Charismatic Bible Studies - 2 Peter 2:4-9

[Johann!@#]

Doesn't work. Men and angels mating--Rosemary's Baby! ;) Do we ever tire of indulging our carnal interest in fantasies? Or, are stories like this respectable enough to be believed? I think we have to look deep inside to see what the answer is?

Great-no need for me to respond then.

J.

 

[RandyK]

Great-no need for me to respond then.

J.

Respond if you have a response. I know it appears rude when I suggest that some have a carnal interest in myths. But let's look at whether this is considered "rude" by the apostle?....

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.

1 Tim 6.3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Col 2.18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Do you think Paul was concerned about an over-curious mind, who is willing to speculate on matters that are uncertain, resulting in controversy and even division? Drawing people away from clear doctrine and matters of faith is an attempt to create uncertainty for some, rather than just harmless speculation. We need to be cautious without putting anyone under too much restraint, as I see it.

I'm perfectly willing to indulge your arguments, which are pretty good. But equally I'm entitled to wonder if some of this excess speculation over unclear subjects is overkill? Can we really teach on something that is based on connecting dots that have several options?

My opinion is that some of this kind of interest comes from carnal minds who are more interested in dark secrets that they can preside over as a "wise person" or sage.

Rev 2.24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25 except to hold on to what you have until I come.’

I'm not at all saying this is you. In fact I don't think this is you, or anybody speaking on this subject. I find the discussion interesting and justified. I just want others who may read to take a moment to consider what their interest is in this, and how much of an interest it should be. Fair enough?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Now y'all going to have me believing they're "shapeshifters!" ;)

Those play for a different team, LoL.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That being said, here is something to consider--

"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..."

This text clearly connects two judgments:

The judgment of angels who sinned, and

The judgment of the ancient world in the days of Noah.

The key interpretive question is: what sin did these angels commit? -- and more specifically, was it sexual in nature?


1. 2 Peter 2:4–5
Peter does not specify the sin explicitly, but he aligns it chronologically with Noah’s time, thus linking the sin of the angels with the antediluvian (pre-Flood) period.

2. Jude 6–7 (parallel passage)
“And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
as Sodom and Gomorrah... having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (NKJV)

This is a crucial interpretive key-
Jude directly compares the angels’ sin to Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual perversion, which involved going after strange flesh (Greek: σὰρκα ἑτέραν, "different flesh").

Scholars such as Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and Richard Bauckham affirm that Jude is referring to the angelic rebellion in Genesis 6:1–4, where “sons of God” (bene elohim) take human women as wives--interpreted by many Jewish and early Christian sources as angels engaging in sexual relations with humans.

Early Jewish Interpretation
1 Enoch 6–10
An ancient Jewish text widely read in the Second Temple period and quoted in Jude (v. 14–15), 1 Enoch explicitly teaches that angels (the Watchers) lusted after and mated with human women, producing the Nephilim. This text heavily influenced Peter and Jude’s portrayal.

Philo of Alexandria (De Gigantibus §6–7)
Philo also held the view that fallen heavenly beings had sexual relations with women, an interpretation consistent with many Jewish writers of the period.

So--did the angels commit actual, sexual sin?

Yes, according to the contextual flow of 2 Peter 2:4–5, the parallel in Jude 6–7, and the interpretive backdrop of Genesis 6:1–4, the angels who sinned are widely understood to have committed sexual sin by abandoning their proper nature and engaging in unnatural relations with humans.

This interpretation was standard among:

Second Temple Jewish texts (1 Enoch, Jubilees)

Early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.)

Many modern scholars (e.g., Michael Heiser, Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado)

I personally value Jewish sources and am not hesitant to engage with the Apocrypha, as well as the customs and cultural background of the Jewish people.

Understanding these elements often sheds much-needed light on the historical and theological context of Scripture.

Shalom.

J.

Pretty thorough post.

Do you read Bauckham by any chance, Johann? Word Biblical is more high end, and I don't often encounter a lot of forum people who read that stuff. Just curious.

 

[hawkman]

But the sexual sin was *not* connected, unless you make the assumption 1st that the "sons of God" were angels.

How is it an assumption when every other use of the phrase "sons of God " in the old testament indicates angels ?
It occurs five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) .

 

[Johann!@#]

Pretty thorough post.

Do you read Bauckham by any chance, Johann? Word Biblical is more high end, and I don't often encounter a lot of forum people who read that stuff. Just curious.

Hi Hidden In Him
No, I haven’t, but Utley is doing an outstanding job with this.

Johann.

 

[Johann!@#]

Respond if you have a response. I know it appears rude when I suggest that some have a carnal interest in myths. But let's look at whether this is considered "rude" by the apostle?....

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.

1 Tim 6.3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Col 2.18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Do you think Paul was concerned about an over-curious mind, who is willing to speculate on matters that are uncertain, resulting in controversy and even division? Drawing people away from clear doctrine and matters of faith is an attempt to create uncertainty for some, rather than just harmless speculation. We need to be cautious without putting anyone under too much restraint, as I see it.

I'm perfectly willing to indulge your arguments, which are pretty good. But equally I'm entitled to wonder if some of this excess speculation over unclear subjects is overkill? Can we really teach on something that is based on connecting dots that have several options?

My opinion is that some of this kind of interest comes from carnal minds who are more interested in dark secrets that they can preside over as a "wise person" or sage.

Rev 2.24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25 except to hold on to what you have until I come.’

I'm not at all saying this is you. In fact I don't think this is you, or anybody speaking on this subject. I find the discussion interesting and justified. I just want others who may read to take a moment to consider what their interest is in this, and how much of an interest it should be. Fair enough?

Not interested.

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

How is it an assumption when every other use of the phrase "sons of God " in the old testament indicates angels ?
It occurs five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) .

Correct brother hawkman

Genesis 6:2
MT: וַיִּרְאוּ בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת־בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם
LXX: εἶδον δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων
Translation: “And the sons of God saw the daughters of men...”
LXX Interpretation: οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ("sons of God") is a literal and unambiguous rendering of the Hebrew, preserving the celestial identity. The LXX consistently uses this phrase for angelic beings.
Targum Onkelos: avoids anthropomorphism--renders euphemistically:

“And the sons of the rulers saw...” (בני רברביא)
Note: This shift likely reflects post-Temple Rabbinic discomfort with the angelic interpretation. Earlier Targumic and apocryphal Jewish texts (e.g., 1 Enoch) affirmed these were angels.

2. Genesis 6:4
MT: אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים
LXX: τοτε εἰσπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων
Translation: “When the sons of God were coming in to the daughters of men...”
Targum Onkelos: “the sons of the rulers” again (בני רברביא)
Interpretation: The LXX again preserves sons of God as angelic beings, whereas the Targum reflects a reinterpretation to human rulers, likely late and defensive.

3. Job 1:6
MT: וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים לְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל־יְהוָה
LXX: ἐγένετο ἡ ἡμέρα, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ
Translation: “Now it was the day and the angels of God came to present themselves...”
Interpretation: The LXX does not preserve a literal “sons of God” here but translates the term as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ—“the angels of God.” This is interpretive and reflects the angelic understanding.
Targum (Job Targum): וַאֲתוֹ מַלְאֲכֵי יַי
Translation: “And the angels of the Lord came...”
Note: Both Targum and LXX unequivocally identify them as angels.

4. Job 2:1
MT: וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים
LXX: καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ
Targum: וַאֲתוֹ מַלְאֲכֵי יַי
Interpretation: Same as Job 1:6--again, both LXX and Targum use “angels of God”, not the literal “sons of God,” which confirms a strong angelological tradition.

5. Job 38:7
MT: בְּרָן־יַחַד כּוֹכְבֵי־בֹקֶר וַיָּרִיעוּ כָּל־בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים
LXX: ἐν ᾗ ᾖσαν συνᾴδοντες ἄστρα πρωινά, καὶ εὐφράνθησαν πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοί μου
Translation: “When the morning stars sang together, and all My angels rejoiced...”
Targum: בְּזִמְרָא אִתְּרַעֲיוּ כֻלְּהוֹן מַלְאֲכֵי יַי
Translation: “...all the angels of the Lord shouted for joy”
Interpretation: The Targum and LXX both explicitly say angels, not “sons of God.” This again affirms that the term was understood as angelic in early Jewish exegesis.

Summary Table:
Verse MT Phrase LXX Targum Interpretation
Genesis 6:2 בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ בני רברביא (sons of rulers) Angelic in LXX; euphemized in Targum
Genesis 6:4 בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ בני רברביא Angelic in LXX; euphemized in Targum
Job 1:6 בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ מַלְאֲכֵי יַי Both render as angels
Job 2:1 בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ מַלְאֲכֵי יַי Both render as angels
Job 38:7 בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים οἱ ἄγγελοί μου מַלְאֲכֵי יַי Both render as angels

Johann.

 

[RandyK]

How is it an assumption when every other use of the phrase "sons of God " in the old testament indicates angels ?
It occurs five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) .

Well, you could be right. If "sons of God" is the exclusive proper noun or identification for "angels," then I should think you're right. It would then be translated in the Septuagint as "angels."

I just don't think so. To me, it seems very myth-like, to have angels and women cohabit, much like the occult "Rosemary's Baby." But perhaps the film is based on the very real possibility that humans and angels can mate and procreate?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong too. Some may have an unhealthy interest in myths while others may have an unhealthy kind of skepticism? I have to watch myself!

These are things we have to determine for ourselves. It makes me nervous to indulge in things like this that seem to me so myth-like and on the edge of anything doctrinal or edifying. But again, I could be wrong.

I shouldn't think the Bible is warning women not to seek marital relationships with angels--nothing like it in the Bible except perhaps here? Again, it is a personal choice to believe this or not.

As I've said elsewhere "sons of God" can apply equally to angels or to humans. This seems obvious to me because "sons" ordinarily refers to procreated beings like people. We were told to "multiply and fill the earth"--this is not commanded of angels (that we know of).

However, God did create angels to be His "sons," so that term may apply to angels, as well. They are God's agents and worshipers--just like people. The term therefore fits in terms of an authority structure between God and either angels or men.

The Bible, however, is written to people, so I should think the focus of the term is more on people--not angels? As you indicated, the term is applied exclusively in Job to angels. And that specific term is not used much elsewhere in the OT scriptures.

If the term seems exclusively applied to angels, I would not base this on its exclusive use in one book--Job. Since the term in Gen 6 is controversial, I would not use that as proof that it applies to angels.

I would not be overly convinced by its exclusive use in Job since the theme of Job begins with this identification, and its regular use in the book is simply based on that particular theme. The book is a single unit with a regular motif. That is not to say other books cannot use the term dissimilarly with a different plot and a different regular use for the term.

There are synonyms for "sons of God" in both Hebrew and Greek, and they all apply to people. For example, in Deut 14.1...

"You are the children of the Lord your God."

The term "son of God" is used of an individual human in the OT, but is only described as such in the NT Scriptures.

Luke 3.38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

And the way that it is used suggests it could apply to a plurality of people, indicating "sons of God." In the early narrative, however, there are few large groups of people designated as "sons of God" because only one nation even tried to be that--Israel. And Israel had an experience of constant failure. Hence, they are "children of God," but often not growing up to be full-fledged "Sons of God."

The theme of "God's People" as a group begins in Gen 4 with the birth of Enosh, following initial obstructions by sin...

Gen 4.26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.

Can we assume this is where the term "sons of God" originated? Perhaps. Luke seems to indicate that, even though the more common term came to be "children of God" or "people of God."

But we had a decline and descent into sin again in the community following Enosh and the Flood happened. The next effort was God's effort to make Israel "His People," which is just another synonym for "sons of God."

Clearly, sin continued to obstruct this process of making them faithful "children of God" until the NT provided legal guarantees for our status as such when we become Christians. Now we are called "sons of God."

We are not, however, angels! We will become "like angels," which Jesus said would be genderless, no longer marrying and reproducing to "fill the earth." The job of "filling the earth" would be over. That has never been the job of angels.

I can see the more exclusive use of the term "sons of God" to be used for angels in Job because there is no interest there in gender inclusion. But the term "sons of God" does include, or imply gender inclusion, in the NT Greek, meaning that the term does not *have to* apply only as Job did, to angels.

So, we do have the term "sons of God" applying to humans in the NT. That particular term just isn't used very often in the OT Scriptures. Job's use of the term would apply consistently to angels because his story is predicated upon that particular identification.

That doesn't at all mean that the use of the term in Gen 6 is also to be applied to angels. On the contrary, the term, as applied to procreating children, is 1st used in Gen 6, before any use by Job, which is placed specifically in the context of an angelic gathering. That specific context prevents it from being confused with its previous application to men, or so I theorize.

I've not really studied out all of the these terms, so all that I'm saying here is a tentative proposal. I can't, on such a limited basis, subscribe to something so "myth-like." But I'll grant you that your arguments are good and reasonable. You have to believe what you will. Take care....

 

[hawkman]

Well, you could be right.

I am usually right at least once a day .

If "sons of God" is the exclusive proper noun or identification for "angels," then I should think you're right.

In the Old Testament we can not find another use of "son's of God" in scripture to prove otherwise as you noticed .

It would then be translated in the Septuagint as "angels."

They had their reasons the seventy but I don't think we are going to hear them .

As I've said elsewhere "sons of God" can apply equally to angels or to humans.

Concentrate on the Old Testament , centuries changed the audience for what was wrote and who wrote it .

However, God did create angels to be His "sons," so that term may apply to angels, as well.

I agree .

The Bible, however, is written to people, so I should think the focus of the term is more on people--not angels? As you indicated, the term is applied exclusively in Job to angels. And that specific term is not used much elsewhere in the OT scriptures.

No where else in the Old Testament can I find anymore uses of "son's of God " than already mentioned . Others have searched too . Please let us know if you find one in the OT .

If the term seems exclusively applied to angels, I would not base this on its exclusive use in one book--Job. Since the term in Gen 6 is controversial, I would not use that as proof that it applies to angels.

No I would not either . But there is a seed war that began in the Garden and the fallen angels mating with the daughters of men is a bullet point in the journey . Can you say giants . The spies sure did .

We are not, however, angels! We will become "like angels," which Jesus said would be genderless, no longer marrying and reproducing to "fill the earth." The job of "filling the earth" would be over. That has never been the job of angels.

Jesus said someone would be genderless ? I missed that care to explain ? Have you ever noticed the Angel's have masculine names , I have .
I have a DEEP dive for you into all things Son's of God Gen 6 ! Only if you dare .

Who were the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6? - Chasing the Giants

Everything you need to know about the historical, textual and theological evidence pointing to the true identify of the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6.

chasingthegiants.com

 

[Johann!@#]

Who were the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6? - Chasing the Giants

Everything you need to know about the historical, textual and theological evidence pointing to the true identify of the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6.

chasingthegiants.com

Solid, exegetical piece of work here hawkman.

Great job.

J.

 

[hawkman]

Solid, exegetical piece of work here hawkman.

Great job.

J.

I can find links to post sometimes .

 

[Hidden In Him]

I've not really studied out all of the these terms, so all that I'm saying here is a tentative proposal. I can't, on such a limited basis, subscribe to something so "myth-like." But I'll grant you that your arguments are good and reasonable. You have to believe what you will.

Hey again, Randy.

Yeah, the part about ancient the Jewish legends lining up with pagan mythology trips other people up as well; people I respect in the Lord. For me, I view it the same way as with the flood. There has to be at the very least a semblance of truth there, because so many different accounts from different ancient cultures all say the same things.

But to each his own. I respect those who disagree. It's a hard thing for the 20th century mind to simply sign off on, and you're not the first I've seen who disagreed with the traditional interpretation.
- H

 

[Johann!@#]

I can find links to post sometimes .

Lol!.

J.

 

[RandyK]

I am usually right at least once a day .

I should think you're right, at least on doctrinal matters, 99% of the time? And that's what matters here. Speculation about whether the "sons of God" must refer to angels comes in a distant 2nd in importance.

In the Old Testament we can not find another use of "son's of God" in scripture to prove otherwise as you noticed .

As I said, that seems significant, that *every use* of "sons of God" in the OT Scriptures show it is to be applied to angels. That means it is to be viewed *only* as a proper noun, and not as a general characteristic.

But have you considered my thoughts and reservations about this?

1) 4 out of the 5 OT references to "sons of God" are in the book of Job. Since Job is only one book with a particular theme involving angels, the term would likely be applied consistently to angels, even if the term can apply elsewhere to people.

2) The 1st use of "sons of God" you assumed applies to "angels." This is circular reasoning, to say that "all 5 references apply to angels," and then declare Gen 6 as the 1st reference in this regard.

I could just as well say that the 1st use of "sons of God" applies to people--therefore, it more importantly refers to people, as opposed to how Job uniquely applied it to angels in his book. (Some people argue, however, that Job is the oldest book of the Bible).

3) Luke referred to Adam, who lived in the OT, as a "son of God." If so, wouldn't this indicate the plural "sons of God" could apply to people, as well?

Why there are less references to the specific term is a matter of conjecture, and I've given you my tentative thoughts. "Sons of God" conveys to me a people of God grown to full stature.

Adam may have obtained that stature. But as a solid group of people, this only began after Enosh. That's when, after the Fall, people began to "seek the Lord" as a group.

Then things quickly went downhill until the Flood. After that calamity Israel began to try to become "sons of God" as a group who "seek the Lord," and they also capitulated to sin and fell. It is largely in the NT that we see "sons of God" apply to a large group of people who grow to the stature of becoming mature or stable Christians.

They had their reasons the seventy but I don't think we are going to hear them .

How the term "sons of God" must be used is the question. Job may have like to apply the term to angels in his book, which accounts for perhaps all of the OT references to the term as angels. This proves nothing to me. For all I know, the OT Scriptures preferred synonyms to Job's term "sons of God?" They refer to "children of God" and "people of God"--terms like that which have a similar connotation.

If the term "angels" could've been used why weren't they used in Job? Job may simmply have wanted to outline how angels generally follow God, while a minority may not. This gives mankind the challenge on how to avoid the temptation and do the right thing as children of men. We should strive to be "sons of God" like the good angels.

Concentrate on the Old Testament , centuries changed the audience for what was wrote and who wrote it .

The Bible tends to draw upon its own language--even after centuries. The term "sons of God" were applied largely by Job, whose story was unique. This suggests he used the term uniquely for his story. Nothing inherently proves the term "sons of God" is the proper name for angels. This is pure presumption.

Can "sons of God" be applied to angels? Yes, that is a biblical certainty.

No where else in the Old Testament can I find anymore uses of "son's of God " than already mentioned . Others have searched too . Please let us know if you find one in the OT .

As I said, Job's use of "sons of God" for angels seems to have been a unique application. It isn't used elsewhere, according to the references you listed.

No I would not either . But there is a seed war that began in the Garden and the fallen angels mating with the daughters of men is a bullet point in the journey . Can you say giants . The spies sure did .

"Giants" is a term simply indicating abnormally large-sized or physically-dangerous humans. I think the "seed war" you refer to was when God's People, the "sons of God," began to choose women not based on character, but rather, on what their eyes lusted after.

The reseulting children came to be the product of carnal interests, such as power to control, self-interest, war, covetousness and greed. This produced military "giants," who took lands and people they wanted to use for their own interests.

Jesus said someone would be genderless ? I missed that care to explain ? Have you ever noticed the Angel's have masculine names , I have .

Yes, masculine names for angels would be used if there were no "female angels." We usually defer to the masculine, even in English, when we're referring to a multi-gendered group. We speak of "man-kind" as if they are all men, when obviously they are not. "Whoever does this bad thing--he may be killed." "He" could be a female, but the "he" is a genderless, hypothetical application deferring to the male gender.

I identify angels as "genderless" as I already explained.
1) Only people were told to multiply and fill the earth. Only people have sex and reproduce.
2) Jesus said we will one day become "like angels," who "do not marry."

I have a DEEP dive for you into all things Son's of God Gen 6 ! Only if you dare .

Who were the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6? - Chasing the Giants

Everything you need to know about the historical, textual and theological evidence pointing to the true identify of the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6.

chasingthegiants.com

I've been reading the info on this for many years. Reading this would be just one more. I doubt there is anything new in it?

That's why this is so unimportant for me. Nothing profitable has ever come out of discussions of it, from my point of view. It is almost unresolvable, which is another word for "rabbit hole." ;)

But I love you brother. I'm interested in anything and everything until it truly goes "south." And it hasn't really done that here.