Could there have been demons who appeared as at times those gods of ancient history? To cultivate mankind worshipping them and not true God?
The Sons of God and the Nephilim
- Thread starter Ekklesian
- Start date
OK, I thought maybe it was a Christian college.
If the Qumran and Septuagint traditions are any indication...and they seem to make more sense than the Masoretic tradition in that place...
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. - Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV
So, yes. It seems to me that the rebellious "angels" were given dominion over the nations, and that would be why one nation served this "god," and that nation served that one.
Well, maybe not. I was forgetting what the guy in the video heading this thread was asserting.
The passage doesn't seem to fit that take:
And after a time, when men were increasing on the earth, and had daughters, The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took wives for themselves from those who were pleasing to them. And the Lord said, My spirit will not be in man for ever, for he is only flesh; so the days of his life will be a hundred and twenty years. There were men of great strength and size on the earth in those days; and after that, when the sons of God had connection with the daughters of men, they gave birth to children: these were the great men of old days, the men of great name. - Genesis 6:1-4 BBE
But then, there would be no need to explain how the hybrid offspring survived the Flood, and were in the earth after the days of the Flood, if it were the hybrid offspring that were the Nephilim.<any other religions, such as Hinduism and native american religions, have traditions and writings that refer to space and star peoples in their past
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 7,533
- Reaction score
- 508
- Points
- 113
All of mankind is descended from Noah. Every people group since then would have passed on an oral history likely to carry forward elements of spiritual beliefs. That they are similar is much less remarkable than if there were no similarities at all.
Last edited:
Heiser avoids the difficulty by accepting the more liberal view of a localized, as opposed to a global, deluge.
The bloodline that God destroyed in the flood was reintroduced through Canaan, Ham's son.
Can you elaborate?
Genesis 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Noah's children and their spouses were saved from the flood because they were in the family of a righteous man. God didn't say that they were righteous- only Noah was righteous.
He's a picture of Christ. We're saved because we are "in Him." Not because we are righteous, but because Christ is.
If we step outside of the perfection (righteousness) we have in Christ, we end up paying for doing it. (Galatians 6:7)
Ham stepped out from under Noah's protection when he sinned. The sin he committed was having relations with Noah's wife--his mother. Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Canaan was the result of that union.
Every sin God wanted to destroy in the flood reemerged in Canaan. That's why Noah cursed him instead of Ham.
That's why God told Joshua to destroy the Canaanites.
That also explains why the Canaanites were giants.
Noah's children and their spouses were saved from the flood because they were in the family of a righteous man. God didn't say that they were righteous- only Noah was righteous.
He's a picture of Christ. We're saved because we are "in Him." Not because we are righteous, but because Christ is.
If we step outside of the perfection (righteousness) we have in Christ, we end up paying for doing it. (Galatians 6:7)
Ham stepped out from under Noah's protection when he sinned. The sin he committed was having relations with Noah's wife--his mother. Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Canaan was the result of that union.
Every sin God wanted to destroy in the flood reemerged in Canaan. That's why Noah cursed him instead of Ham.
That's why God told Joshua to destroy the Canaanites.
That also explains why the Canaanites were giants.
This doesn't explain your "bloodline" assertion.
Noah's sons and their wives possessed the bloodlines. Only Noah was righteous.
I personally believe that the bloodlines of the fallen, prenoahic offsprings of Genesis 6 would have lain silent if Ham hadn't committed this awful sin. The Lord has the power to change our DNA.
God didn't curse Ham. He cursed his offspring, Canaan, because Canaan was the result of the sin.
God wanted us to know about Ham, or he wouldn't have put it in the bible. Leviticus told us what the sin was.
So are you saying the bloodline determines one's righteousness?
Its amazing how we come up with such crazy notions rather than just looking to the authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of the scriptures!
Man's fallen, Adamic nature was not eradicated with the flood. All are dead in Adam and the sin leading up to the flood. DNA has nothing to do with it. All men are INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE for their sinful actions and has nothing to do with any "Lineage" or whatever!
The scriptures record that eight people were on the Ark (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japtheth, and their wives) but aside from Noah, gives no indication regarding their spiritual condition or standing with God. It is highly probable that one or more remained unregenerate. If I had to guess, I would say that Shem was regenerate (saved) while Ham and (possibly) Japtheth were not. This would also explain how the post-diluvian world went straight back into apostacy and their open defiance towards God was on full display with the Tower of Babel.
I am not that big on dispensationalism but it is clear that God dealt with his creation via assorted means at different times for various reasons. One thing that is conspicuously absent in the "Antediluvian" period was any semblance of government or civil justice! Notice that Cain was not subject to civil laws and in fact, God protected him from any vengeance or retribution. Lamech echoed these sentiments after slaying a man supposedly in self defense (Gen 4:23-24). It seems to me that during this period, God allowed the noetic effects of sin to run their natural course during a relatively long lifespan (900+ years) to the point that the Earth was "Filled with violence" (Gen 6:11, 13). Likely a very scary time where "No Justice, No Peace" was a harsh reality! God did this (#1) for his glory, and (#2) for our example.
Mankind is TOTALLY DEPRAVED (totally dead) but this does not mean that man is as evil as he could possibly be. Even men like Adolph Hitler (of whom most tend to cite) exemplified love, mercy, affection, appreciation for the beauty of nature, and so forth. In other words, he could've been much worse! God restrains man's sinful motives and intent through his COMMON GRACE that is extended to every man (saved or lost) and it is through such grace that man does so many seemly "good things."
There was nothing particularly "special" regarding Ham's sin. Looking upon one's "nakedness" is equated through the scriptures as looking upon and exploiting one's "moment of weakness" or whatever. Why must we come to the conclusion that Ham "raped" his father? What is understood with this passage is that sin is still very much a prevalent issue and will remain so going forth!
Angels are spiritual beings and are sexless. They have no DNA in which to reproduce with humans. I am convinced that the "Sons of God" were those of the lineage of Seth who first walked with God but then fell into apostacy especially after messing with and intermingling with the "Daughters of Men" who were the descendents of those who "went in the way of Cain."
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
They were destroyed. But they got better?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 7,533
- Reaction score
- 508
- Points
- 113
Python reference. Bonus points for you my friend.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I've been staring at code for much of my free time this week. So I assumed you meant the Python programming language and I was racking my brains trying to figure out what you were talking about.
Of course, Python the language is also named after Monty. So it's the same thing. Maybe.
(And although I wasn't deliberately referencing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I did recognize the allusion after the fact.)
I believe the plural elohim in Genesis 1:26 is the Trinity. To say it's the Divine Council, to me, is almost saying that the Sons of God were co-creators. To his credit, Heiser was adamant that that was NOT what he was saying. He was saying that God was simply including his council in the decision.
Still, I can't get past the phrase, "Let us make..."
Now it is true that God called upon the earth to bring forth the living creatures, and the grass and the herbs and trees. And He called upon the waters to bring forth aquatic life and life that basically lives in the air, like birds.
But He didn't call upon them to "make" them., just bring them forth. Women don't make children, they merely bring them forth.
So I don't think Heiser is correct there. It's not an issue of translation, it's interpretation and reasoning. I can listen to Heiser for hours. He knows the languages. He knows the histories. And he knows the prevalent world views of antiquity. And I think he's faithfully relaying the messages in those manuscripts. But I think he's blind to his own presuppositions in his applications of them.
His views lean heavily on extra-biblical literature, Mesopotamian mythology mostly, and, I think, very heavily on the Book of Enoch. It may be true that the Second Temple Jews regarded the book as a reliable history, but they didn't include it in their canon of Scripture. And I think it's likely that Peter and Jude were familiar with it, as well. And they may very well be quoting it.
But where Heiser sees parallels between Mesopotamian mythology, and the writings of the contemporary Jewish sects, and even in the Scriptures, I think he sees also a cause and effect which isn't there. Genesis 1, for example. Now I don't have the citations, so I'm going from my memory of a good number of his podcasts, but he says Genesis 1 was written as a reaction to an ancient Mesopotamian creation account. In other words, it's not a history or a science, it's just a poke in the eye to the other account. The pagan account, came first, so the Hebrew account is based on it, and is simply saying, "No, it wasn't you, pagan god. It was was Elohim—Yahweh."
Well that's just an arbitrary presupposition. It's true, one came before the other, but why would we be surprised that a fallen being, who witnessed creation, would make the account he gives to his priests much like the true account, yet throw in enough corruption to keep the people deceived and at enmity with the Most High?
There is no compelling reason whatever to think that simply because the corrupt account came first, that the true account isn't anything but factual and true, and isn't merely setting the record straight. God inspired it to give His people the Truth, not to poke the eye of the pagan gods.
Still, I think he makes a good case for the Divine Council view.
Still, I can't get past the phrase, "Let us make..."
Now it is true that God called upon the earth to bring forth the living creatures, and the grass and the herbs and trees. And He called upon the waters to bring forth aquatic life and life that basically lives in the air, like birds.
But He didn't call upon them to "make" them., just bring them forth. Women don't make children, they merely bring them forth.
So I don't think Heiser is correct there. It's not an issue of translation, it's interpretation and reasoning. I can listen to Heiser for hours. He knows the languages. He knows the histories. And he knows the prevalent world views of antiquity. And I think he's faithfully relaying the messages in those manuscripts. But I think he's blind to his own presuppositions in his applications of them.
His views lean heavily on extra-biblical literature, Mesopotamian mythology mostly, and, I think, very heavily on the Book of Enoch. It may be true that the Second Temple Jews regarded the book as a reliable history, but they didn't include it in their canon of Scripture. And I think it's likely that Peter and Jude were familiar with it, as well. And they may very well be quoting it.
But where Heiser sees parallels between Mesopotamian mythology, and the writings of the contemporary Jewish sects, and even in the Scriptures, I think he sees also a cause and effect which isn't there. Genesis 1, for example. Now I don't have the citations, so I'm going from my memory of a good number of his podcasts, but he says Genesis 1 was written as a reaction to an ancient Mesopotamian creation account. In other words, it's not a history or a science, it's just a poke in the eye to the other account. The pagan account, came first, so the Hebrew account is based on it, and is simply saying, "No, it wasn't you, pagan god. It was was Elohim—Yahweh."
Well that's just an arbitrary presupposition. It's true, one came before the other, but why would we be surprised that a fallen being, who witnessed creation, would make the account he gives to his priests much like the true account, yet throw in enough corruption to keep the people deceived and at enmity with the Most High?
There is no compelling reason whatever to think that simply because the corrupt account came first, that the true account isn't anything but factual and true, and isn't merely setting the record straight. God inspired it to give His people the Truth, not to poke the eye of the pagan gods.
Still, I think he makes a good case for the Divine Council view.
I didn't make myself clear, but I thought everyone understood that God destroyed the bloodlines by destroying the people who possessed them.
Let me add to that in case there are questions about Noah's sons and their wives.
Noah was righteous. Genesis 7:1
Christ is righteous
Noah's sons and their spouses were not righteous, but were "in Noah," just as we fallen, unrighteous sinners are hidden in Christ.
They had the capacity to allow the ugly sins that God destroyed the earth for in Genesis 6 to rear up and become active in their lives, just as believers can make decisions to live their lives contrary to the truth in Christ and allow sins to be active in our lives. (I know some don't believe this to be possible, but that's another topic.)