but there's also the possibility that verse 20 is referring to the disobedient fallen angels or their offspring (which could be considered as "disobedient spirits" as well, who were around on the earth in Noah's time while he was building the ark). It's possible Jesus could've done this after his resurrection. That, coupled with those other verses that I cited, led to that suggestion. I don't think it ever explicitly identifies outright that it must be referring to fallen angels or nephilim (but then again, it doesn't identify it as human either for that matter, hence the speculation on my end). I had some thoughts already on the issue of sons & God & daughters of men - the sons of God referring to those that are faithful to God (his children) & the daughters of men being those whose minds are abased, far from God, not of God so to speak with reference to texts like Deuteronomy 7:3 & Ezra 9:12 where God prohibits marriage between his people & the heathen with notable examples of the consequences seen in both the Israelites generally but more specifically with Samson & Solomon. Evidence of this line of thought carries through in the condition of the pre-flood world. Anyway while looking up some refence material I came across this study which seems to deal with the Nephilim pretty comprehensively from scripture (which is always a bonus) - Nephilim StudyAnd for the benefit of those that don't want to click on external links... actually I haven't posted it completely. Scattered throughout the following are numbers 1-15 which have additional bible & language references - worth a read to go along with the study - a little long maybe to add here. Who Were the Nephilim and Sons of God? by Rich Deem Introduction There is somewhat of a controversy in Christianity regarding the identification of the Nephilim and sons of God mentioned in the Genesis flood account (Genesis 6:2-4). Are the sons of God the human offspring of the godly line of Seth or angelic beings (demons)? Were the Nephilim a race of giants that existed before and after the flood or is the word just a generic term describing large strong people? Nephilim and sons of God: Genesis 6 Let's look at the passage in question, in context: Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:1-5) The passage describes the Nephilim as being "men" twice, using two different Hebrew words. It does not use the Hebrew words used to describe angels ("angels," "cherubim," and "seraphim"). It's pretty obvious from the context that God was not happy about what was going on between the sons of God, the Nephilim, and the daughters of men. Let's go on to examine how other biblical passages use these terms. Sons of God Unfortunately, the phrase "sons of God" appears in only five verses from only two books of the Old Testament. Two verses are found in the Genesis 6 flood account. The other three verses are found in the book of Job. From the book of Job, the context clearly indicates that "sons of God" are angelic beings, since they enter directly into God's presence1 or existed before the creation of the earth.2 In the New Testament "sons of God" always refer to redeemed human beings.3 The giants (Nephilim) The Hebrew word used to describe the Nephilim occurs in only two verses of the Old Testament, one in our passage from Genesis 6 and the other in the book of Numbers.4 From the book of Numbers, we find that the descendants of Anak are part of the Nephilim.5 Since Anak was a Canaanite,6 it would be logical to assume that the Nephilim were human, rather than angelic. The verses tell us little about the people, other than they were strong and tall and lived in fortified cities. Were these Nephilim the same as the Nephilim of Genesis 6? Contrary to the beliefs of many, Nephilim does not describe a race of peoples. In the Bible, races of people groups were designated by their founding male ancestor. So, the Anakim were descendent of Anak. However, the Nephilim are never described as being descended from anybody. The term actually means "giants,"7 being derived from the Hebrew word nephal, which means to "fall upon" or "overthrow," referring to their warlike nature.8 Since the Old Testament describes Nephilim both before and after the flood, if the Nephilim were a race then it would contradict the rest of Scripture, which indicates pretty clearly that there were only eight survivors of the flood.9 Demonic or angelic beings? Some Christian have speculated that the "sons of God" from Genesis 6 were demonic beings, who had sexual relations with human women, and are now condemned to future judgment.10 However, Jesus made it clear that angels are asexual beings who do not engage in sexual relations at all.11 Since demons are merely fallen angels,12 they would, likewise, be unable to procreate with women. Some apocryphal books, such as the book of Enoch13 and book of Jubilees,14 indicate that the Nephilim were fallen angels. However, these books make some outrageous claims, saying that the giants were 450 feet tall!13 Conclusion Since the Bible indicates that angels are asexual beings, it makes sense that they could not be the "sons of God" who produced children with the "daughters of men." The best interpretation is that the "sons of God" were men who were descended from Seth, who followed the Lord for a time (in contrast to the line of Cain, which produced the "daughters of men").15 However, right before the flood, even the "sons of God" took wives among the line of Cain, and, therefore, became corrupted themselves through their unbelieving wives. This is one of the reasons God determined to destroy the entire human race, except for the eight people who still followed the Lord (Noah and his extended family). Genesis 6 also describes the Nephilim, who were the corrupt strongmen of their time, notorious for their violent exploits (Genesis 6:4). These men were probably also descendents of Cain, who were terrorizing the peoples and represented at least part of the group whose thoughts were "only evil continually." The Nephilim that were described after the flood were also evil strongmen, but not related to those pre-flood people, since they were all destroyed in the flood.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:01 am
That was an interesting read, but it's not taking other things into consideration or just making assumptions in certain areas: Quote: Since the Old Testament describes Nephilim both before and after the flood, if the Nephilim were a race then it would contradict the rest of Scripture, which indicates pretty clearly that there were only eight survivors of the flood.9 The only one of those survivors which we can guarantee was genetically pure was Noah and his wife since Christ descends from them (specifically through Noah's son Shem, Luke 3:34-38 ); the descendants of Noah's daughter-in-laws with his other sons is questionable. What if they carried / passed on those nephilim genes to the post-flood world? jack0076970 4 From the book of Numbers, we find that the descendants of Anak are part of the Nephilim.5 Since Anak was a Canaanite,6 it would be logical to assume that the Nephilim were human, rather than angelic. Being a Canaanite means you're from the land of Canaan, not that you're 100% human; it would be logical to assume that only if there's proof of Anak being totally human. Quote: Demonic or angelic beings? Some Christian have speculated that the "sons of God" from Genesis 6 were demonic beings, who had sexual relations with human women, and are now condemned to future judgment.10 However, Jesus made it clear that angels are asexual beings who do not engage in sexual relations at all.11 Since demons are merely fallen angels,12 they would, likewise, be unable to procreate with women. The verses he's alluding to (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:36) do not reveal anything about the angels' sexuality besides "they don't marry", not that they're incapable; and we're talking about obedient angels here. Fallen angels disobeyed; they were not functioning/acting the way our Heavenly Father told them to. In the case that they are not humans, I would think they could impregnate a person like the Holy Spirit did with Mary (no physical bodies came together to make the infant Jesus). side note: just to address the verses you posted (Deuteronomy 7:3 & Ezra 9:12), those same verses commanding us not to marry foreigners would also apply to avoiding angels too (they're not even from the planet, but were around to see the planets' creation; they're definitely not from within our own borders). And even if they didn't procreate physically, that is not to say that they are bodiless; on that point, I will have to disagree with the claim that fallen angels are demons (unless there's scripture that clearly says they're the same thing). In all the verses that make references to demons, it sounds like they lack a body [ »], taking the possession of another living creature (humans or animals) because they themselves don't have their own corpse. Yet, Jacob physically wrestled with an angel, even twisted his own hip in the midst of it (Genesis 32:24-25), so angels do have a physical body. Interesting to note, the angel that wrestled with Jacob is referred to as "a man" there too, not malak, keruvim or seraphim, but "Ish" ("אּישׁ" / "man"); so that's not much of an argument for identifying an entity as human (or not) simply because they use the word "man" in the Hebrew. Clearly, it wasn't a human Jacob wrestled with in that chapter. Angels have been known to appear in human-like form (like in Judges 13; human by all appearances, until he departs in a very unusual / beam-me-up-scotty kind of way), but maybe their true form is bigger, which brings me to... Quote: Some apocryphal books, such as the book of Enoch13 and book of Jubilees,14 indicate that the Nephilim were fallen angels. However, these books make some outrageous claims, saying that the giants were 450 feet tall!13 So, he's only dismissing the information found in the Book of Enoch because it contains outrageous claims, too outrageous to be believed? Resurrecting from the dead is pretty outrageous, yet we believe that. This paragraph sounds very dismissive without any thoughtful consideration of the information Enoch provides (probably because it instantly debunks the descendants of Seth argument; Enoch identifies them as angels not humans, flat out: [ CHAPTER VI]). Nothing in the bible contradicts those claims (the actual height of the angels), so on what basis is he being so rejective about it? The Book of Enoch gets downplayed so much, even though it corroborates the rest of the canon; to name a few that come to mind: angels being ministering spirits (like Hebrews 1:14 says, & basically the whole book of Enoch demonstrates), the upcoming judgment day [ CHAPTER LXI], and our restoration to the garden of eden and the tree of life [ CHAPTER XXIV & Chapter XXV]. While we're on the subject, and to relate it back to the OP, Enoch describes Sheol / the Underworld too in CHAPTER XXII. There is awareness in the realm of the dead according to the Book of Enoch. I would copy and paste it onto here, but it's using tables for that particular chapter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:55 am
Just some observations -
Something I'd noted that the article certainly hadn't picked up & I forgot to put down was if you re-read v4
-4- “there were giants (Nephilim) on the earth In those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came In to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
...the bible clearly states that the Nephilim existed prior to the relationships between the “sons of God” and “daughters of men”.
The Nephilim are clearly not a mixture of human/angelic beings.
The Holy Spirit is not a regular angel, this is God.
Jacob did not wrestle with an angel, he wrestled with God in human form – it says that clearly.
Do angels only possess a physical body? Does God taking on a human form mean he only has a physical body? No. This isn’t Star Trek.
If demons are not fallen angels then who else is there? Where would you propose they come from ? They are not the wicked dead, they are in the grave. They are not the supposed evil angel/human hybrid, they have bodies.
I wouldn’t normally have referenced personally any of the apocryphal books but left it there for the sake of completion of the article.
There is a good reason why these books are left out of the bible among which you have provided a very good example. That is not to say that they are totally without merit as you’ve mentioned but the reference to Enoch 22 is inconsistent with the notion of the grave discussed so far and the rest of scripture.
So far we have a division of 2 – a place of comfort & seeming forgetfulness in the bosom of Abraham on one hand for the righteous dead, and a place of flame, torment & agony on the other for the wicked dead (courtesy of the Rich Man & Lazarus). Yet here in Enoch we find not 2 but 4 divisions –
Summaries copied from 2 different sources… I have read the original text
“the faithful saints who await resurrection in Paradise, the merely virtuous who await their reward, the wicked who await punishment, and the wicked who have already been punished and will not be resurrected on Judgement Day”
“in the first section, the faithful saints blissfully await judgment day, in the second section, the moderately-good await their reward, in the third section, the wicked are punished and await their judgment at the resurrection (see Gehenna), and in the last section, the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:40 am
jack0076970 Just some observations - Something I'd noted that the article certainly hadn't picked up & I forgot to put down was if you re-read v4 -4- “there were giants (Nephilim) on the earth In those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came In to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” ...the bible clearly states that the Nephilim existed prior to the relationships between the “sons of God” and “daughters of men”. The Nephilim are clearly not a mixture of human/angelic beings. No. "In those days" is referring to when they came down before the flood and "afterwards" is their existence after the flood. Moses is writing this after the flood so any reference to "Nephilim" will be "men of old" (of the far past). Moses came way after Abraham, and Noah & the Nephilim existed prior to Abraham, just to give you a timeline of how far apart. Quote: The Holy Spirit is not a regular angel, this is God. My point: nothing supports that it's only the capability of God to impregnate a female human without coming into physical union with her like a man does. What if angels are capable of that too? Though doing so would be disobedient, whether physically uniting or not. Quote: Jacob did not wrestle with an angel, he wrestled with God in human form – it says that clearly. That God isn't human is my point. Don't ignore Judges 13; the chapter identifies him as the "Angel of the Lord" and man / "Ish" is used in that case too to refer to him (v. 6, 8, 10, 11). Whether "Angel of the Lord" is just a theophany and not actually an angel is not where I'm going with this. The Hebrew for "man" is used to describe things that aren't actually human. Also, if the bible itself uses "Angel of the Lord" to describe when God appears, then there's no problem if I use "angel" to refer to him too. Just like Jacob said he saw God, so did Manoah. Quote: Do angels only possess a physical body? Does God taking on a human form mean he only has a physical body? No. That's true. On a related note, I've yet to see angels possess anyone in scripture; at the very least, we know obedient angels don't do it, just like obedient angels don't procreate. Regardless of the idiom originating from Star Trek, I'm referring to Jg 13:20, when the angel departs. That's the mental picture I get. Quote: If demons are not fallen angels then who else is there? Where would you propose they come from ? They are not the wicked dead, they are in the grave. They are not the supposed evil angel/human hybrid, they have bodies. At first, I was thinking it could have been the spirits of their hybrid offspring (did they have the breath of God in them? if not, then what animated them? it wasn't anything good), but aside from that, there's no reason to think they're anywhere else but in the realm of the dead. Except that the fallen angels were imprisoned, according to Jude 1:6 and the Book of Enoch, so it can't be the original fallen angels walking around as demons; they're imprisoned. The Book of Enoch elaborates that they would have to watch their offspring die as part of their punishment, but not necessarily what happens to their offsprings' spirits or souls (if they had one). Which now that I mention it, something else I noticed about 1 Peter 3:20, where it says only 8 souls survived, that would mean animals don't have souls, because a whole bunch of animals survived the flood in the ark, yet only 8 souls survived. So, it's possible for living things not to have souls. Maybe that's true of the hybrid offspring and thus, could be a reason why they're not in the realm of the dead, but out here possessing people, especially if the animating force in them wasn't the breath of God. Quote: I wouldn’t normally have referenced personally any of the apocryphal books but left it there for the sake of completion of the article. There is a good reason why these books are left out of the bible among which you have provided a very good example. That is not to say that they are totally without merit as you’ve mentioned but the reference to Enoch 22 is inconsistent with the notion of the grave discussed so far and the rest of scripture. So far we have a division of 2 – a place of comfort & seeming forgetfulness in the bosom of Abraham on one hand for the righteous dead, and a place of flame, torment & agony on the other for the wicked dead (courtesy of the Rich Man & Lazarus). Yet here in Enoch we find not 2 but 4 divisions – Well, actually, it agrees with Lazarus and the Rich man. I don't think anywhere in the bible does it limit Sheol to 2 divisions. It just speaks of the chasm separating the rich man from Lazarus and Abraham. Does it mean it's limiting Sheol to two divisions just because it doesn't mention the others? Not necessarily. Quote: Summaries copied from 2 different sources… I have read the original text “the faithful saints who await resurrection in Paradise, the merely virtuous who await their reward, the wicked who await punishment, and the wicked who have already been punished and will not be resurrected on Judgement Day” “in the first section, the faithful saints blissfully await judgment day, in the second section, the moderately-good await their reward, in the third section, the wicked are punished and await their judgment at the resurrection (see Gehenna), and in the last section, the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented” So, what's contradicting about that? If anything, we're making assumptions that people can only wait for the resurrection in Sheol; that brings to mind Enoch and Elijah again. Despite not experiencing death and being translated already, they're waiting for the resurrection day too, not for them, but for us to be transformed. It's only after the first resurrection that we reign with Christ, and only after the second resurrection that the new earth is created. Whether resurrected or in the realm of the dead, everyone is waiting for resurrection day and judgment day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:44 pm
real eyes realize Quote: If demons are not fallen angels then who else is there? Where would you propose they come from ? They are not the wicked dead, they are in the grave. They are not the supposed evil angel/human hybrid, they have bodies. At first, I was thinking it could have been the spirits of their hybrid offspring (did they have the breath of God in them? if not, then what animated them? it wasn't anything good), but aside from that, there's no reason to think they're anywhere else but in the realm of the dead. Except that the fallen angels were imprisoned, according to Jude 1:6 and the Book of Enoch, so it can't be the original fallen angels walking around as demons; they're imprisoned. The Book of Enoch elaborates that they would have to watch their offspring die as part of their punishment, but not necessarily what happens to their offsprings' spirits or souls (if they had one). Which now that I mention it, something else I noticed about 1 Peter 3:20, where it says only 8 souls survived, that would mean animals don't have souls, because a whole bunch of animals survived the flood in the ark, yet only 8 souls survived. So, it's possible for living things not to have souls. Maybe that's true of the hybrid offspring and thus, could be a reason why they're not in the realm of the dead, but out here possessing people, especially if the animating force in them wasn't the breath of God. Quote: I wouldn’t normally have referenced personally any of the apocryphal books but left it there for the sake of completion of the article. There is a good reason why these books are left out of the bible among which you have provided a very good example. That is not to say that they are totally without merit as you’ve mentioned but the reference to Enoch 22 is inconsistent with the notion of the grave discussed so far and the rest of scripture. So far we have a division of 2 – a place of comfort & seeming forgetfulness in the bosom of Abraham on one hand for the righteous dead, and a place of flame, torment & agony on the other for the wicked dead (courtesy of the Rich Man & Lazarus). Yet here in Enoch we find not 2 but 4 divisions – Well, actually, it agrees with Lazarus and the Rich man. I don't think anywhere in the bible does it limit Sheol to 2 divisions. It just speaks of the chasm separating the rich man from Lazarus and Abraham. Does it mean it's limiting Sheol to two divisions just because it doesn't mention the others? Not necessarily. Quote: Summaries copied from 2 different sources… I have read the original text “the faithful saints who await resurrection in Paradise, the merely virtuous who await their reward, the wicked who await punishment, and the wicked who have already been punished and will not be resurrected on Judgement Day” “in the first section, the faithful saints blissfully await judgment day, in the second section, the moderately-good await their reward, in the third section, the wicked are punished and await their judgment at the resurrection (see Gehenna), and in the last section, the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented” So, what's contradicting about that? If anything, we're making assumptions that people can only wait for the resurrection in Sheol; that brings to mind Enoch and Elijah again. Despite not experiencing death and being translated already, they're waiting for the resurrection day too, not for them, but for us to be transformed. It's only after the first resurrection that we reign with Christ, and only after the second resurrection that the new earth is created. Whether resurrected or in the realm of the dead, everyone is waiting for resurrection day and judgment day. We are making an awful lot of assumptions... If Jude 1:6 does suggest that the fallen angels are imprisoned and have no part in anything relating to our human world/life etc do we need to assume that God prior to this gave them "play time" with humans prior to their imprisonment? After all they cannot have been imprisoned & at the same time taking wives mating with them could they? It's not entirely clear which group is related in which verses - Enoch ch22Yes, that is where Enoch & Elijah are but we are talking about the dead and specifically the grave here, not heaven shere Enoch & Elijah are. One obvious conflict arises with the 4th & most unfortunate of the groups who don't score a resurrection at all. In the bible there are 2 resurrections - the first for the righteous dead at Jesus 2nd coming and the second for the wicked dead after the 1000 years as we've already discussed. And as we've already made clear no one is in hellfire right now (which comes after the 1000 years) - so here we have a serious problem with one group apparently left out of the picture given the clear message from Enoch. And no, we've already established that the rich man is in the grave, not the final lake of fire although it sounds an awful lot like it. ============== Sorry, just having a re-read. Are you now suggesting that possibly the demons are souls/spirits of dead hybrid offspring of fallen angels/humans and that their souls/spirits are not subject to the same destination/restrictions that 100% humans are? Quote: Which now that I mention it, something else I noticed about 1 Peter 3:20, where it says only 8 souls survived, that would mean animals don't have souls, because a whole bunch of animals survived the flood in the ark, yet only 8 souls survived. So, it's possible for living things not to have souls. Maybe that's true of the hybrid offspring and thus, could be a reason why they're not in the realm of the dead, but out here possessing people, especially if the animating force in them wasn't the breath of God. Does this suggest that if the hybrids don't have souls that possibly there were more than just the animals, Noah & his family survive through the flood? Would that not then negate the suggestion that the Nephilim genes passed down through one of Noah's daughter-in-laws as you rightfully pointed out they had souls according to 1 Peter 3:20? Quote: ...especially if the animating force in them wasn't the breath of God. Who or what else has the power to give life to that which has none besides God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:19 am
jack0076970 We are making an awful lot of assumptions... If Jude 1:6 does suggest that the fallen angels are imprisoned and have no part in anything relating to our human world/life etc do we need to assume that God prior to this gave them "play time" with humans prior to their imprisonment? After all they cannot have been imprisoned & at the same time taking wives mating with them could they? Well, that is the reason they were imprisoned in the first place: because of their decision to come down to earth and mate with human women. Quote: Yes, that is where Enoch & Elijah are but we are talking about the dead and specifically the grave here, not heaven shere Enoch & Elijah are. One obvious conflict arises with the 4th & most unfortunate of the groups who don't score a resurrection at all. In the bible there are 2 resurrections - the first for the righteous dead at Jesus 2nd coming and the second for the wicked dead after the 1000 years as we've already discussed. And as we've already made clear no one is in hellfire right now (which comes after the 1000 years) - so here we have a serious problem with one group apparently left out of the picture given the clear message from Enoch. And no, we've already established that the rich man is in the grave, not the final lake of fire although it sounds an awful lot like it. Is the "(see Gehenna)" bit part of the original text or is it the person summarizing it that plugged that in there? If it's the latter, the inclusion of Gehenna for the third section could be their mistake. We know people can't enter Gehenna without resurrecting first, unless you're like the beast and false prophet; they will be thrown in alive (Revelation 19:20). So if anything, Gehenna would apply to that last section, not the third. Quote: “in the first section, the faithful saints blissfully await judgment day, in the second section, the moderately-good await their reward, in the third section, the wicked are punished and await their judgment at the resurrection (see Gehenna), and in the last section, the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented” As for the accepted canon, it does say righteous and wicked will resurrect, but it also mentions an unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29); if people commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is it even necessary to check and see if their name is written in the Book of Life? They committed an unforgivable crime. So an assumption on my part: that no one has been thrown into Gehenna alive already; what if people / entities have committed this crime previously and they've been judged for it, currently suffering, as we speak, in Gehenna (no need to resurrect since they weren't killed, but thrown in alive; maybe being thrown in kills you, you still exist, but you won't be resurrected out ever)? The beast and the false prophet won't be having a trial. I, or we, shouldn't assume that there haven't been cases like these already; at least we have no reason to assume it hasn't happened before. The Holy Spirit, being God, has always been around and if evil spirits, like those inside of the beast who spoke blasphemies (Revelation 16:13 & 13:5), were around before til now, there could've been individual entities committing this unforgivable crime all this time. Quote: ============== Sorry, just having a re-read. Are you now suggesting that possibly the demons are souls/spirits of dead hybrid offspring of fallen angels/humans and that their souls/spirits are not subject to the same destination/restrictions that 100% humans are? Quote: Which now that I mention it, something else I noticed about 1 Peter 3:20, where it says only 8 souls survived, that would mean animals don't have souls, because a whole bunch of animals survived the flood in the ark, yet only 8 souls survived. So, it's possible for living things not to have souls. Maybe that's true of the hybrid offspring and thus, could be a reason why they're not in the realm of the dead, but out here possessing people, especially if the animating force in them wasn't the breath of God. Does this suggest that if the hybrids don't have souls that possibly there were more than just the animals, Noah & his family survive through the flood? Would that not then negate the suggestion that the Nephilim genes passed down through one of Noah's daughter-in-laws as you rightfully pointed out they had souls according to 1 Peter 3:20? Quote: ...especially if the animating force in them wasn't the breath of God. Who or what else has the power to give life to that which has none besides God? I'm not suggesting the daughters-in-law were soulless, just having tainted DNA in their physical bodies (hence the giants). But yeah, I was just thinking about this before I came on to reply, they must have souls since they were partly human and therefore must be in the realm of the dead, not sure which section though. And also, yes, I made another big assumption: that only angels (fallen or obedient), God, humans and animals existed. What if he created evil spirits to beginwith, in no relation to the angels at all? I remember reading about how God sent an evil spirit to Saul to make him prophesy (1 Samuel 18:10) and torment Saul (1 Samuel 16:14-23) even making him throw a javelin at David while he was under possession of this spirit (1 Samuel 19:9-10), and before that, God sent an evil spirit to ignite the chain of events that would lead to Abimelech's death (Judges 9:23). So, despite the spirit being evil, it comes from God. So, it must be the breath of God. Yet, if so, why is it called an "unclean" spirit? Can God's spirit/breath be unclean (lol, that sounds funny, but I mean no disrespect). Everything he makes is clean/good, and through the creations' own volition it becomes tainted/unclean (like humanity and fallen angels). That part is puzzling. How can God, who doesn't tolerate being in the presence of uncleanness, breathe out uncleanness confused ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:39 am
Back to the topic... and the Bible.
Are the wicked (as a literal reading of the Rich Man/Lazarus would suggest) burning now?
"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 2 Peter 2:9
"So shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire." Matthew 13:40-42
"The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48.
"The wicked is reserved to the day of destruction." "Yet shall he be brought to the grave, and shall remain in the tomb." Job 21:30, 32.
It's clear from the word of God that the wicked are not being punished now - they are reserved for the day of judgment at the end of the world. Treating the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus as a parable is in keeping with Jesus intention and worth noting, in harmony with the rest of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
