The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Demons and fallen angels

Pilgrim, I read the PDF you posted, but I'm still not convinced. I read all through the discussion "Who are the sons of God, without being convinced there either. If we read the "Bible Knowledge Commentary" we'll find opposite arguments to those about it referring to the line of Seth. (BTW, I'm not a dispensationalist either) Re-read Jude verse 6 and 7 together, it suggests that these fallen angels who left their first estate entered into sexual immorality. I'm far more convinced of this position. As the various commentaries suggest, each view can be defended somewhat. I am convinced of where I stand at this time, but would not teach it dogmatically, I would present both views and allow each to determine in their own heart if I were to speak on the verses in a teaching setting.

I'll let this topic rest since I haven't anything more to add than to let each decide on their own.

I chuckled about the "unique". There is nothing new under the sun, I'm just a little more open to other ideas I guess. Just call me an "open" reformer.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />



<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

1. And I am convinced that the "angels impregnating human women" is indefensible when I look at a) the Hebrew text, b) the grammatical structure c) reading the commentaries of conservative Hebrew/OT scholars, and d) using the Analogy of Faith (comparing Scripture with Scripture).

2. Re: Jude 6 and 7:

Jude 1:6-7 (ASV) "And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire."

There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever in these two verses to even suggest that angels are capable of having sexual relations with humans, never mind having done so. A cursory reading reveals that the fallen angels left their "principality", i.e., their appointed places being in subjection to God to do that which was pleasing to Him; His will. Secondly, the text clearly says that God has kept them in "everlasting bonds under darkness" until the Judgment, thus they are hardly free to do as they wish including having sexual relations with human females. Thirdly, the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is to show that "likewise" those HUMANS who left their appointed places being in subjection to God to do His will (obedience to His holy law) are suffering the punishment of hell. The "likewise" is referring to the punishment rendered and not to the sins committed. The angels transgressed in their particular way and those of Sodom and Gomorrah transgressed in their particular way, both suffering similar punishment which was due them.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that angelic, non-corporeal beings, are capable of sexual acts never mind doing so with human beings. The very idea is pure silliness, but worse yet to arrive at such a view requires linguistic suicide and a deliberate wresting of Gen 6:1-4. That men have done so is admittedly a sad thing.

In His grace,

Pilgrim, you put words in my mouth I didn't say or intend. A misunderstanding or poor communication I suppose. I was saying that when we are under conviction of a truth, we will not sway without the Holy Spirit's work. I didn't say we shouldn't reason with one another. How are Spiritual things revealed? Who is it that knows the Spirit of man that is within him? Who knows the mind of God? All I was saying, that we change as truth is revealed to us "by the Spirit". You can reason with someone until you are blue in the face, but unless the Spirit of God works, it falls on deaf ears. I also wasn't giving an excuse for not hearing, but pointing out that we can't. If reasoning was enough to change people's thinking the church wouldn't be in the shape it is today. It is the result of hardened hearts rejecting the truth, a heart "only" God can change. Ergo, without the Spirit's work, reasoning will not have any effect.

Hmmm, we got off topic, I got reprimanded for that previously, just wanted to clarify things.

Your brother,
hisalone

I agree with Pilgrim and Marie on this subject. However, I have read a few conservative preachers and commentators that lean the way you do. However, they also state that there isn't enough information to know for sure.
To me, I think the safe way to view this matter is to stick with what is clear and not speculate.
Would you not agree that when one does that, they end up understanding the matter the same way Pilgrim does?

Can you help me understand why this is the case?

As for me, it was just the opposite situation: I used to think that what was going on in this passage was demons/fallen angels copulating with human women and producing evil giant children. When I stumbled upon the idea that what was actually going on was intermarriage of the godly Sethite line with the ungodly Cainite line, it made so much more sense of the passage and was not fraught with the numerous difficulties involved with copulating fallen angels.

Let me just go through some of the problems in particular with Tom Brown's article:

1) His interpretation of Jude 8-9 is nonsense. Michael the Archangel did not rebuke Satan, true enough. But this has nothing to do with the "power" of fallen angels. (Indeed, Michael is portrayed in Rev. 12 as having cast Satan out of heaven!) The point in Jude is that if even the mighty archangel Michael did not rebuke Satan himself when Satan wanted to dispute over the body of Moses, how much less should sinful men revile the gospel which they do not understand.

2) His distinction between demons and angels, that angels have "celestial bodies" and demons are bodiless, is unwarranted. Angels are spiritual beings, having no bodies, although angels can sometimes appear in corporeal form. The only "celestial bodies" I can think of are the glorified resurrection bodies of men (I Cor. 15:40,49). That (certain!) demons seek out bodies to possess is only an indication of their ill will, their desire to harm men. And I might also add that Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27).

3) His interpretation of Matt. 12:43 is also unwarranted. Of course, he uses the KJV because he can twist that translation to his purposes. But the word translated "walketh" is dierchetai in Greek, the primary meaning of which is to journey or pass through. (And anyway, how does a disembodied spirit "walk"??)

4) His interpretation of Eph. 6:12 is ALSO unwarranted. He draws a sharp distinction which Paul simply ISN'T making. In Greek, the verse reads thus: oti ouk estin hmin h palh pros aima kai sarka, alla pros tas archas, pros tas exousias, pros tous kosmokratoras tou skotous toutou, pros ta pneumatika ths ponhrias en tois epouraniois. In English, "For our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world-lords of this darkness, against the spiritual (forces) of wickedness in the heavenlies." For Paul, these are all variegated descriptions of the same thing, namely, Satan and his demonic hosts (which are fallen angels).

5) His idea that the demons once had bodies and have since lost them is simply without support anywhere in the whole of Scripture. His suggestion, furthermore, that they are specifically the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim is also unbiblical. He relies on an apocryphal text, I Enoch, to support the idea, and on Jewish tradition (talk about heeding Jewish fables!-Tit. 1:14). He also has to read into the Hebrew text of Genesis 6 to get the idea that the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men; as I've pointed out before, the text only indicates that the Nephilim were contemporaneous with the intermarriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men. The text does not indicate that the Nephilim were born from these marriages. It is also completely ludicrous to suggest that fallen angels lived in human society and married human women as they pleased. NOWHERE in Scripture is there any indication that fallen angels live in human society! Indeed, Jesus' recounting of this time in history in Luke 17:26-27 would seem to indicate that it was human beings only, not any fallen angels, who were marrying and being given in marriage.

6) In Job, Satan came in "AMONG" the sons of God, but he is never himself counted in their current number. In Job, the sons of God are EXCLUSIVELY unfallen angels. In this sense, Satan was formerly a son of God. Furthermore, William has provided some excellent citations showing that believers are also called "sons of God," which is perfectly compatible with the "sons of God" being the godly line of Seth in Gen. 6.

7) Tom Brown also wants to argue that the angels cast out of heaven can marry; but this would necessarily conflict with the meaning he has already given to Eph. 6:12, where he says that the fallen angels are the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms!

8) His interpretation of Jude 6-7 is also, you guessed it, totally unwarranted. As Pilgrim pointed out, the likeness between the fallen angels and Sodom and Gomorrah is not that they both sinned sexually, but that they both rebelled against God and suffer punishment for it. If Brown's interpretation is to be sustained, in the flow of Jude's argument, we have to also say that "the way of Cain," "the error of Balaam," and "the rebellion of Korah" were sexual as well!

9) Lastly, and this should be emphasized, Tom Brown's interpretation of Gen. 6 is a fundamental necessity for him to be able to propogate his false & heretical teachings about deliverance and exorcism.

So, that said, exactly WHAT problems does this solve for you regarding the origin of demons?

First, I think I should agree with you due to the amount of effort and length of your response!! Wow!! I will try to be clear with my answers, so bear with me. My problem is that I have a hard time conveying what I'm thinking.

I agree with your assessment here, I said I didn't agree with Brown completely, just his idea of the origin of Demons. While we are talking about the Angel Michael, has his final battle with the fallen angels taken place yet? If not, then how can we answer the question about the fallen angels being bound until the judgment? If we say bound by blindness, that is stretching the point, if we say bound now, then there is no need for the final battle described in Revelation. Just a thought. If it is describign just those Angels who left their proper abode, then it makes sense, not all those fallen are yet bound, only those who left their first abode.

The angels who appeared to Abraham did eat. Of course this is speculation, and I only do this as a discussion, but if they can eat Gen. 19:3-5, then I believe they could have sexual relations. This explains the idea of them leaving their first abode, they chose to have physical form to have relations with the daughters of men.

Again, I agree with you here, again, I didn't say I bought into everything he said. But as mentioned previously, remember I'm only discussing, but this would explain some of the things the paranormal people say they have seen of the spirit world. Dangerous business to say the least.

If the fallen angels are bound as said in Jude 6, then our battle is only against Satan. I believe there are spiritual forces in heaven and on earth which we battle. Why can't it be the demon forces? We saw very many cases of demon possession spoken of in the Bible, which by the way, there are no instances of demon possession prior to the flood.

I don't quite understand his argument about the Nephilim, but as for the fallen angels having bodies, again, that explains them leaving their first abode. The passage of Matt. 20:39 can possibly be speaking of the elect angels, not the fallen angels. Also, people always point to this verse to say that the angels did not have sexual relations, but isn't that an assumption? If they took a bodily form, they could possibly have sexual relations. As in Jude 6,7 a relationship of gross proportions, an unnatural sexual union, like Sodom.

I don't see this being a problem, because the fallen angels were called the sons of God in order to understand who they were, weren't they the sons of God when they were tempted to sleep with the daughters of men? When did they fall? Was it necessarily when Satan fell?

I spoke about this earlier, these weren't cast out they chose to leave their proper place.

I have no problem with this referring to those angels who left their first abode entering into gross immorality and going after strange flesh. It doesn't necessarily have to be speaking back to verse 5.


I agree he twists certain things, however, the overall premise is feasible. Although his motives may be wrong, it doesn't mean his basic point is wrong. I still believe this to be very feasible, and have not been convinced to attribute the verses to Seth's line, for me to do that would be a stretch, I can't make that leap.

Thanks for taking the time to write your response, however, I'm not convinced at this point. These discussions are not pertinent to the overall message of the gospel, so whoever is right or wrong on the issue, the point will not harm our testimony or the gospel. I have to lean on the side which rings true in my own heart.

In all honesty, this transcends even "speculation". What warrant is there to jump from eating food to spiritual beings having sexual relations with humans? Secondly, these angels who accompanied the pre-incarnate Christ, Who remained behind with Abraham, were "sons of God" (ministers of God) and were under commission to accomplish a specific task; destroy Sodom, Gomorrah and surrounding cities/nations which were practicing abominable sexual sins. This eliminates any further idea that gives rise to the reason given above, i.e., fallen angels left their first above for the purpose of having sex with human women. The passage simply offers no information nor warrant.

Perhaps you are assigning a meaning to "bound" that is incorrect? Even Satan is "bound" and has been since the first appearance of the Lord Christ. (cf. Matt 12:29; Mk 3:27; Rev. 20:2) The meaning is that these fallen hosts are greatly hindered as to what they can do. God has hedged them in, so to speak, as is evident from Job 1:6ff. ALL of creation, including angels both holy and fallen, are under the direct rule of God.

The reason for fallen angels leaving heaven to go to earth to have sex with human women has been aptly addressed and refuted above. Those angels who followed Satan in his rebellion were cast out of heaven. (cf. 2Pet 2:4; Rev 12:7-9) Secondly, there is no v. 39 in Matthew 20. Thirdly, it is a valid assumption that since in heaven, i.e., the New Heaven and New Earth where the saints will have their new "celestial" bodies and where they will not marry and thus have no need of sexuality, that angels who also possess a "celestial" body (a body meet for living in the spiritual realm) would likewise be void of sexual relations. Further, nowhere in Scripture do we read that angels beget offspring.

The term "sons of God" always and everywhere refers to those who are in union and communion with God vs. those who are God's adversaries. Job 1:6 makes this crystal clear; i.e., there was a marked distinction between those "sons of God" who congregated before God and Satan who came without invitation. Notice God's words, "Whence comest thou?" (Where did you come from?) He was not part of the "sons of God" but was an adversary of God, the description of which Scripture speaks in myriad places. Lastly, you again make a chasmic leap by suggesting that the fallen angels were "sons of God when they were tempted to sleep with the daggers of men". There is no evidence whatsoever that angels slept with human women. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the falling out of some of the angels was due to their lusting after human women and took upon human form in order to impregnate them. Let's stay with what Scripture SAYS and not fall victim to vain imaginations (Rom 1:21; 2Cor 10:5).

It's not a leap to understand that there are two "lines" of men among the human race. This is Reformed Theology 101. It begins with Gen 3:15 and ends in Revelation; the elect/chosen of God and those who are His enemies. The same is said of the angelic host. (cf. 1Tim 5:21) It is far more feasible to understand this truth than it is to embrace a view based upon speculation, eisogesis and fanciful ideas.

Yes, people are "free" to embrace whatever ideas they so choose. However, as Christians we are bound to scrutinize those ideas under the light of Scripture as it is written to determine whether they are in fact true or false. To do this one is obligated to be faithful to language, grammar, context and the whole of God's Word and not inject presuppositions into it in order to justify some idea one finds particularly appealing.

In His grace,

I can not add to what has already been said <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" /> but I will post this anyway. I believe the scriptures teach that God blesses and preserves (and will do so till the last day) His covenant promise (contained in division #1) made to man in Genesis 3:15 thru a godly line (the sons of God) the ungodly line (the sons of men) are left to their sin to suffer His righteous judgments. There is no third "line".

Just a small example of this idea is in Arthur Pink's book "Gleaning in Genesis" in which he divides Genesis up into 11 divisions. Each division has a beginning and an end. I have listed 5 and edited and condensed them. I realize this does not prove that angels did not have sexual intercoarse with humans.




God has spiritual children!

[color:"0000FF"]Deuteronomy 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

Psalm 73:15 ¶ If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

2 Corintithians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. [/color]



Perhaps?

Well, there you go, absolute proof of human/angel relationships, thanks William!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

I believe Michael's battle with Satan and the fallen angels has already taken place: Satan's defeat follows the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Rev. 12:5; cf. John 12:32, Luke 10:17,18). You'll notice in vv. 13-17 that after being cast out of heaven, Satan turns to persecuting the woman (who represents the church), and failing to overwhelm her, to persecuting the offspring of the woman (individual believers). This period is equivalent to his millennial binding in Rev. 20:1-3. (This is really another issue. Read More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen, for an in-depth interpretation of Revelation.)


What explains "leaving their first abode" is leaving off obedience to God. There is nothing in Jude to suggest that he is even referrencing Gen. 6, much less that he is promoting the idea that fallen angels have the capacity to copulate. And even IF they could copulate, what Gen. 6 is describing is that the sons of God MARRIED the daughters of men (took them as wives), not merely that they had sex!


What would it explain? One need not resort to Tom Brown's fanciful interpretations to explain people's perceptions of ghosts and spirits. One need only acknowledge that there are demons.


As Pilgrim has aptly pointed out, Satan also is bound.


Well, it is demon forces. The problem that I'm pointing out with Tom Brown is that he is saying that demons are something different from fallen angels, and you apparently also accept this theory. But it hasn't got any basis in Scripture.


I don't recall any cases of demon possession in Genesis period, but that may be my faulty memory.


His argument is that the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim are today's demons. I thought that was what answered your difficulties about the origins of demons, and now you're saying you don't quite understand his argument? Color me confused.


One can assert many things. But there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that this is what Jude has in mind. Why this explanation should be preferred over what Pilgrim and I have said-that Jude is referring to their willful rebellion against God-is beyond me.


Again this unfounded reading into the text. Here is the structure of Jude's argument:

v. 3 Contend for the faith.
v. 4 Ungodly men have come in among you and they are marked out for destruction.
v. 5 Remember, God destroyed the unbelieving Israelites after delivering Israel from Egypt.
v. 6 God has also consigned the rebellious angels to bondage.
v. 7 Likewise the men of Sodom and Gomorrah are undergoing eternal punishment.
v. 8 These ungodly men revile the faith in the same way.
v. 9-10 If even Michael the Archangel did not rail against Satan himself, how much less should these ungodly men revile the faith.
v. 11 They have gone the way of Cain, they have rushed into the error of Balaam, they have perished in the rebellion of Korah.

If Jude 6 is taken to mean that these angels engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse because Sodom and Gomorrah did, you have to conclude that the unbelievers among the Israelites were destroyed for the same reason, and that the way of Cain, the error of Balaam, and the rebellion of Korah were also sexual in nature! You interpretation of Jude 6 proves too much.


Now you want to suggest that some unfallen angels had sex with women and then fell? It should strike you how many uncorroborated "possibilities" you have to suggest in order to support this interpretation of Gen. 6.


See above on the structure of Jude's argument.


If Tom Brown's overall premise is predicated on false readings of Scripture (which you admit), not to mention unscriptural Jewish tradition and apocryphal I Enoch, how can it be "feasible"? And why is it such a stretch that the "sons of God" would refer to the Sethite line?

I still can't agree that the sons of God is referring to Seth's line. To do that also requires us to make assumptions. First, to attribute this to Seth's line, we must assume that there was a strict mandate to not inter-marry with non-believers. Secondly, it means there had to be a strict law prior to the mosaic law forbidding this. Along the lines, if you intermarry you shall surely be put to death. It seems to me for God to judge the whole race because of an issue of intermarriage and destroying them completely to be more than extreme, unless every single person intermarried. Now if there was an "unholy" race, such as could come about by an unnatural union, that could be seen as detrimental to humanity, it would need to be erradicated completely, much like a cancer. Even after the line of Seth was to be preserved, there were times of intermarriage, where the judgment was not as harsh. We can banter back and forth about this but for me, there are too many arguments against the line of Seth as for. I may not be able to prove it undeniably from scripture, but in the same way, you can't prove Seth's line, it just isn't clear and for both views it requires speculation and assumption. One just makes much more sense to me than the other. BTW, I used to believe it spoke of Seth's line, but I always felt uncomfortable with that view. Attributing it to Seth's line leaves far more questions than to fallen angels.

The prohibition on intermarriage between God's people and unbelievers is elsewhere corroborated in Scripture:

Deut. 7:3-4: "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you."

Josh. 23:11-13: "So take diligent heed to yourselves to love the LORD your God. For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you."

II Cor. 6:14-18: "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the people of the living God; just as God said, 'I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,' says the Lord. 'And do no touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,' says the Lord Almighty." (Note here as well who are the "sons of God.")

We well know how disobedience to this principal worked out in the case of Solomon (I Kings 11). Mind what Nehemiah said:

Neh. 13:23-27: "In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, btut the language of his own people. So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, 'You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take of their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin regarding these things? Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin. Do we then hear that you have committed all this great evil by acting unfaithfully against our God by marrying foreign women?'"

This prohibition is part of the moral law of God. One's choice of spouse is fundamentally caught up with one's devotion to God. The one who loves God and seeks to obey Him will seek a spouse who also loves God. The one who does not put God before all else will follow after his own desires and seek out a spouse that best pleases his own sinful fancies, and in so doing he will be drawn away from God. It is tantamount to idolatry to knowingly marry an unbeliever. Little wonder then that God would be angry with the descendants of godly Seth for taking to themselves ungodly wives from the line of Cain.


Intermarriage was not the only reason for God's decision to wipe out humanity save Noah: "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5).


But here's the problem: Nowhere in Genesis 6 does God say that he is destroying humanity because of an "unholy race" of human-angel hybrids. Nowhere in Genesis 6 does God express anger against fallen angels and promise to punish them. His anger and grief is entirely with mankind.


This issue is which interpretation is most in line with the overall teaching of Scripture. What I'm saying about this passage is corroborated elsewhere in Scripture, e.g., believers are elsewhere described as "sons of God," and intermarriage with unbelievers is strictly prohibited. All the meanings you're putting into the text are purely speculative. There is nowhere in all of Scripture that teaches that angels can procreate or that fallen angels live or have lived in human society; there is nowhere in all of Scripture where demons are treated as something different from fallen angels; there is nowhere in all of Scripture where demons are said to be the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim; and beyond on all, there isn't even anything in Gen. 6 that suggests that the Nephilim are actually the offspring of the ungodly marriages! Your entire position begins with the totally unwarranted inference that the Nephilim are actually the offspring of these marriages.


What "more" questions does it leave? I mean, I can hardly think of any question regarding the Sethite intermarriage interpretation that is more difficult or speculative to answer than these: "What, exactly, is a human-angel hybrid?" "Would a human-angel hybrid be fertile, or, like mules, infertile?" "Why would God be angry specifically with humanity for the evil actions of fallen angels and the existence of 'unholy' human-angel hybrids?"

I feel bad because you take so much time to make an answer, and mine are so short. You backed up your position about not intermarrying with verses which were post Mosaic in nature, that doesn't prove that there was such a law prior to the flood, you are making an assumption also.

As for God being grieved that He made man, this view helps us understand Gen. 6:6 better. He was grieved because of what the fallen angels had done. Their actions required Him to destroy the whole race except for Noah and his family. This was another verse that I had difficulty with, but it makes more sense now.

I am chewing on it all yet, but as I said, I believe it is to big a leap to make me change my view, for me, Seth's line is a ridiculous interpretation. I'm sure you think my thinking is as ridiculous, but that is the way it is. I find answers with the angelic interpretation, with yours, it only creates or leaves questions in my mind. I'm trying to be open minded about both views, but Seth's line doesn't fit into my overall thinking.

I appreciate all your efforts and replies. For your first section, as said, the verses were all post Mosaic, for the second, the wickedness of man was great is true. The race was infected and being led/influenced by unholy beings, the course of the world was the course of wickedness, going deeper and deeper into darkness. God's striving and man's days as 120 years was the time until the plague (infection) would be cleansed. I believe God kept man from becoming as wicked as he could be during this time due to unholy influences. Even the animals had to be destroyed, that gives me other ideas, but I'm sure I bored you enough.

You say your point is upheld by scripture, but I have a problem with that because it too makes assumptions. There were men in the past who were convinced their interpretation was right and because of that, they missed seeing the Messiah when He came. We can also be so convinced of a wrong view causing us to miss the greater truths. Again, I'm only giving you my view, I would not have anyone accept it unless they were truly convinced in their own heart. I feel comfortable with the view and it does not bring injury to any of my reformed beliefs. We build houses of doctrine and everything must fit together. If a time came that this view did not fit, I would willingly tear it down but for now, I build on.

I'm making a deduction, not an assumption; much less a mere speculation. It is true enough that not all areas of the Mosaic law were in effect prior to Sinai, and those same areas not in effect then are no longer in effect since the first coming of Christ. Such would be laws having specifically to do with the nation-state of ancient Israel and the ceremonial laws relating to the Mosaic economy of worship (with its priests, temple, altars, sacrifices, feast days, etc.). However, the general principle which prohibits intermarriage between the people of God and unbelievers is explicitly carried over even into the New Testament, as I demonstrated with II Cor. 6:14-18, and it is grounded in the prohibition against idolatry, i.e., the First Commandment; likewise, the Ten Commandments are still in effect, and no doubt they were in effect prior to Sinai as well.

Quote

As for God being grieved that He made man, this view helps us understand Gen. 6:6 better. He was grieved because of what the fallen angels had done. Their actions required Him to destroy the whole race except for Noah and his family. This was another verse that I had difficulty with, but it makes more sense now.

No, this does not make more sense. In fact, it makes less sense. God was grieved that He created [b]man (v. 6), for "the wickedness of [b]man was great on the earth, and every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (v. 5). It nowhere says he was grieved because of an unholy race of human-angel hybrids, as I've said before. To support your interpretation, you have to import so many ideas into the text that are absolutely uncorroborated anywhere else in Scripture. This is why I say that your interpretation is [i]pure speculation.


I'm still trying to figure out what questions the Sethite intermarriage interpretation presents to your mind that are so irresolvable. I've already given you some of my irresolvable questions with the copulating fallen angels interpretation; you might want to take a crack at answering those?


Again, WHERE does the text say anything about mankind being led and influenced by unholy human-angel hybrids? WHERE does God express His displeasure with the actions of fallen angels? WHY does God direct His wrath specifically against MANKIND, and not against these unholy human-angel hybrids and fallen angels?


You'll recall that man was set in charge over the animals (Gen. 1:29); and the suffering of all creation is due to the sinfulness of mankind (Rom. 8:19-22).


Now you're excusing yourself from the hard work of understanding the Scripture because you think I make "assumptions." Okay, here's my "assumption": God's word is consistent with itself throughout. I've shown you how my position is corroborated by the teaching of the whole of Scripture. You have not done the same for your position.

That is a conclusion based upon your presumption of angels copulating with human women which produced alleged creatures (demons). But in fact, it was the depravity of the entire human race which began with Adam's transgression which grieved God and which precipitated the flood. God continues to be grieved over the depravity of the human race even while no such "creatures" which you have postulated exist. And further, the human race will once again be destroyed due to its sinful depravity but by fire and not water. (2Pet 3:1-7)

Perhaps you are putting too much emphasis upon "Seth/Sethite" and/or not understanding what is being said by those who hold to the historic view? All that is being offered is the truth that there are two "lines", i.e., groups of people among the entire human race. There are those who are chosen of God, the elect, who are brought to faith in Christ and who are kept until the day of redemption. These are those who are so often referred to as "saints", "sons of God", etc. They are those who live holy lives, albeit imperfectly and hunger after righteousness. Then there are those who are reprobate, those left to their depravity to live out their lives in total rebellion against God. They are often referred to as "evil", "wicked", etc. This is foundational Reformed Theology.

It is this biblical truth which we believe is being referred to in Gen 6 and not some fanciful idea that angelic beings married human women, had relations with them which resulted in some alien offspring; call them Nephilim (already soundly refuted since they already existed) or demons of whatever. The great weight of biblical teaching lies with the two "lines" which begins with Gen 3:15 and ends with the glorification of the saints and the damnation of all others; angels and humans alike.

I do believe there has been sufficient biblical evidence offered to both defend the historic view and to refute the view you are currently embracing. Truly, at least in my own mind, it must take far more stretching and wresting of the Scriptures to hold to Brown's view than it does to embrace the "two lines" view, aka: Covenant Theology. If I had to provide an example between the two it would probably be similar to the difference between Evolution and Creation. For me, it demands for more presumption and "faith" to hold to Evolution than to a God-created universe.

May the Lord give you wisdom in this matter and guide you in "rightly handling the Word of Truth".

In His grace,