As it Was In The Days Of Noah...

[JCitoL]

Back in the beginning of this thread, Edward mentioned the Book of Enoch. I used to have that Book but lent it out and you know the rest? Yep, didn't get it back. Enoch identified "them" as fallen angels who introduced all kinds of evil to the women. cosmetic's hair styles, dress, etc. All evil. I guess, in all the research that I did, in those days, I went with fallen angels as the "them".

they were earthly clerics, not heavenly angels - the biblical word "angels" also means: spiritual servants/workers - and they taught the people to practise occultism, esotericism, transcendental meditation, astral projection, witchcraft, astrology, etc., some biblical words are strictly emblematic, e.g. when the prophet said "beautifying of the eyelids", he meant the occult methods of clairvoyance - the vedas are the most typical example of all occult and idolatrous doctrines/teachings combined in one whole

Blessings

 

[Chopper]

they were earthly clerics, not heavenly angels - the biblical word "angels" also means: spiritual servants/workers - and they taught the people to practise occultism, esotericism, transcendental meditation, astral projection, witchcraft, astrology, etc., some biblical words are strictly emblematic, e.g. when the prophet said "beautifying of the eyelids", he meant the occult methods of clairvoyance - the vedas are the most typical example of all occult and idolatrous doctrines/teachings combined in one whole

Blessings

Good information, thank you. I love it when you folk give more information on a subject. At my age (73) I'm still learning, and love it.

 

[Edward]

Interesting. I haven't been on in a few days or so and see quite a few posts here which I will give generalized response to all and hit on a few things. First, I agree, Enoch is not scripture. To my understanding, it used to be, and is certainly referred to in the scripture that we have. From what I have heard and read, the book of Enoch was considered scripture for quite awhile, and was even translated into the Septuagint, which was the (one of?) earliest translations of the OT in use at the time, and wasn't until later that it was dropped from the canon as were other books also. Later translations made even more changes, inclusions and exclusions from canon. Do you know that the book of Isaiah almost did not make it into canon? Revelation also! I write this, not to try and get anyone to regard Enoch as scripture, but just to inform you that it was for a long time, and just because it was not included does in no way mean that it should be absolutely rejected, for it is useful for many purposes that are non-salvational in nature and it is also highly interesting.

Much of scripture is stories, history, and writings of a sort which are not easily understood but is still potentially edifying in that it offers additional perspective to our own limited imaginations so that when we ponder these spiritual things we have more to go by. Enoch is no exception to that. It may not be scripture (or it may be, we simply do not know for sure. One thing we do know for sure is that real truth is suppressed, hidden, and denigrated. Could they be doing that to Enoch? Maybe, maybe not. That is for us as individuals to pray about and decide for ourselves.) I do have the E-book of Enoch, and Jasher (PM me if anyone would like the file for themselves) At least, it's entertaining, at most...it could be truth. It should not distract one from their primary focus of Christianity, which is seeking a personal relationship with our great Lord Jesus, and diligently living for the spirit, becoming one with Christ, being in Him, and He in us.

Enoch is so much more than just about fallen Angels. It fills in holes in other stories from scripture with more information. One thing I remember it said was that when Noah was born, his dad was scared of him, and he went to his father (grandfather?) Enoch to enquire why was the boy different than others?! It is said that Noah's eyes shined so bright that it filled a dark room with light, he had hair as white as snow when born, and upon being born...he blessed the name of the Lord audibly to everyone's amazement! It scared them.

It also said that the water from the heavens (rain?) is Male, and that the waters from under the earth (oceans?) are female) (wow)...and that Abraham went through the firey furnace and lived just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego! (or was that the the book of Jasher?) And many other things, verry interesting.

I did not read it as if the 'Fallen Angels' were the "them" as I asked. I took it more along the lines of the fallen angels offspring, commonly referred to as the Nephilim.

 

[King James]

Kind of like how the book of Jasher explains why Esau would sell his birthright for a mess of pottage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Chapter 25
[29] Once when Jacob was boiling pottage, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished.
[30] And Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red pottage, for I am famished!" (Therefore his name was called Edom.)
[31] Jacob said, "First sell me your birthright."
[32] Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?"
[33] Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.
[34] Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jasher Chapter 27 explains why he would do that as you can see below in verses 10-13.

1. And Esau at that time, after the death of Abraham, frequently went in the field to hunt.
2. And Nimrod king of Babel, the same was Amraphel, also frequently went with his mighty men to hunt in the field, and to walk about with his men in the cool of the day.
   
   
   
3. And Nimrod was observing Esau all the days, for a jealousy was formed in the heart of Nimrod against Esau all the days.
   
   
   
4. And on a certain day Esau went in the field to hunt, and he found Nimrod walking in the wilderness with his two men.
   
   
   
5. And all his mighty men and his people were with him in the wilderness, but they removed at a distance from him, and they went from him in different directions to hunt, and Esau concealed himself for Nimrod, and he lurked for him in the wilderness.
   
   
   
6. And Nimrod and his men that were with him did not know him, and Nimrod and his men frequently walked about in the field at the cool of the day, and to know where his men were hunting in the field.
   
   
   
7. And Nimrod and two of his men that were with him came to the place where they were, when Esau started suddenly from his lurking place, and drew his sword, and hastened and ran to Nimrod and cut off his head.
   
   
   
8. And Esau fought a desperate fight with the two men that were with Nimrod, and when they called out to him, Esau turned to them and smote them to death with his sword.
   
   
   
9. And all the mighty men of Nimrod, who had left him to go to the wilderness, heard the cry at a distance, and they knew the voices of those two men, and they ran to know the cause of it, when they found their king and the two men that were with him lying dead in the wilderness.
   
   
   
10. And when Esau saw the mighty men of Nimrod coming at a distance, he fled, and thereby escaped; and Esau took the valuable garments of Nimrod, which Nimrod's father had bequeathed to Nimrod, and with which Nimrod prevailed over the whole land, and he ran and concealed them in his house.
    
    
11. And Esau took those garments and ran into the city on account of Nimrod's men, and he came unto his father's house wearied and exhausted from fight, and he was ready to die through grief when he approached his brother Jacob and sat before him.
    
    
12. And he said unto his brother Jacob, Behold I shall die this day, and wherefore then do I want the birthright? And Jacob acted wisely with Esau in this matter, and Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, for it was so brought about by the Lord.
    
    
13. And Esau's portion in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham had bought from the children of Heth for the possession of a burial ground, Esau also sold to Jacob, and Jacob bought all this from his brother Esau for value given.
    
    
    
14. And Jacob wrote the whole of this in a book, and he testified the same with witnesses, and he sealed it, and the book remained in the hands of Jacob.
    
    
    
15. And when Nimrod the son of Cush died, his men lifted him up and brought him in consternation, and buried him in his city, and all the days that Nimrod lived were two hundred and fifteen years and he died.
    
    
    
16. And the days that Nimrod reigned upon the people of the land were one hundred and eighty-five years; and Nimrod died by the sword of Esau in shame and contempt, and the seed of Abraham caused his death as he had seen in his dream.
    
    
    
17. And at the death of Nimrod his kingdom became divided into many divisions, and all those parts that Nimrod reigned over were restored to the respective kings of the land, who recovered them after the death of Nimrod, and all the people of the house of Nimrod were for a long time enslaved to all the other kings of the land.

 

[Chopper]

Interesting. I haven't been on in a few days or so and see quite a few posts here which I will give generalized response to all and hit on a few things. First, I agree, Enoch is not scripture. To my understanding, it used to be, and is certainly referred to in the scripture that we have. From what I have heard and read, the book of Enoch was considered scripture for quite awhile, and was even translated into the Septuagint, which was the (one of?) earliest translations of the OT in use at the time, and wasn't until later that it was dropped from the canon as were other books also. Later translations made even more changes, inclusions and exclusions from canon. Do you know that the book of Isaiah almost did not make it into canon? Revelation also! I write this, not to try and get anyone to regard Enoch as scripture, but just to inform you that it was for a long time, and just because it was not included does in no way mean that it should be absolutely rejected, for it is useful for many purposes that are non-salvational in nature and it is also highly interesting.

Much of scripture is stories, history, and writings of a sort which are not easily understood but is still potentially edifying in that it offers additional perspective to our own limited imaginations so that when we ponder these spiritual things we have more to go by. Enoch is no exception to that. It may not be scripture (or it may be, we simply do not know for sure. One thing we do know for sure is that real truth is suppressed, hidden, and denigrated. Could they be doing that to Enoch? Maybe, maybe not. That is for us as individuals to pray about and decide for ourselves.) I do have the E-book of Enoch, and Jasher (PM me if anyone would like the file for themselves) At least, it's entertaining, at most...it could be truth. It should not distract one from their primary focus of Christianity, which is seeking a personal relationship with our great Lord Jesus, and diligently living for the spirit, becoming one with Christ, being in Him, and He in us.

Enoch is so much more than just about fallen Angels. It fills in holes in other stories from scripture with more information. One thing I remember it said was that when Noah was born, his dad was scared of him, and he went to his father (grandfather?) Enoch to enquire why was the boy different than others?! It is said that Noah's eyes shined so bright that it filled a dark room with light, he had hair as white as snow when born, and upon being born...he blessed the name of the Lord audibly to everyone's amazement! It scared them.

It also said that the water from the heavens (rain?) is Male, and that the waters from under the earth (oceans?) are female) (wow)...and that Abraham went through the firey furnace and lived just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego! (or was that the the book of Jasher?) And many other things, verry interesting.

I did not read it as if the 'Fallen Angels' were the "them" as I asked. I took it more along the lines of the fallen angels offspring, commonly referred to as the Nephilim.

Thanks for that info Ed.

 

[JLB]

they were earthly clerics, not heavenly angels - the biblical word "angels" also means: spiritual servants/workers - and they taught the people to practise occultism, esotericism, transcendental meditation, astral projection, witchcraft, astrology, etc., some biblical words are strictly emblematic, e.g. when the prophet said "beautifying of the eyelids", he meant the occult methods of clairvoyance - the vedas are the most typical example of all occult and idolatrous doctrines/teachings combined in one whole

Blessings

In your perspective, what does the term "sons of God" mean to you?

 

[Edward]

they were earthly clerics, not heavenly angels - the biblical word "angels" also means: spiritual servants/workers - and they taught the people to practise occultism, esotericism, transcendental meditation, astral projection, witchcraft, astrology, etc., some biblical words are strictly emblematic, e.g. when the prophet said "beautifying of the eyelids", he meant the occult methods of clairvoyance - the vedas are the most typical example of all occult and idolatrous doctrines/teachings combined in one whole

Blessings

Who taught the clerics?

 

[chessman]

I recognize this was a Jew(Paul) talking thousands of years after Moses wrote but still, what's wrong with this definition for "Sons of God"?

Gal 4: 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Gen 6:2 "“My Spirit shall not abide in man forever"

 

[jasoncran]

I recognize this was a Jew(Paul) talking thousands of years after Moses wrote but still, what's wrong with this definition for "Sons of God"?

Gal 4: 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

it could but the translation from Hebrew with elohim doesn't always mean god but can be those in power.

 

[gr8grace3]

it could but the translation from Hebrew with elohim doesn't always mean god but can be those in power.

Jason,

Were there any human believers in the OT hebrew that were called "sons of God?"

I don't see God calling humans "Sons" until the NT. Is it ever used in the OT?

 

[jasoncran]

yes in context.
the chapter in psalms where it says ye are gods. one can argue that since jesus said that to the Pharisees that in the law it says ye are gods that the sons of them would be logically a son of god. next if you believe in the nephilum where does it say satan can form a life and it has intelligence? it doesn't. I prefer not to make a doctrine from that. next the lineage of jesus starts with"adam the SON of GOD"

that is in matthew. so yes god did say that.

 

[JCitoL]

In your perspective, what does the term "sons of God" mean to you?

the meaning may be different in different places of the Bible - in Genesis 6th chapter it is: spiritual workers

Blessings

 

[JCitoL]

Who taught the clerics?

there is a God, but there is also a devil which taught eve and adam to commit spiritual iniquity (initially in the form of occultism/esotericism), so the spiritual human may be righteous if it is faithful to the (Righteousness of the) true God, otherwise its spiritual activity may go wrong

Blessings

 

[JLB]

the meaning may be different in different places of the Bible - in Genesis 6th chapter it is: spiritual workers

Blessings

Let me rephrase the questions.

In your opinion, does the term "sons of God" refer to human beings or angelic beings?


JLB

 

[Navigator]

I believe you are correct, and have the scriptures to back up the view you have presented. This is where I am right now.

The Sethite view absolutely no scriptural support.

So if what you are presenting as a view does happen to be the correct view (and it does make sense!) then...would it be reasonable to take this context into the reading of Matthew and read Jesus words as if he were speaking about "they" being the Sons of God...as in the days of Noah!

If so, this would certainly throw different ramifications upon the interpretation and understanding of Jesus words, would it not? Perhaps.

Why can Jesus' words not simply represent those beings who were of sin? Whichever interpretation you hold to, whether it is fallen angels marrying women of the world, or simply sons of Seth marrying the women who descended from Cain; the idea that sin was put to death in the flood, and sin WILL be put to death physically and spiritually in the Second Coming of Jesus holds true.

Noah's family was deemed righteous by God, and given shelter in the safety and security of the ark. Jesus is the ark in a lot of ways, protecting the righteous from the wrath of God on sin. Those found in him will not be swept up as those in the flood, but will remain safe under the "ark" of the blood of Jesus Christ as He returns.

 

[JCitoL]

Let me rephrase the questions.

In your opinion, does the term "sons of God" refer to human beings or angelic beings?

JLB

i have no own opinion of myself, i believe in the true God Father and the true Lord Jesus Christ and my ability to understand the Scripture is of Them the Two - if They say: "the meaning is such and such", i have no objection, because the true God knows all the Truth considering also the fact that exactly They are the primary source of the true Word

Blessings

 

[Sparkey]

A couple months ago I tried to persuade a brother toward my understanding, that to be a son, one would have to do the works of The Father. It seemed clear that fornication was not a work of God. Jesus is the only begotten son of God and he spoke to the Pharisees saying that they were sons of their father, the devil, as could be seen by their works.

The principle of sonship was the basis of my persuasive attempt. I wanted more. What I wanted was a definitive Scripture. Ask and ye shall receive, right? But I didn't find the key verse that was sought. Instead I asked my brother to pray with me so that to us might be revealed the nature of such things. What happened? The argument and difference of opinion on the subject became an issue between us. A wedge. Something that put a damper on the growing friendship that I treasured.

Then I realized (and I believe this by the Holy Spirit) that I was mis-using the Word of Truth and that it was okay for me to allow variance between brothers. What? Should I really insist that all men believe as I do even when it means a lot to me? So we prayed again and asked that to us it might be revealed what it is that constitutes the nature of the issue.

The issue was dropped between us but others had heard the discussion and had taken their own sides. Some spoke of false judgments such as prejudice taken against those who are large or who had 6 fingers saying, "It's wrong to condemn based on physical attributes." Racial prejudice was alleged.

What is the nature of such things? They are thorny issues. Things that grow to a point then abruptly stop. There can be no fruit here. That's the answer to the prayer. They don't have to be allowed to become such pointed issues as to cause a falling out between brethren and it's sad when we see it happen.

Jesus was aware of the Scripture and didn't speak about it. He declared (perhaps vaguely - but who am I to criticize?) that angels do not marry. I still maintain that this is a thorny issue that needs to be handled with care. It stumbled me and it took me a couple months of going before the Lord before I could continue and resume the quest for peace and unity of the faith. There are too many things that we may focus on like this. I don't find a way to reconcile what was said and what many think it means. That's okay to me but it's sad to see the fallout.

 

[Chopper]

A couple months ago I tried to persuade a brother toward my understanding, that to be a son, one would have to do the works of The Father. It seemed clear that fornication was not a work of God. Jesus is the only begotten son of God and he spoke to the Pharisees saying that they were sons of their father, the devil, as could be seen by their works.

The principle of sonship was the basis of my persuasive attempt. I wanted more. What I wanted was a definitive Scripture. Ask and ye shall receive, right? But I didn't find the key verse that was sought. Instead I asked my brother to pray with me so that to us might be revealed the nature of such things. What happened? The argument and difference of opinion on the subject became an issue between us. A wedge. Something that put a damper on the growing friendship that I treasured.

Then I realized (and I believe this by the Holy Spirit) that I was mis-using the Word of Truth and that it was okay for me to allow variance between brothers. What? Should I really insist that all men believe as I do even when it means a lot to me? So we prayed again and asked that to us it might be revealed what it is that constitutes the nature of the issue.

The issue was dropped between us but others had heard the discussion and had taken their own sides. Some spoke of false judgments such as prejudice taken against those who are large or who had 6 fingers saying, "It's wrong to condemn based on physical attributes." Racial prejudice was alleged.

What is the nature of such things? They are thorny issues. Things that grow to a point then abruptly stop. There can be no fruit here. That's the answer to the prayer. They don't have to be allowed to become such pointed issues as to cause a falling out between brethren and it's sad when we see it happen.

Jesus was aware of the Scripture and didn't speak about it. He declared (perhaps vaguely - but who am I to criticize?) that angels do not marry. I still maintain that this is a thorny issue that needs to be handled with care. It stumbled me and it took me a couple months of going before the Lord before I could continue and resume the quest for peace and unity of the faith. There are too many things that we may focus on like this. I don't find a way to reconcile what was said and what many think it means. That's okay to me but it's sad to see the fallout.

Hi Sparrow, I always enjoy your posts, they appear to me as being very mature and Biblical. The main reason that I discount Enoch's view of these son's being angels is, In heaven, we are told no one is given in marriage. I'm assuming that there are no parts in their bodies to produce offspring. Angels are not human, and I don't see in Scripture any evidence of angels begetting angels. Angels have to be created by God. IMO.

 

[chessman]

to be a son, one would have to do the works of The Father. It seemed clear that fornication was not a work of God. ... There are too many things that we may focus on like this.

Did you hear about the person that literally shot and killed another family member because of their reaction to the Auburn vs Bama score?
As it Was In The Days Of Noah... needs no direct demon/human interbreeding for us to see just how evil/sinful humans are, all by themselves. Of course the evil spiritual "influence" on us humans is Biblical cover to cover. But human flesh somehow interbreeding with evil spirits creating half humans with six fingers, not so much. Why were they cast "out of" humans into pigs if not for they needed pig's flesh? Did that make the previously demon possessed humans no longer half-breeds with five fingers? I think not.

Not to mention that it creates all kinds of trouble for us in determining your shorter than average "giants" from a tall 100% human. All kinds of short giants could be running around today or even 33 A.D. and us not even know it. Spiritual armor is just that, spiritual. It's a battle enough already.

 

[Chopper]

Did you hear about the person that literally shot and killed another family member because of their reaction to the Auburn vs Bama score?
As it Was In The Days Of Noah... needs no direct demon/human interbreeding for us to see just how evil/sinful humans are, all by themselves. Of course the evil spiritual "influence" on us humans is Biblical cover to cover. But human flesh somehow interbreeding with evil spirits creating half humans with six fingers, not so much. Why were they cast "out of" humans into pigs if not for they needed pig's flesh? Did that make the previously demon possessed humans no longer half-breeds with five fingers? I think not.

Not to mention that it creates all kinds of trouble for us in determining your shorter than average "giants" from a tall 100% human. All kinds of short giants could be running around today or even 33 A.D. and us not even know it. Spiritual armor is just that, spiritual. It's a battle enough already.

Well, there would have to be Scripture that proves your point of humans interbreeding with evil spirits. Putting aside the book of Enoch, which we reject as Canon, there is none. Therefore it does not exist.