Charismatic Bible Studies - 2 Peter 2:4-9

[RandyK]

Giants in the Bible .

Giants in the Land: A Biblical Theology of the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim (and Goliath) — Knowing Scripture

Israel initially refused to enter the land because of giants, and only men of great faith (Joshua, Caleb, and David) were able to defeat them.

knowingscripture.com

When I spoke of the "seed war " earlier in this thread , read this excerpt from the link , it is something I had never thought of . RandyK , this may be new info for you too .

It is also important to mention that Goliath wore “scale armor” (שִׁרְי֥וֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂ֖ים, shiryon qasqasim) (1 Samuel 17:5). This armor weighed over 125 pounds, implying he was massive. Everywhere the term קַשְׂקַשִּׂ֖ים (qasqasim) is used in the OT, it means “scales” (Leviticus 11:9-10, 12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10; Ezekiel 29:4). The ESV only makes one exception, as it translates the word as “coat of mail” here in 1 Samuel 17:5. Though this translation is understandable because chain mail would resemble scales, it obscures an important connection with the serpent (and possibly Dagon).

Scale armor ramps up the significance, as it connects Goliath with the serpent himself. Goliath was the seed of the serpent, and David was of the seed of the woman. Whether Goliath was the biological offspring of the serpent (through the Nephilim) or merely the spiritual offspring, there is a connection with Genesis 3:15. David killed Goliath with a stone to the head, and then he cut off Goliath’s head (1 Samuel 17:48-51). David, the seed of the woman, crushed the head of the seed of the serpent. Thus David’s defeat of Goliath is ultimately a picture of Christ conquering the devil.

I find it interesting, but not indicative of Goliath being descended from a mix of devils and women. Clearly, the Bible speaks of "children of the Devil." I have my own way of explaining this, but it is controversial.

I got my view, I think, from God, but people would question this because it's very subjective. If you want to know about my view on this, and do not get upset over those who are Predestination-oriented, just ask--whether public or private.

Thanks brother. You're a good man. You definitely are *not* a child of the Devil. I *know* that!

 

[RandyK]

Why do you say demons?

I don't discriminate between fallen angels and demons. I believe "demons" to be a generic name for fallen angels who are running amok on earth.

 

[JLB]

I don't discriminate between fallen angels and demons. I believe "demons" to be a generic name for fallen angels who are running amok on earth.

Ok.

However the text says sons of God.

In 2 Peter it says angels.

Satan and his angels are still free to “run amok” as you say.

The angels who sinned in the days of Noah are not free but bound in (hell) Tatarus.

Satan had already fallen when these Watcher’s commingled with the daughters of men.

 

[RandyK]

Ok.

However the text says sons of God.

I was speaking of the idea, put forward, that the "sons of God" are fallen angels, who had sex with women and reproduced "giants."

In 2 Peter it says angels.

What part of 2 Peter are you referring to?

2 Pet 2.3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Note: I consider the sons of God = fallen angels who had sex with women and reproduced "giants" to be a "fabricated story."

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.

Note: Lot brought two angels into his house, where they witnessed the sin of the Sodomites. The suggestion in the story of the Flood, which happened prior to this, is that angels had been imprisoned for their own sins.

We don't know what those sins were? They may have occurred prior to the creation of mankind, and worked to corrupt mankind, as Satan had done, leading to the corruption of the sons of God (human followers of God) before the Flood.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord.

Note: People in Peter's day condemned fallen angels, pretending that they were not complicit in the same sins. But they were. The evidence of this was that they did not speak with the right tone about angels, even though they were fallen.

12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

Note: The evidence that the men in Peter's time were as bad as the angels they condemned was in the way they lived, following their carnal desires. The fallen angels had followed Satan in his carnal desire to be free of God's control over him. It was a lust for unbridled power, not subject to the love and authority of God.

Satan and his angels are still free to “run amok” as you say.

The angels who sinned in the days of Noah are not free but bound in (hell) Tatarus.

Satan had already fallen when these Watcher’s commingled with the daughters of men.

I agree except that I do not accept your identification of these "Watchers," which you apparently believe are the "sons of God" who mingle with the daughters of men. It's okay--you're certainly entitled to make an informed guess about this controversial subject--Christians overall have not seemed to come to agreement about it. I've added my two bits for your information.

 

[hawkman]

Who Were the “Sons of God” and the Nephilim? (Genesis 6:1-4) — Knowing Scripture

Genesis 6:1-4 fascinates many Bible readers because of the mysterious identity of both “the sons of God” and the Nephilim. Sadly, many modern theologians pay little attention to this passage because they hold the pedestrian view that “the sons of God” refers to the godly line of Seth.

knowingscripture.com

Excerpt from link .
*****************************************************************************
Seven Arguments For the Traditional View

Here are seven arguments in support of the traditional view that the “sons of God” were spirit beings who mated with human women and produced the Nephilim:

1. The phrase “sons of God” elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to spirit beings/angels. The “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2, 4) is a phrase used three other times in the Bible outside of Genesis 6—Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. In all three of these instances the “sons of God” are spirit/angelic beings, including Satan himself. The use of the phrase in Job suggests that Genesis 6 is speaking of spirits/angels.
2. Genesis 6:1-2 contrasts the “sons of God” with “man,” implying that these are non-human beings. Genesis 6:1 says that “man began to multiply” and “daughters were born to them.” The Hebrew word for “man” (adam) is the generic term for mankind, as used in Genesis 5:1-2. Nothing in the text suggests that only “some” men (either ungodly men or kings) were having children in Genesis 6:1. Rather, the “sons of God” (v. 2) are contrasted with “man”—thus the “sons of God” were distinct from “man” and were marrying daughters of all mankind. The “sons of God” must therefore be non-human beings of some sort.
3. The view that the “sons of God” refers to the godly line requires the unlikely explanation that the ungodly women were far more “attractive” than the godly women. Genesis 6:1 only mentions the pursuit of human “daughters” and not sons—“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.” The “sons of God” then saw that these women were “attractive” (tovot) and thus took them as their wives (Genesis 6:2). If Genesis 6 is about the intermarriage between the godly line (the Sethites) and the ungodly line (the Cainites), it is odd that only godly men were marrying ungodly women and not ungodly men marrying godly women. Were the godly women just that unattractive? The traditional view offers a much better explanation—as humanity began to multiply, the spirit beings found these human women to be sexually “attractive.”
4. Immediately following the reference to intermarriage, God says He will judge man because he is “flesh” (Genesis 6:3), implying that humans were trying to become more than normal “flesh” by marrying spirit beings. In Genesis 6:3, God says, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” This suggests vv. 1-2 refer to humans trying to become more than normal human “flesh” and live “forever.” Humans were going along with the intermarriage with spirit beings in the quest for immortality. God says He will not put up with this because humans are mortal (“flesh”), and He therefore decreases their maximum lifespan to 120 years. (This could also mean He will wipe them out with a flood in 120 years.) Ages steadily decline in Genesis 11, and it becomes rare that anyone exceeds 120 years of age.
5. The context implies that the Nephilim were the resulting offspring of spirit beings and humans. The Nephilim (Hebrew נְּפִלִ֞ים, “fallen ones;” the Greek LXX has γίγαντες, “giants”) in Genesis 6:4 are mysterious characters—“the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” The text does not explicate how the Nephilim got there. It simply says, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”[1] But why are the Nephilim mentioned in the same passage as the intermarriage of the “sons of God” and “daughters of man” here in Genesis 6? It is unclear how these mighty men of renown came about if they were not the product of intermarriage between spirit beings and humans.
6. Jude likely understands Genesis 6:1-4 to refer to the intermarriage between spirit beings and humans. Jude 6 speaks of “angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” Unless Jude is speaking of an unknown event, he seems to be referencing the angels of Genesis 6:1-4 who left heaven to live on earth. (Jude seems to be adopting the view of the Apocryphal 1 Enoch 7, which references Genesis 6:1-4 and makes the angel explanation explicit.) This becomes even clearer when Jude compares these angels to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, “which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" [literally “other flesh”] (Jude 7). We know that Sodom and Gomorrah sexually pursued “other flesh” in that they practiced homosexuality (Genesis 19:5). (Though “men” in the passage were angels, which could also explain the “other flesh.”) What “other flesh” did angels “likewise” pursue? This only makes sense if Jude is referring to the angels of Genesis 6:1-4 pursuing sexual relations with humans. (Recall Genesis 6:3, where God calls man “flesh.”)
7. The Bible never rules out the sexual capabilities of spirit beings/angels. The primary objection to the traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 is that Jesus teaches that angels do not marry. While Jesus does imply that angels do not marry or have sexual relations, notice that Jesus only speaks of angels in heaven and not of fallen angels on earth—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). Jesus says nothing about the sexual capabilities of angels, leaving open the possibility that they are capable of sexual relations but refrain from such in heaven. Further, the Sodom and Gomorrah story implies that angels have such sexual capabilities. They were at least perceived by the Sodomites as beings that could be raped (Genesis 19:5).

These arguments form a strong case for the traditional view that the “sons of God” mated with human women and produced the Nephilim. Though this sounds odd to our modern ears, the same could be said for the entire Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction, and the world God has created is far different from what we often think.

 

[RandyK]

Who Were the “Sons of God” and the Nephilim? (Genesis 6:1-4) — Knowing Scripture

Genesis 6:1-4 fascinates many Bible readers because of the mysterious identity of both “the sons of God” and the Nephilim. Sadly, many modern theologians pay little attention to this passage because they hold the pedestrian view that “the sons of God” refers to the godly line of Seth.

knowingscripture.com

Excerpt from link .
*****************************************************************************
Seven Arguments For the Traditional View

Here are seven arguments in support of the traditional view that the “sons of God” were spirit beings who mated with human women and produced the Nephilim:

1. The phrase “sons of God” elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to spirit beings/angels. The “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2, 4) is a phrase used three other times in the Bible outside of Genesis 6—Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. In all three of these instances the “sons of God” are spirit/angelic beings, including Satan himself. The use of the phrase in Job suggests that Genesis 6 is speaking of spirits/angels.
2. Genesis 6:1-2 contrasts the “sons of God” with “man,” implying that these are non-human beings. Genesis 6:1 says that “man began to multiply” and “daughters were born to them.” The Hebrew word for “man” (adam) is the generic term for mankind, as used in Genesis 5:1-2. Nothing in the text suggests that only “some” men (either ungodly men or kings) were having children in Genesis 6:1. Rather, the “sons of God” (v. 2) are contrasted with “man”—thus the “sons of God” were distinct from “man” and were marrying daughters of all mankind. The “sons of God” must therefore be non-human beings of some sort.
3. The view that the “sons of God” refers to the godly line requires the unlikely explanation that the ungodly women were far more “attractive” than the godly women. Genesis 6:1 only mentions the pursuit of human “daughters” and not sons—“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.” The “sons of God” then saw that these women were “attractive” (tovot) and thus took them as their wives (Genesis 6:2). If Genesis 6 is about the intermarriage between the godly line (the Sethites) and the ungodly line (the Cainites), it is odd that only godly men were marrying ungodly women and not ungodly men marrying godly women. Were the godly women just that unattractive? The traditional view offers a much better explanation—as humanity began to multiply, the spirit beings found these human women to be sexually “attractive.”
4. Immediately following the reference to intermarriage, God says He will judge man because he is “flesh” (Genesis 6:3), implying that humans were trying to become more than normal “flesh” by marrying spirit beings. In Genesis 6:3, God says, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” This suggests vv. 1-2 refer to humans trying to become more than normal human “flesh” and live “forever.” Humans were going along with the intermarriage with spirit beings in the quest for immortality. God says He will not put up with this because humans are mortal (“flesh”), and He therefore decreases their maximum lifespan to 120 years. (This could also mean He will wipe them out with a flood in 120 years.) Ages steadily decline in Genesis 11, and it becomes rare that anyone exceeds 120 years of age.
5. The context implies that the Nephilim were the resulting offspring of spirit beings and humans. The Nephilim (Hebrew נְּפִלִ֞ים, “fallen ones;” the Greek LXX has γίγαντες, “giants”) in Genesis 6:4 are mysterious characters—“the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” The text does not explicate how the Nephilim got there. It simply says, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”[1] But why are the Nephilim mentioned in the same passage as the intermarriage of the “sons of God” and “daughters of man” here in Genesis 6? It is unclear how these mighty men of renown came about if they were not the product of intermarriage between spirit beings and humans.
6. Jude likely understands Genesis 6:1-4 to refer to the intermarriage between spirit beings and humans. Jude 6 speaks of “angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” Unless Jude is speaking of an unknown event, he seems to be referencing the angels of Genesis 6:1-4 who left heaven to live on earth. (Jude seems to be adopting the view of the Apocryphal 1 Enoch 7, which references Genesis 6:1-4 and makes the angel explanation explicit.) This becomes even clearer when Jude compares these angels to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, “which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" [literally “other flesh”] (Jude 7). We know that Sodom and Gomorrah sexually pursued “other flesh” in that they practiced homosexuality (Genesis 19:5). (Though “men” in the passage were angels, which could also explain the “other flesh.”) What “other flesh” did angels “likewise” pursue? This only makes sense if Jude is referring to the angels of Genesis 6:1-4 pursuing sexual relations with humans. (Recall Genesis 6:3, where God calls man “flesh.”)
7. The Bible never rules out the sexual capabilities of spirit beings/angels. The primary objection to the traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 is that Jesus teaches that angels do not marry. While Jesus does imply that angels do not marry or have sexual relations, notice that Jesus only speaks of angels in heaven and not of fallen angels on earth—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). Jesus says nothing about the sexual capabilities of angels, leaving open the possibility that they are capable of sexual relations but refrain from such in heaven. Further, the Sodom and Gomorrah story implies that angels have such sexual capabilities. They were at least perceived by the Sodomites as beings that could be raped (Genesis 19:5).

These arguments form a strong case for the traditional view that the “sons of God” mated with human women and produced the Nephilim. Though this sounds odd to our modern ears, the same could be said for the entire Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction, and the world God has created is far different from what we often think.

Yes, we've all reviewed these arguments in our own minds when we've read this passage. It is language that suggests two possible options. However, there are arguments for both positions equally. You have to decide for yourself.

Personally, I see no theology in the Bible bearing out the sons of God = angels theology--it has to be constructed logically from certain renditions of a few passages. The term "sons of God" clearly can refer to angels, as it is given in Job. But it can also refer to people, as we see in the NT Scriptures.

For me, it makes perfect sense without bringing angels into it. I find little edifying about angels mating with women, though I suppose one can draw lessons about avoiding contact with devils. I'd rather keep things within the domain of man, because the things above/or below can get a little speculative. ;)

Thanks

 

[hawkman]

In my home state !

1,000 year-old Native American carvings of mysterious giant humanoids discovered on the ceiling of an Alabama cave

The only way to see the unique carvings was to digitally "stand back" from the low cave ceiling by mapping the cave using more than 16,000 photos.

www.yahoo.com

 

[RandyK]

In my home state !

1,000 year-old Native American carvings of mysterious giant humanoids discovered on the ceiling of an Alabama cave

The only way to see the unique carvings was to digitally "stand back" from the low cave ceiling by mapping the cave using more than 16,000 photos.

www.yahoo.com

That's certainly true. I believe that certain demons prior to the Flood tempted the "sons of God," ie human followers of God, to indulge their lust for beautiful women who knew how to use carnal methods to seduce them. Lustful attraction can be stronger than normal interest in female beauty!

These demons were judged by God by incarcerating them until the time of final judgment. The world was judged with a Flood, destroying all of human civilization except for Noah and his family.

The lesson is clear: we are to resist satanic temptation to indulge our carnal desires. We need to resist the seductive ways of this world, that flatter us and want us to yield to human pride, to the lust for power, to get what we want at the expense of God's will and the interests and needs of others.

We need to stay laser focused on Christ in heaven, who is waiting for us, cheering us on to obey his word and to thereby obtain a good reward for obedience. We are to look to him, and ignore the enticements of this world, leading us down a dark path of failure and despair. We need to rejoice in God our Savior and in our Salvation.

Women are not fighting off fallen angels who want to physically rape them. That's just not happening. That's not the "spiritual warfare" that I see being talked about by Paul.

I'm currently exchanging emails with my brother over the word "folly," as you mentioned. Yes, it has taken me this long to get an answer from him! ;) I'll let you know--he is honest to a fault and will *never* tell you what you wish to hear! ;)

 

[RandyK]

The following are my brother's thoughts on how to define "folly," Hawkman. He doesn't necessarily see any justification for defining "folly" as anything more than an "error," if I interpret him properly. Incidentally, where he uses the word "follow" a couple of times, I think he meant to say "folly." I'm not saying my brother is an expert--he's just quite good, and far ahead of me on biblical languages...

Hi Randy,

Thank you for narrowing down my own homework. I'll start there, and offer what insights I find regarding the word "folly" in Job 4:18. First I consulted the NET Bible. It reads, adding verse 19 to complete the sentence,

18 If God puts no trust in his servants
and attributes folly to his angels,
19 how much more to those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundation is in the dust,

I see that in this if-then construction, an ellipsis occurs in the "then" portion. If so, verse 19 would be understood like this:

"how much more [would God attribute folly] to those who live in houses of clay . . . ."

Eliphaz, in verse 17, identifies those to whom he is referring in verse 17 as "mortal man." This seems important to me because whatever God means by "folly" in verse 18 would have to be applicable to all the people Eliphaz is talking about in verse 19. "Folly" or "error", as seen below, seems to fit reasonably as a gloss. Something more specific is not implied in the text.

(By the way, has anyone recognized that Eliphaz is a less than reliable witness to the truth?)

I would make a second observation based on the footnote found at the word "folly" in the NET Bible, and this is how it reads:

tn The word תָּהֳלָה (toholah) is a hapax legomenon, and so has created some confusion in the various translations. It seems to mean “error; folly.” The word is translated “perverseness” in the LXX; but Symmachus connects it with the word for “madness.” “Some commentators have repointed the word to תְּהִלָּה (tÿhillah, “praise”) making the line read: “he finds no [cause for] praise in his angels.” Others suggest תִּפְלָה (tiflah, “offensiveness, silliness”) a bigger change; this matches the idiom in Job 24:12. But if the etymology of the word is הָלַל (halal, “to be mad”) then that change is not necessary. The feminine noun “madness” still leaves the meaning of the line a little uncertain: “[if] he does not impute madness to his angels.” The point of the verse is that God finds flaws in his angels and does not put his trust in them.
That the Hebrew word for folly is a hapax legomenon is important. "Hapax legomenon" means in Greek "read once." This technical term is used to identify a word that is found only one time in the Bible. That means to me that wherever else you find the word "follow" as an English gloss, it is translating a different Hebrew word. Therefore, anyone comparing how the word "follow" is used elsewhere in an English Bible is using a potentially imprecise and unreliable comparison.

To what authority should we turn to find the meaning for this word in its context? The best (affordable) Hebrew-English lexicon is BDB. Here is how it defines the word translated folly. Note that BDB cites just one reference, Job 4:18, because the word doesn't occur elsewhere in the Bible:

Brown-Driver-Briggs
תָּהְָלָה noun feminine error (? si vera lectio; v תהל according to DiLex. Aeth. 522, who compare Ethiopic

III. rove, wander; Arabic

is commit error, compare BaNB § 179. Anm. 3); — ׳וּבְמַלְאָכָיו יָשִׂים ת Job 14:18, < read תִּפְלָה q. v.
תְּהִלָּה see II. הלל. [תַּהֲלוּכָה] see הלך.

I should mention before continuing that the reference to Job 14:18 in BDB is an obvious typo (תָּהְָלָה is not found there), where it should read Job 4:18.

Because there is so little upon which to determine a meaning for this word as used just once in the Bible, support for the meaning "error" appears based, perhaps in part, upon a similar word, apparently a verb, in Arabic. So, to go beyond "error" in suggesting a meaning for this word, especially based upon the same English gloss but based on different Hebrew words, is really going out on a limb. Pure speculation, isn't it? This doesn't make for a persuasive interpretation to me if "folly" or "error" (though "folly" adds a nuance to "error" that could be challenged) isn't recognized here as the most likely meaning of the word in this context. (I do tend to recognize that translations made by our best versions of the Bible are often based on solid evidence that we aren't aware of but which the translators make good use of to be faithful to the text.)

I hope you find this helpful. You can see where this approach would make addressing the whole discussion (the 20 pages) an overwhelming task. But in theological discussions, like in a court of law, a case often stands or falls on the credibility of a single assertion. Maybe that will prove to be the case here.

Mark

 

[Johann!@#]

I need the freedom to quote the Scriptures on subjects that I feel apply. On this subject I honestly feel there *could be* a danger of that.

Again, think about the subject matter: sex between demons and loose women. Not very healthy, I should think? But if it's true, then the truth cannot be ignored. It must be some kind of warning not to mix with the occult and immoral people.

Again, I quoted to you the Scriptures...

Titus 1.13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

1 Tim 1.3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

1 Tim 4.7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

2 Tim 4.3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

These things are an honest concern I have with what seem to be myth-like legends, even though they've been believed by some very good Christians.

Did my links not give you a credible basis for my concerns? The "giants" evidence was proven to be a hoax, created by people who honestly wanted to believe the Gen 6 story was all about devils mating with women to create giants.

I never give people what they *demand* I give them--I'm responsible to God and to the Holy Spirit, as He guides me, to speak the truth in love. Of course, when others do not like my thoughts they do not consider my motivations to be "love." I'll let God be the judge.

I went out of my way to say that my concerns did not apply specifically to you or to anyone here now engaging in this conversation. It is a concern that this material could have the capacity to take people away from the message of godliness to vain speculations about angels mating with women and having giant children.

Have we moved away from messages about godliness in this conversation? Perhaps. Then it might be wise to move on...

RandyK
Have you seen my signature?

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

Again, think about the subject matter: sex between demons and loose women. Not very healthy, I should think? But if it's true, then the truth cannot be ignored. It must be some kind of warning not to mix with the occult and immoral people.

RandyK

Would you please forward this to your brother?

Jude 6–7: The Greek Text Demands a Sexual Interpretation of the Angels’ Sin

The argument that Jude 6–7 does not refer to sexual sin by angels cannot withstand a close reading of the Greek. Regardless of whether one accepts the Book of Enoch or not, the text of Jude itself - on grammatical, lexical, and structural grounds - makes this position untenable.

1. The Key Grammatical Link: "τούτοις" (toútois)
Jude 7 says: “Sodom and Gomorrah… in like manner to these (τοὺς ὁμοιον τρόπον τούτοις) gave themselves to sexual immorality…”

The word τούτοις is dative plural masculine, which in Greek grammar cannot refer to the cities (πόλεις, feminine plural).
It must refer back to the most recent masculine plural antecedent - namely, the angels in Jude 6.
Therefore, Jude is explicitly claiming that Sodom’s sexual sin mirrored that of the angels.

2. The Sexual Terms Are Not Figurative
The verb ἐκπορνεύσασαι (from πορνεύω) means to completely give oneself over to sexual immorality. It is never used metaphorically in the NT.

The phrase σαρκὸς ἑτέρας - "strange flesh" -conveys pursuit of illegitimate sexual union, especially across created boundaries.
This matches the kind of transgression attributed to the angels who “did not keep their proper domain” (ἀρχὴν) - a word suggesting position or sphere of existence, not merely moral rebellion.
This phrase does not support abstract categories like pride or false teaching-it plainly refers to bodily sin involving unauthorized flesh.

3. Structural Context: Three Historical Judgments
Jude presents three concrete examples of divine judgment:
(1) Israel's unbelief in the wilderness (v. 5),
(2) Angels abandoning their own domain (v. 6),
(3) Sodom and Gomorrah's sexual sin (v. 7).
These are all literal historical acts of rebellion, each followed by divine retribution.
The angels' sin is described in terms that are structurally parallel to Sodom’s sexual perversion, not metaphorically distinct.

4. Jude’s Ongoing Emphasis on Fleshly Defilement
Later in Jude 8, the false teachers are condemned for "defiling the flesh" (σαρκὰ μιαίνουσιν) — further reinforcing the bodily and sexual character of the sin he has in view throughout.
It is wholly consistent for Jude to begin with angels who transgress fleshly boundaries, then cite Sodom as a fitting historical analogy, and then apply the principle to current heretics.


Jude 6–7, by the rules of Koine Greek syntax and lexicon, describes angels who committed a sin akin to Sodom’s sexual immorality.
The grammar (τούτοις), the vocabulary (ἐκπορνεύσασαι, σαρκός ἑτέρας), and the structure of the passage all support this reading.
One may reject later interpretations, but one cannot honestly read Jude’s Greek text and deny that he viewed the angels’ sin as sexual in nature.


Gnosticism is rampant in our day, just as in the early church - along with every form of sexual immorality that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:5; Jude 4, 19).

I truly appreciate @Hidden In Him’s study on this - it sheds much-needed light on what the apostles warned would come: “worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19).

At the end of the day, it is not secret knowledge or intellectualism that marks a true believer - but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Romans 8:9).

Gnosticism offers knowledge; Christ offers life (John 17:3).

J.

 

[JLB]

I was speaking of the idea, put forward, that the "sons of God" are fallen angels, who had sex with women and reproduced "giants."

These were sons of God.

They did become fallen angels when they did what they did.


They were not “fallen angels” from the group of Satan and his angels’

 

[JLB]

What part of 2 Peter are you referring to?

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5

 

[JLB]

We don't know what those sins were?

The sin that got these angels cast down to hell, was immoral sexual relations with the daughters of men.


For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5

The angels who God cast down to hell are contextually linked with the days of Noah.

 

[JLB]

I agree except that I do not accept your identification of these "Watchers," which you apparently believe are the "sons of God" who mingle with the daughters of men. It's okay--you're certainly entitled to make an informed guess about this controversial subject--Christians overall have not seemed to come to agreement about it. I've added my two bits for your information.

Ok. I will just refer to them as sons of God or angels.

 

[RandyK]

RandyK

Would you please forward this to your brother?

Jude 6–7: The Greek Text Demands a Sexual Interpretation of the Angels’ Sin

The argument that Jude 6–7 does not refer to sexual sin by angels cannot withstand a close reading of the Greek. Regardless of whether one accepts the Book of Enoch or not, the text of Jude itself - on grammatical, lexical, and structural grounds - makes this position untenable.

1. The Key Grammatical Link: "τούτοις" (toútois)
Jude 7 says: “Sodom and Gomorrah… in like manner to these (τοὺς ὁμοιον τρόπον τούτοις) gave themselves to sexual immorality…”

The word τούτοις is dative plural masculine, which in Greek grammar cannot refer to the cities (πόλεις, feminine plural).
It must refer back to the most recent masculine plural antecedent - namely, the angels in Jude 6.
Therefore, Jude is explicitly claiming that Sodom’s sexual sin mirrored that of the angels.

2. The Sexual Terms Are Not Figurative
The verb ἐκπορνεύσασαι (from πορνεύω) means to completely give oneself over to sexual immorality. It is never used metaphorically in the NT.

The phrase σαρκὸς ἑτέρας - "strange flesh" -conveys pursuit of illegitimate sexual union, especially across created boundaries.
This matches the kind of transgression attributed to the angels who “did not keep their proper domain” (ἀρχὴν) - a word suggesting position or sphere of existence, not merely moral rebellion.
This phrase does not support abstract categories like pride or false teaching-it plainly refers to bodily sin involving unauthorized flesh.

3. Structural Context: Three Historical Judgments
Jude presents three concrete examples of divine judgment:
(1) Israel's unbelief in the wilderness (v. 5),
(2) Angels abandoning their own domain (v. 6),
(3) Sodom and Gomorrah's sexual sin (v. 7).
These are all literal historical acts of rebellion, each followed by divine retribution.
The angels' sin is described in terms that are structurally parallel to Sodom’s sexual perversion, not metaphorically distinct.

4. Jude’s Ongoing Emphasis on Fleshly Defilement
Later in Jude 8, the false teachers are condemned for "defiling the flesh" (σαρκὰ μιαίνουσιν) — further reinforcing the bodily and sexual character of the sin he has in view throughout.
It is wholly consistent for Jude to begin with angels who transgress fleshly boundaries, then cite Sodom as a fitting historical analogy, and then apply the principle to current heretics.


Jude 6–7, by the rules of Koine Greek syntax and lexicon, describes angels who committed a sin akin to Sodom’s sexual immorality.
The grammar (τούτοις), the vocabulary (ἐκπορνεύσασαι, σαρκός ἑτέρας), and the structure of the passage all support this reading.
One may reject later interpretations, but one cannot honestly read Jude’s Greek text and deny that he viewed the angels’ sin as sexual in nature.


Gnosticism is rampant in our day, just as in the early church - along with every form of sexual immorality that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:5; Jude 4, 19).

I truly appreciate @Hidden In Him’s study on this - it sheds much-needed light on what the apostles warned would come: “worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit” (Jude 19).

At the end of the day, it is not secret knowledge or intellectualism that marks a true believer - but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Romans 8:9).

Gnosticism offers knowledge; Christ offers life (John 17:3).

J.

It's a comparison between two similar things, but not to two exact same things. I pointed this out before, and obviously many good Christians and scholars argue against your point for this reason. Let me give you an example.

Group A left their religious upbringing. Group B left theit heterosexual tradition. We may compare group A with group B on the basis of their departing from a moral philosophy or code of ethic. But the comparison *does not* mean both groups did the *same exact thing.* The comparison does not even mean that both groups were involved, like the 2nd group, with a departure from sexual standards.

In our example, in Jude, the comparison is between angels who have left their habitation and Sodomites who have left their sexual moral compass. In both cases the comparison is between groups who have departed from normal moral standards.

But the comparison does *not* demand that group A be guilty of a sexual departure such as gorup B was. Both groups departed from different things, and the comparison is based on a departure from moral norms--not just the kind of moral norms followed by group B.

The comparison is based upon corrupted moral conduct that similarly merits divine punishment. Departure from habitation with God by angels is equally punishable as departure from heterosexual sex by men.

This is easy, and I don't need to relay this to my brother. I can still do that, but I'm inclined to predict how he would answer. Every time I try to lure him into a theological debate he indicates he is strictly interested in the *language*--not theological presuppositions. That's why I go to him on *language* issues.

Jude 1. 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Note: The context here is not *sexual sin.* Rather, it is *punishment for sin.*

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

The punishment for angels was specifically for the sin of "abandoning their proper dwelling," leaving their place with God. It was *not* said to be sexual sin.

7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Note: The sin of Sodom was sexual sin, comparable to the non-sexual sin attributed to the angels, who "left their habitation." The Sodomites left their *moral place with God.*

It is a *theological presumption* that this comparison would imply that both angels and Sodomites committed *sexual sins.* It is *not* in the text in Jude, as I see it, and as others see it.

Since the time of the Flood is linked to a reference to angels who departed from God's presence and were chained, unlike other fallen angels who are still unchained, I have to assume that there is a connection. But it does not have to be that the fallen angels committed the sin of having intercourse with women.

I think it more likely that these angels tempted the sons of men who had been of faith to follow the way of "carnal knowledge," just as Satan tempted Adam and Eve. These angels promoted a great fall in the time of Noah, leading to the Flood. But whereas the people engaging in violence and lawlessness were judged by the Flood, the angels who tempted them to do this were chained in pits of darkness.

But this is pure theory on my part. We are not told much. What I cannot do, however, is claim that the "Sons of God" is a necessary reference to angels, who mated with women and produced giant children.

I consider this to be myth because Jesus said that angels in heaven do not marry, which is synonymous with gender and reproduction. It is *not* saying that angels don't marry in heaven because heaven is inhospitable to marriage.

On the contrary, it is saying that angels as a genre, who were created for heaven, *cannot marry,* wherever they are. Being created for heaven they are purely "spirit beings," and at best appear as flesh, but are not flesh.

Even if they appear on earth in human form, they still cannot marry. And we have *never* seen them do so! My opinion only...

Though angels may appear as humans, that is far from saying they *are* humans, can act like humans, and can reproduce with women and have human hybrids. That is pure "Jewish myth" to me!

Only people are said to be given to reproduce sexually on earth. To say angels did that, without explanation, sounds like "myth" to me. It seems to contradict the Creation account in which only *man* is given to "multiply and fill the earth."

So we're just left with the language and the syntax. It's what you have assumed to be true in advance that determines the "rules" you make for the "proper interpretation." I find your version of the story to be "Jewish myth." You do not. That's okay, brother. Lots of good Christians are on both sides of the fence.

 

[Johann!@#]

It's a comparison between two similar things, but not to two exact same things. I pointed this out before, and obviously many good Christians and scholars argue against your point for this reason. Let me give you an example.

Group A left their religious upbringing. Group B left theit heterosexual tradition. We may compare group A with group B on the basis of their departing from a moral philosophy or code of ethic. But the comparison *does not* mean both groups did the *same exact thing.* The comparison does not even mean that both groups were involved, like the 2nd group, with a departure from sexual standards.

In our example, in Jude, the comparison is between angels who have left their habitation and Sodomites who have left their sexual moral compass. In both cases the comparison is between groups who have departed from normal moral standards.

But the comparison does *not* demand that group A be guilty of a sexual departure such as gorup B was. Both groups departed from different things, and the comparison is based on a departure from moral norms--not just the kind of moral norms followed by group B.

The comparison is based upon corrupted moral conduct that similarly merits divine punishment. Departure from habitation with God by angels is equally punishable as departure from heterosexual sex by men.

This is easy, and I don't need to relay this to my brother. I can still do that, but I'm inclined to predict how he would answer. Every time I try to lure him into a theological debate he indicates he is strictly interested in the *language*--not theological presuppositions. That's why I go to him on *language* issues.

Jude 1. 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Note: The context here is not *sexual sin.* Rather, it is *punishment for sin.*

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

The punishment for angels was specifically for the sin of "abandoning their proper dwelling," leaving their place with God. It was *not* said to be sexual sin.

7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Note: The sin of Sodom was sexual sin, comparable to the non-sexual sin attributed to the angels, who "left their habitation." The Sodomites left their *moral place with God.*

It is a *theological presumption* that this comparison would imply that both angels and Sodomites committed *sexual sins.* It is *not* in the text in Jude, as I see it, and as others see it.

Since the time of the Flood is linked to a reference to angels who departed from God's presence and were chained, unlike other fallen angels who are still unchained, I have to assume that there is a connection. But it does not have to be that the fallen angels committed the sin of having intercourse with women.

I think it more likely that these angels tempted the sons of men who had been of faith to follow the way of "carnal knowledge," just as Satan tempted Adam and Eve. These angels promoted a great fall in the time of Noah, leading to the Flood. But whereas the people engaging in violence and lawlessness were judged by the Flood, the angels who tempted them to do this were chained in pits of darkness.

But this is pure theory on my part. We are not told much. What I cannot do, however, is claim that the "Sons of God" is a necessary reference to angels, who mated with women and produced giant children.

I consider this to be myth because Jesus said that angels in heaven do not marry, which is synonymous with gender and reproduction. It is *not* saying that angels don't marry in heaven because heaven is inhospitable to marriage.

On the contrary, it is saying that angels as a genre, who were created for heaven, *cannot marry,* wherever they are. Being created for heaven they are purely "spirit beings," and at best appear as flesh, but are not flesh.

Even if they appear on earth in human form, they still cannot marry. And we have *never* seen them do so! My opinion only...

Though angels may appear as humans, that is far from saying they *are* humans, can act like humans, and can reproduce with women and have human hybrids. That is pure "Jewish myth" to me!

Only people are said to be given to reproduce sexually on earth. To say angels did that, without explanation, sounds like "myth" to me. It seems to contradict the Creation account in which only *man* is given to "multiply and fill the earth."

So we're just left with the language and the syntax. It's what you have assumed to be true in advance that determines the "rules" you make for the "proper interpretation." I find your version of the story to be "Jewish myth." You do not. That's okay, brother. Lots of good Christians are on both sides of the fence.

All good, let's agree to disagree.

J.

 

[RandyK]

All good, let's agree to disagree.

J.

Sure. I'll send Mark your message regardless. Blessings!

 

[hawkman]

The following are my brother's thoughts on how to define "folly," Hawkman. He doesn't necessarily see any justification for defining "folly" as anything more than an "error," if I interpret him properly. Incidentally, where he uses the word "follow" a couple of times, I think he meant to say "folly." I'm not saying my brother is an expert--he's just quite good, and far ahead of me on biblical languages...

And that leaves us with the question what was the "error " ? Not much resolving the issue going on here to be honest .

 

[hawkman]

That's certainly true. I believe that certain demons prior to the Flood tempted the "sons of God," ie human followers of God, to indulge their lust for beautiful women who knew how to use carnal methods to seduce them. Lustful attraction can be stronger than normal interest in female beauty!

Where did these demons you mention come from ? I also have never heard what you just said here , where did you get this from ?