ON THIS PAGE Introduction The Sons of God Noblemen, Aristocrats and/or Kings Descendents of Seth The Line of Cain
Lamech and Worldy Pursuits The Line of Seth
Enosh
Josephus
The Targums
The Hebrew Word Chalal
Other Commentators
To Sum Up Additional Supporting Evidence The Term Sons of God
The Term Daughters of Men Angels and Women
A Hundred And Twenty Years
Angels Do Not Marry Tales, Folklore And Tradition… Based On Primitive Truths?
Demigods in Greeks Mythology, Hinduism and The Egyptians
The Titans Jude and Peter
Are The Fallen Angels Demonic Beings?
The Nephilim Who Were The Inhabitants Of Canaan that God Wanted Completely Exterminated
Early Instructions Regarding The Canaanites
Specific Named Giants After The Flood The Overlooked Implications
The Personal Pronoun in Daniel’s Prophecy
The “Masters” in The Occult Introduction “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown: [Genesis 6:1-4. Emphasis Added]
The exact nature of the bizarre events described in these verses are among the most controversial among serious Bible scholars, but although there is more disagreement over these verses than just about any other in the Bible, it does not pay to gloss over them, as they are exceedingly important and could very well affect every one of us in the not too distant future. It is of crucial importance that we understand what our Lord meant when He said "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man," (Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26), simply because He linked these two epochs together and said that one is the parallel of the other.. It has been said that an understanding of these verses is not one of the critical issues which underlie one’s salvation, which is certainly true. However, if we are living in the days immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ we can expect conditions similar to those that existed in the days of Noah. It is imperative that we know what these conditions were, so as to be prepared for what the future holds. Conservative scholars, who have the most difficulty with these passages, endeavor to provide one or two other possible explanations, neither of which hold water. While those who don’t take the Bible either literally, or seriously, are quick to call the account a myth, even though Moses spoke of it as an actual historical event. What is certain is that the saying "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything" holds true here. An accurate interpretation of Genesis 6:1-6 hinges upon the definition of three key terms, the sons of God, the daughters of men, and the Nephilim, without imposing on the text what is obviously not there.
The Sons of God:
The term translated "the Sons of God" is the Hebrew B'nai HaElohim or Sons of Elohim. Elohim in the Old Testament most often refers to the one God of the Israelites,
“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown: [Genesis 6:1-4. Emphasis Added]
Who Were These Sons of God? There are three possible answers to the question The first, and least likely, theory is that these sons of God were noblemen or aristocrats of the land, who intermarried with women who were not highborn. The second theory, advanced by many conservative scholars, is that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth (Adam and Eve’s third son), who married unbelieving ungodly women. The third, and most bizarre theory, which was the view of both the translators of the Septuagint and the early church fathers, is these sons of God were fallen angels who through cohabitation with human women produced very strange hybrid offspring called the "Nephilim. [See The Septuagint]
Examining each of these in turn…
Noblemen, Aristocrats and/or Kings
In the ancient Near East, it was common practice for the pagan ruler to be called the son of one of their deities. For example Egyptian pharaohs like Tutankhamun were called the son of the god Re. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun]. However no king, or other noble, in Israel was so called
It is true that on at least one occasion the judges of Israel were referred to as gods… I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High." Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes." [Psalm 82:6-7]
But, read in context, the term "gods" is used more as irony.. language that normally signifies the opposite. Compare Paul's sarcastic statement in 1 Corinthians 4:8.. "you have become kings". Paul's whole point is that they had NOT become kings. In fact the judges in Psalm 82 are being condemned for their unjust judgments in which they show partiality to the wicked. The statement, "Nevertheless, you will die as men," indicates that far from being gods, they were condemned to death. [Details in The Deification of Man] Additionally no one in the Old Testament, besides Adam, was ever called a son of God, a term which has a very precise definition in the Bible. More about that below.
Descendants of Seth
The second possibility is that the sons of God in Genesis 6 referred to the line of Seth.
Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him." [Genesis 4:25]
Many students of the Bible have been taught that Seth, who was born of Adam and Eve to replace the righteous Abel, was the father of a line of descendants that remained holy and faithful. However the line of Cain, following in the footsteps of their father, were ungodly and rebellious. The sons of God are believed to refer to the Seth’s male descendants, while the daughters of men are Cain’s female descendants. The resulting marriages supposedly blurred an inferred separation between them. One line of reasoning for this belief is that the generations of Cain and Seth are outlined in detail in the previous two chapters and, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that chapter six is continuing the discussion about these two family lines. This very ‘safe’ theory is still widely taught today in many churches today, that either cannot deal with the literal angel view, or finds it ‘impossible’. While this interpretation may be more palatable and less disturbing since it avoids the bizarre, almost unbelievable, situation of spirit beings copulating with humans, it is nonetheless based on a series of assumptions that have absolutely no Scriptural support. Besides which Jesus Himself said that the events of Genesis 6 would parallel the days preceding His return (Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26). I fail to see how the Sethite- Cainite scenario could duplicate itself. Besides which, there is no evidence, stated or implied, that the entire line of Seth was godly or that the entire line of Cain was ungodly
The Line of Cain Lamech and Worldy Pursuits
Although Cain killed his brother, the Bible never once says, or even infers, that his entire line was particularly ungodly… any more so than the rest of the world at the time. Genesis 6:12 states that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth. Noah and his immediate family were the only ones found faithful on the earth. If all of Seth’s line were so righteous, why were they left out of the Ark to die in the flood? In fact some of Cain’s descendants had names that reflected the remembrance and recognition of God. The name Mechujael, Cain’s great grandson, meant smitten of God, while his son Methushael’s name meant man of God. Lamech, about five generations down from Cain, had three sons who were the inventors of most of the arts which both sustain, and embellish, life… Jabal- father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock, Jubal- father of all those who play the lyre and pipe, and Tubal-Cain- forger of all implements of bronze and iron (metal working). In an effort to prove that they were all ungodly, it is said that these were “material pursuits” because the Cainites had a “worldly character” and paid more attention to the practical side of life than the Sethites. I wonder what would be said about the “worldly pursuits” of the modern day Christian.. baseball, concerts, and manufacturing anyone? Besides which even Abel was a keeper of sheep [4:2] The truth is that, bypassing efforts to find something wrong with animal husbandry, there is not much to condemn in the recorded conduct of the race of Cain. In fact Lamech’s family, inventors of the various arts, seemed rather remarkable. Interestingly the line of Cain is only traced only until the seventh generation from Adam, while Seth’s line is traced much further. Is the reason for this perhaps to point out the origin of man’s inventiveness, enterprise and talent? It is true that Lamech admitted to his wives that he had killed a man, which many have taken as a prideful boast. However this is reading something into the text that is neither explicitly stated nor even implied. The text reads as if Lamech slew the man in self defense. In those days a murdered person’s next of kin had a right to revenge his death by taking away the life of the murderer. It could just as well be that Lamech was seeking to reassure his wives that he had done no wrong, comforting them with the thought that if Cain the murderer would be avenged sevenfold, he who had killed in self self-defense would be avenged seventy and seven-fold. And as far as the supposed “material pursuits” of the Cainites is concerned, we have to remember that it is entirely likely that Noah (a descendent of Seth) had to have had either natural ability and/or some previous training that stood him in good stead when he built the ark.
The Line of Seth Enosh Certainly among Seth’s descendants were found righteous men who found favor with God. For example both Enoch who walked with God, and Noah were direct descendants of Seth [Enoch was Methuselah’s father and Noah’s great grandfather]. However a great deal of the arguments in favour of Seth’s righteous line stem from the last verse of Genesis 4. Most modern translations of the Bible say And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. [Genesis 4:26]
The verse above seems straightforward enough but, on reflection, poses a large problem, inasmuch as if it was only in the time of Enosh that men began to become more aware of God and worship Him, who did Adam and the righteous Abel call upon? Who did Seth himself call upon and worship? There is apparently a huge inconsistency here if the usual translation is considered accurate, but not all scholars agree that it is. A more exact, and literal, translation of this verse is said to be However older texts and Jewish commentaries differ even from the above, interpreting the verse in question as the beginning of idolatry As the apostle Paul wrote. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. [Romans 1:21-23]
Note that the very name Enosh is compatible with this translation of the text. In ancient Israel names were very important and were not given without thought and purpose. The name given a person was generally descriptive of his position or nature, some circumstance affecting him, or some hope entertained by his family concerning him. Learning the meaning behind a name often disclosed key information about the person called by that name. The name Enosh or Enos is one of a few words that indicate man or mankind. It is rooted in the word ‘nsh (135, 136, 137) meaning man or mankind in its frailty and weakness. Anash (135) means desperate, woeful, very sick. [1] Was the naming of Enosh an allusion to the beginnings of mans weakness.. idolatry and self aggrandizement?
Josephus:
In chapter three of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus says that for seven generations the sons of Seth regarded the name of the Lord but, from the seventh generation on, they fell into moral decay and began to worship other gods
NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. [2]
The Targums
According to Eliezer Segal who holds a Ph.D in Talmud from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and serves as Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary
A "Targum" is a translation, but the term is usually used specifically to designate Aramaic translations of the Bible. According to an ancient Jewish tradition, the public reading of the Bible in the synagogue must be accompanied by a translation into Aramaic, which was the spoken language of most Jews in Israel and Babylonia during the Talmudic era. … As the use of Aramaic declined, the practice of reciting the Targum in the synagogue fell into disuse in most Jewish communities. [3]
The Targum of Onkelos says: [Emphasis Added] And Adam knew yet his wife, and she bare a son, and called his name Sheth; Because, said she, the Lord hath given me another son instead of Habel, whom Kain slew. And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord. [4]
The Targum of Jonathan says: [Emphasis Added] And Adam knew his wife again, at the end of a hundred and thirty years after Habel had been slain; and she bare a son, and called his name Sheth; for she said, The Lord hath given me another son instead of Habel whom Kain slew. And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord.
It seems to be true that the Targums sometimes differed from the original Hebrew, exceeding the bounds of even paraphrase. This was often done when the authors thought the Hebrew Bible was deficient in it’s portrayal of God, or what man could or could not do in God’s presence. However, it does not seem that there is any straying from the original text in this case.
The Hebrew Chalal.
The Hebrew words used in this verse do not necessarily agree with the traditional interpretation of a righteous Enosh in whose time men began to worship the true God. The traditional translation reads [Emphasis Added] And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah. [Genesis 4:26]
The Hebrew word that has been translated into the English ‘began’ is chalal which, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, means “to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin, to profane oneself, defile oneself, pollute oneself either ritually or sexually, to violate the honour of, dishonour, to violate (a covenant), to treat as common, to profane (name of God),” etc.
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek lexicon agrees, saying chalal means bore, that is, (by implication) to wound, to dissolve; figuratively to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one’s word), defile, pollute, profane etc.
Of the 142 instances of chalal in the ASV, it has been translated into profaned, polluted and defiled many times. And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. [Exodus 20:25] And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable things, and have filled mine inheritance with their abominations. [Jeremiah 16:18] because they had not executed mine ordinances, but had rejected my statutes, and had profaned my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols [Ezekiel 20:24]
Other Commentators
Grace Bible church points out that
C.I. Scofield agrees with the marginal note in the original 1611 KJV and understands this verse to say that men began to “call themselves by the name of Jehovah.” (Genesis 4:26; Scofield Reference Notes, 1917 Edition) E. W. Bullinger agrees that something untoward is going on here: “What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah. They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah.” Bible teacher, John Malone, in his series on the Dispensation of Conscience says that “this verse does not record when men began to truly worship, but this is when men began to call themselves, or their gods, by the name of the Lord.” Adam Clarke, in his commentary, acknowledges “that many eminent men have contended that huchal [chalal], which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry.” [5]
To Sum Up
There is absolutely no Biblical evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Cain was particularly ungodly or the line of Seth particularly godly, It doesn’t make a whit of sense to say it was only in the time of Enosh that men began to call upon the name of the Lord, considering that both his father Seth and his uncle Abel were considered righteous men. In fact the underlying cause of Abel’s murder was his offering unto God a more excellent sacrifice than his brother, Cain. Abel was obviously doing something right. The Hebrew word chalal translated began in Genesis 4:26 has often been translated profane, defile, pollute, desecrate. Both the Targums and Jewish commentators agree that it was in the days of Enosh that man began to make themselves idols, calling them or themselves by the name of the Lord and/or began to profane the His name. The Scriptures say “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12),
The weight of evidence points to the fact that men did not start turning to God in faith in the time of Enosh, but rather began taking His name in vain, either assigning it to themselves and/or the idols they built. But there is even more support that points away from the sons of God referring to the sons of Seth.
Additional Supporting Evidence
Command to Remain Separate? There is no evidence that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate, or were ever instructed to do so. The command for the people of God to remain apart from the unbelieving world was not issued until much later, with the first instance appearing in Genesis 24 when Abraham made his servant swear that he would not pick a wife for Isaac from among the Canaanites. In Genesis 28:1 Isaac instructed his son Jacob to not choose a wife from the daughters of Canaan. It was not until Exodus 34 that there was a direct command from God to avoid any intermarriage lest the daughters of pagan nations made the sons of Israel “play the harlot”.
Seth was not God: If the text was speaking of the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain why didn't it simply say so? Besides which, Seth was not God so why would his descendants be referred to as “the sons of God”? Reverse Intermarriage? And why was this supposed intermarriage a one way street? It doesn’t seem at all likely that no intermarriage took place between the daughters of Seth and the sons of Cain? Supposedly male Sethites married female Cainites, but male Cainites never married female Sethites.. godly men married ungodly women, but godly women never married ungodly men. Arrogance Unlimited: The wording of the text suggests that it was the sons of God that did the choosing, while the daughters of men had little say in the matter. This arrogance would not be the method undertaken by the “godly” sons of Seth. Were Seth’s Female Descendants all Ugly? It also seems slightly out of place that the text specifically says they these sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive. Did they not find the women in their own line attractive? What was so special about the daughters of Cain? Besides which, this interpretation of the text implies that only the sons of Seth were godly. What about the daughters of Seth? Sin Big Enough to Cause the Flood: Reading these verses in context makes it clear that along with man’s wickedness, which the Bible calls “great in the earth” [V.5], this cohabitation was a contributing cause of the cataclysmic flood. It is impossible to reconcile intermarriage between the Sethites and Cainites, which would not be particularly unusual or unnatural, with the destruction of the entire earth, especially since God had never instructed them to remain separate. In fact, at no time, either before the Flood or since, has God destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the human race for the sin of "mixed marriages". The very reason for the later prohibition against intermarriage was that the Israelites would have been enticed to worship idols and bow down to strange gods [Numbers 25:1-2] [See The Phinehas Spirit]. In those days, it was of crucial importance to preserve the nation of Israel, because it was through them that the Messiah came to the world. It was the Jews that identified the true prophets and faithfully preserved their words... passing them on to future generations. [See The Apocrypha] However when Moses was up on the mountain waiting to receive the Law, the Israelites had Aaron fashion them a golden calf which they then began to worship.. At this the Lord told Moses “now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation”. He did not threaten to destroy the entire world, but only the nation of Israel, then start again with Moses. On the other hand, cohabitation between angels and humans would be reason aplenty to destroy what had become an unbelievably tainted gene pool. Nephilim: Why would the offspring of a union between the Sethites and Cainites called the Nephilim? Children born to parents of different religious views are not ‘unnatural’ in any way, but all indications are that the Nephilim were very different from normal humans. But more about this later.
As should be perfectly obvious by now, the hypothesis of the sons of God being Seth’s descendants is completely unconvincing. It is made even more implausible by the Bible’s very specific use of the term sons of God, which again does not fit the Seth theory.
The Term “Sons of God”
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (son of the Creator Himself), is only used of someone who is born of a specific divine act of creation. Jesus is referred to as the Son of God throughout the New Testament. While He was with the Father from the beginning, He was also God's Son in that He was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:35 tells us that the angel told Mary … 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’” Adam: In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a son of God (Luke 3:38) However note very carefully that, except for Adam, who was created directly by God, no human in the Old Testament was ever called a Son of God. Believers In The New Testament are called Sons of God (John 1:12) because they, being born again of the Spirit of God, are considered to be a new creation. Christ gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.. who at their resurrection will be equal to the angels. [Luke 20:36] He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, [John 1:11, 12] Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. [2 Corinthians 5:17]
The Angels, who were directly created by the Father and do not reproduce as men do, were referred to as B’nai HaElohim or sons of God. Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them. [Job 1:6]
In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Satan being among them makes it certain that all of them were angels. When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:7]
Job 38:7 could not refer to any other beings besides angels, since man had not even been created at this time. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods. [Daniel 3:25]
In Daniel 3:25, when king Nebuchadnezzar looked into the fiery furnace and saw four men, he said "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God" using the words bar elohim… a similar form of the phrase B'nai HaElohim used in Genesis 6. Subsequent translations have further clarified this verse saying that the fourth form the king saw was "like a son of the gods." Since Jesus had not yet become the only begotten son of God, this son would have had to be angelic. No one takes issue with the fact that the angels are the only ones in the Old Testament (beside Adam) called the sons of God, yet the same people will argue that the same exact term (B’nai HaElohim), used in Genesis 6, does not refer to the angels. One of the reasons given is that these fallen angels can not be described as sons of God in the same manner as angels are described in Job. However note that as good spiritual beings these sons of God noticed that the daughters of man were attractive. It is only when they acted on their desires and left their heavenly abode to intermarry with women that they could actually be considered fallen. No one is considered a criminal before they carry out a crime. Additionally, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the third century before Christ (what we know as The Septuagint), the term sons of God was translated as angels.
The Daughters of Men.
The term translated "The Daughters Of Men" is the Hebrew Benoth Adam, or Daughters of Adam. It is the second key expression in these verses.
If the expression Daughters of Cain had been used it would have been understood to mean the women of one branch of Adam’s female descendants.. those directly descended from Cain. However Daughters of Adam points to all Adam’s natural female descendants. The terms are quite simply not interchangeable. To attempt to do so is to endeavor to retreat to a comfortable safe zone, by forcing the text to reflect one’s own ideas of what is, and is not, possible in the spirit world.
Angels and Women
Genesis 6 is not talking of a physical union between two different tribes of people (in this case the Sethites and Cainites), or even of people with different moral standards and religious beliefs, but is clearly speaking of a far more serious and deviant situation… Fallen angels intermarrying with human women, producing unnatural, superhuman offspring… a new race of beings that were neither human nor angelic.
Josephus, like many of the ancient Jewish commentators believed that Genesis 6 was talking about literal angels. In chapter three of his Antiquities of the Jews, he says For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. [2]
I Corinthians: There is a very intriguing verse in I Corinthians which has given rise to no end of speculation and conjecture. It says for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. [1Corinthians 11:9-10]
Paul instructs women to cover their heads as a sign of subjection to her husband, and also because of the angels. Why this sudden reference to angels? Paul apparently believed that an uncovered woman was a temptation even to the angels, which makes sense in light of Jewish tradition that maintains that it was the beauty of the women's long hair that attracted and tempted the angels to sin in the Genesis 6 account.
A Hundred And Twenty Years
The book of Genesis says
Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3 RSV)
The verse above is often taken as a reference to the length of man’s life before the flood. In other words, prior to this, man often lived several hundred years, but the individual’s life span was now limited by God to a hundred and twenty years. However considering the context, this is probably not the meaning at all, but is quite certainly a reference to the existence of the entire human race. In other words, God’s long-suffering would endure only for one hundred and twenty more years before He put an end to the then prevalent conditions… It was a period of grace. Note that Noah was 500 years old when his sons were born (Genesis 5:32) and 600 years old when the flood came. But even in that relatively short period of time God did not leave humankind without a witness or a warning, which came in the form of Noah, a righteous man who walked with God. Although it probably took Noah a long time to build the Ark, it was apparently ignored by people who had nothing but evil in their hearts. At the end of the set number of years the cataclysmic flood came. Note: There are those that find it rather odd that Noah was found to be the only righteous person on earth prior to the flood and that the rest of the earth was filled with violence. However both archaeological ad literary evidence point to the fact that ancient man was exceptionally violent. [See Footnote I] One of the objections to the fallen angel scenarios is that….
Angels Do Not Marry
In answering the Sadducees who tried to trip Him up, Jesus spoke about the state of man after the resurrection of the body. He said
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt 22:30-31; Mark 12:25)
So how is it possible that the fallen angels could cohabit with the daughters of man? It is less of a problem than some imagine, since Scripture is very clear that the reason the angels are described as fallen is because they had actually left their first estate, or proper dwelling. They were no longer a part of God’s heaven. The word Oiketerion, which means (literally or figuratively) a residence appears only twice in the Bible… in 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6. For verily in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation (oikētērion) which is from heaven: [2 Corinthians 5:2] And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation (oikētērion), he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. [Jude 1:6]
While Paul’s phrase “to be clothed upon with our house” is unusual, he probably used the word as representing a permanent dwelling place... an eternal body that was not subject to decay. The word Oiketerion is used for the state that believers aspire to and the angels abandoned. Until humans achieve this they will continue to marry and produce children. However when the angels left their proper habitation, something changed and they were able to cohabit with whom they chose. It is in heaven they do not marry, but neither will we. When Jesus said that the angels of God in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who left heaven were incapable of doing so. Whenever angels have appeared visibly to men, they have appeared in the physical bodies of men. Those who met with Abraham actually ate with him (Genesis 18:8). The writer of Hebrews also says that some "have entertained angels unawares" (Hebrews 13:2).
Tales, Folklore And Tradition… Based On Primitive Truths?
However affairs (or marriages) between spirit beings and mortals is not relegated solely to an obscure passage of Scripture, but is also found in several non Biblical sources… in the tales, folklore and traditions of many cultures around the world. Perhaps best known are the Greek myths about the amorous adventures of their gods.
How is this possible? Simply because mythology is not mere fairy stories made up by man, but originates in the memories of various people around the globe. True history, both embellished and corrupted over time, eventually evolves into the form of the ‘myths’ that we are familiar with today. However considering the common elements that often run through these myths found in multiple cultures, it is not hard to believe that they were essentially based on primitive truths. For example… Demigods
the myths and legends of many major civilizations speak of the gods impregnating human women. The resulting half-god, half-man offspring were called demigods and often became legendary figures. Greeks Mythology
Hercules was the Roman name for the greatest hero of Greek mythology -- Heracles. Like most authentic heroes, Heracles had a god as one of his parents, being the son of the supreme deity Zeus and a mortal woman, Alcmene. Achilles who fought in the Trojan War was the hero of Homer's Iliad. He was the son of the mortal Peleus and the sea nymph Thetis. Hinduism
The five Pandava brothers, the heroes of the Hindu epic Mahabharata also fit the Western definition of demigods, since the two wives of king Pandu were impregnated by several different gods. The Egyptians
Egyptian pharaohs claimed to be sons of Horus, which would give them demigod status, as recognized by the Greek.
The male deities of Greek myth had far more notable children with mortals, than they had by mating with female goddesses. These hybrids were stronger, braver, and quicker than other mortals, accomplishing superhuman feats only possible because of their divine parent. Sound familiar? But wait! The connections are no where near exhausted. The Titans
In Greek mythology, the Titans were a race of 12 powerful deities, sons and daughters of Gaia and Uranus, the god of the sky. Cronus, the leader of the Titans, was father of Zeus. When the Titans rebelled against their father Uranus, they were defeated by Zeus and condemned to Tartarus. (Tartarus in Greek mythology, (from the Greek Tartarizo, meaning "shivering cold"), is both a deity and a place in the underworld — even lower than Hades. this word only occurs once in the Bible (2 Peter 2:4) where it is translated "hell". There are no Biblical references to people going to Tartarus which seems to be a separate place from Hades and possibly reserved for fallen angels).
Alice Bailey once wrote 'After the great descent of the spiritual Existences [the Masters] to the earth, the work they planned to do was systematised. Offices were apportioned, and the processes of evolution in all the departments of nature were brought under the conscious wise guidance of this initial Brotherhood. This Hierarchy of Brothers of Light still exists, and the work goes steadily on. They are all in physical existence, either in dense physical bodies, such as many of the Masters employ, or in etheric bodies, such as the more exalted helpers and the Lord of the World occupy …”
Compare this to Revelation 12:9 'The great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him'
So both Greek “mythology” and occult literature tell a very similar story to the one told by the Bible. Even more tellingly, the Greek Titan is linguistically linked to the Chaldean Sheitan, the Hebrew Satan and the Hindi Shaitan, all of which mean the devil. [See Alice Bailey and the Lucis Trust And Ascended Masters]
Jude and Peter
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. [Jude 1:6-7]
The Greek word heteros translated strange simply means other or different, and is not necessarily a reference to homosexuality. For example 1 Timothy 1:10 says for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other (heteros) thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
Jude is certainly comparing the sin of the fallen angels with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 19].. In both cases a sexual union, unnatural and contrary to nature, is at issue. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the strange flesh was homosexuality; in the case of the angels, the strange flesh was female. Note: There are those that believe that Jude was not referring to homosexuality when he penned the statement about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah going after strange flesh. [See Footnote III. What Did Jude Mean by “Strange Flesh”] Peter not only links the time of the fall of these angels with the days of the Flood of Noah but provides an interesting background to Greek “mythology”. Remember the story of the Titans... sons and daughters of Gaia and Uranus. When the Titans rebelled against their father they were defeated by Zeus and condemned to Tartarus. For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell (Greek tartaroō) , and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with even others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly;
[2 Peter 2:4-6]
The word translated hell above is the only instance of the word Tartarus in the New Testament
Are The Fallen Angels Demonic Beings?
We simply can not assume that these fallen angels are demonic beings, the difference being that the demons rebelled against God and were chucked out of heaven. The fallen angels of Genesis 6 left Heaven to intermarry with the daughters of man, which does not necessarily make them evil in the sense of the word as applied to demons.
While the Bible makes it clear that it was the terrible offspring of the union between women and angels that were to be eliminated off the face of the earth [See the next section on the Nephilim], one does not know the state of mind of the angels confined to Tartarus. 1 Peter 3:18-19 brings up the interesting possibility... that Jesus after His resurrection went and preached to these fallen angels in prison. Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached (Greek kērussō) unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: [1 Peter 3:18-20]
Many, who assume the captive spirits are people, have come to the conclusion that Peter was suggesting that Jesus went and preached to the people of Noah's generation in a spiritual sense (The text makes reference solely to Noah’s generation). However, if taken in the sense of Jesus preaching the Gospel to people who had already died, these verses contradicts Hebrews 9:27, which says… “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment”. In other words there is no such thing as post-mortem salvation… the spirits of dead people cannot be reached with the gospel. In any case, the text itself reads that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, not to anyone in Sheol/Hades, which brings up the strong possibility that this message was delivered to the fallen angels. What we can not be sure about is what the message was that Jesus proclaimed to the angels since it is not made explicit in the text. But, contrary to much I have read on the subject, the Greek word that has been translated preached is kērusso, used some 60 times in the New Testament, and often clearly used to proclaim the Gospel. [For Details See Jesus… Reborn in Hell?]
The Nephilim
The Nephilim (nephil) were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty (gibbô) men that were of old (ôlâm), the men of renown (shêm). [Genesis 6:4. All Emphasis Added]
This verse uses several words to describe the hybrid offspring. The first word Nephilim has been transliterated from the Hebrew nephil but has been translated giants. The word itself generally is considered to be derived from the verb naphal meaning “to fall.” However there is absolutely no indication that this means they fell from heaven since fallen has a variety of connotations. However, this is the same word used in Numbers 13:33 by the spies sent to scout out the Promised land which was inhabited by several tribes. I have heard it said that the spies resorted to hyperbole, but how do we know this. How do we know at they were not calling it pretty much as they saw it. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the verse emphasizes the size of the inhabitants. And there we saw the Nephilim (nephil), the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim (nephil): and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. [Numbers 13:33]
Additionally, Flavius Josephus, the noted Jewish historian of the first century A.D., said In Hebron there were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day (Josephus Ant. 5.2.3)
2) The second word translated mighty men is the Hebrew gibbôr. It is a word commonly used in the Old Testament and is often used to describe warriors or fighting men, as in the example below So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up to Ai: and Joshua chose out thirty thousand men, the mighty men of valor, and sent them forth by night.[Joshua 8:3]
The warriors of Jericho are also thus described. And Jehovah said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thy hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty (gibbôr) men of valor. [Joshua 6:2]
Naomi's husband is described as a mighty man of wealth. And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty (gibbôr) man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz. [Ruth 2:1]
As used in the Old Testament the word gibbôr denotes powerful. However it is to be noted that there is no mention of mighty women, which would be strange if this were a product of a normal union which produces both males and females. It would not be surprising if these Nephilim were more powerful than any human. Although not an identical situation… demons can impart superhuman strength to the human body. An example of this is found in the New Testament in Luke 8:27-36 which tells of a possessed man who was kept under guard, and bound with chains and fetters, but who seemed to have little problem snapping his restraints.
3) The third Hebrew word used is ôlâm, translated of old. Strong's Lexicon describes this word as being "generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity"; It is used over 400 times in the Old Testament usually in the sense of everlasting.
4) The last word used is shêm, translated renown. Strong's Lexicon says shêm is definite and conspicuous position. It is again a common word used almost 800 times in the Old Testament and has almost always been translated as name. So if these Nephilim were men of name as Youngs Literal translation says, renown works very well. To sum up, The Nephilim were physically very large, powerful, renowned and in some way of old or eternal.. possibly because of their paternal parentage.
Who, or What, Were The Inhabitants Of Canaan that God Wanted Completely Exterminated?
In the middle of Genesis 6:4 occurs four often overlooked words….Here they are in context.
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
Four obscure and seemingly innocuous little words that have huge implications. These four words indicate that although the Nephilim were wiped out during the flood, they were again found on the earth later on. The only other use of the word Nephilim is found, as mentioned above, in Numbers 13:33 where they are called the sons of Anak, or the children of the Anakims, or the Emims. Deuteronomy 2:10- 11 describes the Anakim thus "The Emim dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; which also were accounted giants, as the Anakim; but the Moabites called them Emims. [See Deuteronomy 2:10-11 and 9:2]
However the sons of Anak were not the only people the Israelites found occupying the territory that they had been promised. Numbers 13:29 tells us that when the spies entered the land… Amalek dwelleth in the land of the South: and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the hill-country; and the Canaanite dwelleth by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.
The Amalekites (Amalek was Esau’s grandson [Genesis 36:12]) were a wicked, oppressive, warlike and cruel people who, when the people were leaving Egypt came and attacked not the men, but the weak stragglers. God ordered king Saul to utterly destroy the entire people of Amalek (1 Samuel 15:18). [See Footnote II for the violent nature and culture of the Amalekites. Evidence for violence in prehistoric days is in Footnote I ] Deuteronomy 7:1 mentions 7 nations who inhabited the land of Canaan from the time of Abraham to the time of Joshua. At least four of these tribes, who’s names are in bold below, were directly descended from Canaan, son of Ham and grandson of Noah. When Jehovah thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; [Deuteronomy 7:1]
While the Perizzites are not specifically mentioned as being related to Canaan they, along with the Rephaim, are given as the equivalent of the Canaanites in Joshua 17:15, 18. The Hittites were closely allied to the Amorites, and are frequently mentioned along with them as inhabiting the mountains of Palestine. They also sided with the other Canaanites against the Israelites (Joshua 9:1; Joshua 11:3). So all these tribes Or “nations” were closely related or at least allied, with the former being more than likely. Note that according to Numbers 13:21-25 the spies spent some 40 days in the land, traveling around a good part of it, and, when they returned, they told Moses and Aaron that all the people that they saw were “men of great stature” or giants. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had spied out unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. [Numbers 13:32]
Since the word Nephilim is used one other time (in the Genesis 6) it seems reasonable to surmise that these giants could only be the result of the sons of God once again interbreeding with the daughters of men, which accounts for God’s instructions to Joshua when He ordered the complete extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan…. man, woman, and child "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:17).
Early Instructions Regarding The Canaanites:
It is also telling that much earlier than the events spoken of above, Abraham made his servant swear that he would not pick a wife for Isaac from among the Canaanites [Genesis 24], and Isaac in turn instructed his son Jacob to not choose a wife from the daughters of Canaan [Genesis 28:1]. Both men very specifically mentioning avoiding the Canaanites.
If the interbreeding was on a more limited scale than the first time around, God did not need to again destroy the entire earth but commanded the Jews to wipe these giant cities off the face of the earth, smiting every living person including the women and children. However, Israel, as so often happened, failed to obey God, which means that some of the Nephilim could very well have survived. For example… And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do taskwork. [Joshua 16:10] And it came to pass, when Israel was waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out. [Judges 1:28-34] And Joshua came at that time, and cut off the Anakim from the hill-country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill-country of Judah, and from all the hill-country of Israel: Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities. There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, did some remain. [Joshua 11:21-22]
Specific Named Giants After The Flood
Og, King of Bashan is first mentioned in chapters 21 and 32 of the Book of Numbers. He may have been an Amorite king who’s size is indicated by Scriptures description of his bed. Bashan was certainly known as the land of giants.
"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants: behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." [Deuteronomy 3:11] And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. [Deuteronomy 3:13]
The cubit—the approximate length of the forearm—is among the first recorded units of length used by an ancient people. The measurement is based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and usually equals about 18 inches. Which means that Og, King of Basham could have been more than 12 feet tall. Goliath of Gath: The description of Goliath of Gath in 1 Samuel 17:4-7 says he stood “six cubits and a span” tall, which meant he was over 9ft. His coat of mail was “five thousand shekels of brass” which is estimated at one hundred and fifty-six pounds. His spear “was like a weaver's beam” the head of which weighed six hundred shekels of iron or about eighteen pounds. The 21st chapter of 2 Samuel talks of other four other giants… all sons of Goliath Ishbibenob who was one had a spear that weighed “three hundred shekels of brass” or about eight pounds. Saph, about whom no details are given. Goliath the Gittite‘s spear was also “like a weaver's beam”. A fourth son said to be a man of great stature “had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number”
The Overlooked Implications
The book of Genesis tells us that God created one man and one woman. It is generally accepted by believers that this couple became the parents of all humans who live on earth. However we seem to be overlooking one unequivocal fact also pointed out in the book of Genesis. Although Adam and Eve were intended to be the parents of the human race, it didn’t exactly work out that way. It wasn’t very long after they left the garden of Eden, that a second non-human strain was added to the human gene pool, a strain that was never completely eliminated.
The Personal Pronoun in Daniel’s Prophecy: The question arises as to why the fallen angels would even want to mate with human women and produce offspring. Was this simply a matter of lust with the offspring being a natural and secondary consequence, or was there more sinister and diabolical scheme behind the entire affair?
Those that consider the fallen angels to be Satan and his cohorts hypothesize that they sought to corrupt the human race’s bloodline, which would keep the promised Savior of the world from being born, doom the entire human race and avert their own destruction. However, as previously mentioned, we can not state with any degree of certainty that the fallen angels were part of Satan’s rebellion and not an entirely different group that had lust as their only motive. However the even bigger question is exactly how these events will repeat themselves as our Lord said they would, and who will be behind the physical intrusion into our world? Certainly, one aspect of the pre-flood days is already being paralleled in our day.. the earth is full of violence. [Also See The Wrath of God] Remember that according to 2 Peter 2:4-6 the original fallen angels are bound in Tartarus and are “reserved unto judgment” therefore are unlikely to be part of the coming intrusion. This leaves us with one very chilling possibility... that the next time around it will be Satan and his demonic hordes that will seek to, one way or the other, physically take over this world. This scenario seamlessly blends into much occult literature (below) and brings to mind the words of the prophet Daniel. Regardless of whether we understand all details or not, we have to remember Daniel’s interpretation of king Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. When Daniel came down to the feet of the statue one unusual, but highly significant, statement brings up a very grim dimension. "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." [Daniel 2:43]
Also See A Dragon and Two Beasts Daniel uses the personal pronoun saying… they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men..." The phrase certainly indicates that whoever or whatever it is that will "mingle with the seed of men are not the seed of men themselves. However Daniel also very specifically says they will mingle but not cleave one to another. The trick here is in exact meaning of the two words used which have been translated mingle and cleave. This portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic, therefore the corresponding Hebrew word has been given in Strong’s Lexicon. Mingle: The word translated mingle is ‛ărab, used some 18 times in the Old Testament and which means to braid, or intermix; However this is a difficult word since it has also been used in the sense of surety or a mortgage [See for example Genesis 44:32 and Nehemiah 5:3]. In Ezra 9:2 mingle is definitely used in the sense of interbreeding. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.
But this is not necessarily the case in Ezekiel 27:27 where ‛ărab has been translated dealers in the ASV. Thy riches, and thy wares, thy merchandise, thy mariners, and thy pilots, thy calkers, and the dealers in thy merchandise, and all thy men of war, that are in thee, with all thy company which is in the midst of thee, shall fall into the heart of the seas in the day of thy ruin.
Cleave: While the word translated cleave is dâbaq, used some 52 times in the Old Testament and defined by Strong’s as to impinge, that is, cling or adhere; In this sense it is used to describe the marriage relationship and, more than once, of man clinging to God. (dâbaq is also used in the sense of to overtake or pursue hard). Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. [Genesis 2:24] So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave every one to his own inheritance. [Numbers 36:9] Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him shalt thou serve; and to him shalt thou cleave, and by his name shalt thou swear. [Deuteronomy 10:20] And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clave unto her. [Ruth 1:14]
It is easy to see from the above examples that the word translated cleave pretty much means to stick to, which makes it difficult to know exactly what Daniel was talking about... The unholy “they” shall mingle themselves (interbreed?) with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave (stick) one to another. I am afraid that I am not at all sure what that means. However there is no question that, when viewed in light of the warning of our Lord in Luke 17:26, Daniel’s suggestive words leads to a mind boggling conclusion… that already as we speak, or in the near future, the events of Genesis 6 are going to repeat themselves. This time around, demonic beings may or may not infect the human gene pool, but they are certainly once again going to walk openly among men..
The “Masters” in The Occult
Alice Bailey, under the guidance of an ectoplasmic apparition from hell who called himself Djwhal Khul ("The Tibetan"), wrote some 24 books and founded the Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing Co.) which enjoys "Consultative Status" with the United Nations. and has not only spawned several other organization… the Arcane School, Triangles, World Goodwill, Lucis Publishing, Lucis Productions, Lucis Trust Libraries, the New Group of World Servers, but also maintain the UN meditation room. And the purpose of these groups? At their core ALL of them exist for one purpose ..in their words “the helping of the Great Ones and the rendering to Them of that intelligent assistance which will make their plans for humanity materialize”. A plan that is centered around making conditions suitable (By occult meditation and reciting of the Great Invocation) for what they call “The Reappearance of The Christ. Except that this Christ has nothing to do with Jesus Christ of the Bible. [See Alice Bailey and The Lucis Trust]
In her book Externalization of the Hierarchy, Alice Bailey made it clear that she believed that "for the first time" mankind is "intelligently participating and cooperating" in the "entire evolutionary process." [P.685]. Therefore, the spiritual Hierarchy can "bring to an end the long silence which has persisted since Atlantean days" and "renew an ancient sharing of secrets." [P.685], and "in the immediate future," the "Masters will walk openly among men." With a "return to the situation which existed in Atlantean days," when "the Members of the spiritual Hierarchy were openly guiding and directing the affairs of humanity," [Pg. 121]
Bailey believed that the civilization of Atlanta was destroyed by the great Flood… there was a “great war between the Lords of form and the Lords of Being”, and “the Hierarchy was forced to intervene potently” by bringing “the Atlantean civilization to an abrupt end after a long period of chaos and disaster” by means “of a culminating catastrophe which wiped hundreds of thousands of human beings off the face of the earth. This historical event has been preserved for us in the universal legend of the great flood.” [6]
…Therefore when she talk about the “situation which existed in Atlantean days”, she is obviously referring to the days immediately preceding the Great Flood. Albeit with a different slant, Alice Bailey’s demonic sources are only reiterating what the Scriptures said thousands of years ago.. Is it any wonder that God is going to destroy this world yet one more time. Also See
The Wrath of God The Bible labours the point in both Old and New Testament that God is good to those who trust Him and is terrible to those who do not. Both Testaments emphasize the reality and terror of God’s wrath. Today’s powerless, sickly sweet, sentimental Easy Christianity has chosen to babble on and on about the goodness and love of God, but totally ignore (to our peril) His wrath and judgment. The Judgment of God... The First Six Trumpets Both Jesus and Paul imply that world conditions would not necessarily allow people to suspect the approach of Armageddon. The “day of the Lord” is described as coming suddenly, catching the non believer unawares. One often hears of the media describing one of nature’s calamities as being “of biblical proportions”. This extreme language makes one wonder how they would describe the true plagues that God will send on the earth, which will indeed be “of biblical proportions”. Jesus describes this time as one of Great Tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, and never will be again, then goes on to say “... if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved”. The first six of these plagues are each heralded by an angel blowing a Trumpet. Foot Note I... Noah, The ONLY Righteous Person? It does seem rather odd that Noah was found to be the only righteous person on earth prior to the flood. However it has to be considered that although we are told nothing about how many people were living on the earth just before the flood, the population could not have been very large. There are only ten generations mentioned from Adam to Noah with only 25 or so named individuals, although it is possible that some generations may have been omitted,. Even adding in unnamed wives and daughters etc, who certainly existed, does not add up to a very large community. The following is excerpted and adapted from Glenn Miller’s article … How likely is it that Noah was the only righteous person on the whole earth, at the time of the Flood? He says… If we factor in (a) significant gaps in the genealogy; (b) late/low procreativity; and (c) abnormally high incidence rates for infant mortality and for murder/war [see below] we might establish a broad range of population estimates, varying from 15,000-25,000 (the size of the ancient city of Tiberias, or perhaps the combined population of Sodom and its sister cities in Gen 19) to an order of magnitude greater 150,000-250,000 (the size of the ancient city of Nineveh). [7]
Ancient Violence
The Bible’s statement that the earth was exceedingly violent in the pre flood days is backed up by both archeological and literary evidence. Although we can not positively and specifically link the prehistoric cultures discovered by archaeology with the pre-flood people, the data strongly indicates that ancient man was exceptionally violent. The Archeological Data In his book, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, Oxford:1996 Anthropology professor Lawrence Keeley from the University of Illinois at Chicago says.. "The archeological evidence indicates instead that homicide has been practiced since the appearance of modern humankind and that warfare is documented in the archaeological record of the past 10,000 years in every well-studied region...If anything, peace was a scarcer commodity of members of bands, tribes, and chiefdoms than for the average citizen of a civilized state." [p.39] "Several of the rare burials of earliest modem humans in central and western Europe, dating from 34,000 to 24,000 years ago, show evidence of violent death. At Grimaldi in Italy, a projectile point was embedded in the spinal column of a child's skeleton dating to the Aurignacian (the culture of the earliest modern humans in Europe, ca. 36,000 to 27,000 years ago). One Aurignacian skull from southern France may have been scalped; it has cut-marks on its frontal (forehead). Evidence from the celebrated Upper Palaeolithic cemeteries of Czechoslovakia, dating between 35,000 and 24,000 years ago, implies--either by direct evidence of weapons traumas, especially cranial fractures on adult males, or by the improbability of alternative explanations for mass burials of men, women, and children--that violent conflicts and deaths were common. In the Nile Valley of Egypt, the earliest evidence of death by homicide is a male burial, dated to about 20,000 years ago, with stone projectile points in the skeleton's abdominal region and another point embedded in its upper arm (a wound that had partially healed before his death). The one earlier human skeleton found in Egypt bears no evidence of violence, but the next more recent human remains there are rife with evidence of homicide...The human skeletons found in a Late Palaeolithic cemetery at Gebel Sahaba in Egyptian Nubia, dating about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago, show that warfare there was very common and particularly brutal. Over 40 percent of the fifty-nine men, women, and children buried in this cemetery had stone projectile points intimately associated with or embedded in their skeletons. Several adults had multiple wounds (as many as twenty), and the wounds found on children were all in the head or neck--that is, execution shots. The excavator, Fred Wendorf, estimates that more than half the people buried there had died violently. He also notes that homicidal violence at Gebel Sahaba was not a once-in-a-lifetime event, since many of the adults showed healed parry fractures of their forearm bones--a common trauma on victims of violence--and because the cemetery had obviously been used over several generations. The Gebel Sahaba burials offer graphic testimony that prehistoric hunter-gatherers could be as ruthlessly violent as any of their more recent counterparts and that prehistoric warfare continued for long periods of time...In western Europe (and more poorly known North Africa), ample evidence of violent death has been found among the remains of the final hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic period (ca. 10,000 to 5,000 years ago). One of the most gruesome instances is provided by Ofnet Cave in Germany, where two caches of 'trophy' skulls were found, arranged 'like eggs in a basket,' comprising the disembodied heads of thirty-four men, women, and children, most with multiple holes knocked through their skulls by stone axes. Indeed, some archaeologists, impressed by the abundant evidence of homicide in the European Mesolithic, date the beginnings of "real" war to this period." [pp37-38] [7]
The Literary Data
Traditions and Legends about the flood originating in many parts of the world uniformly speak of man’s corruption and violence, many of them indicating that the flood was a judgment upon humanity's evil. The following examples are given by Glenn Miller "During the era of the fourth Sun, the Sun of Water, the people grew very wicked and ignored the worship of the Gods..." [Aztec, PM:128] "At a very early point in history, perhaps even before the end of the golden age, humankind grew very wicked and arrogant..." [Greece, PM:128] "Once there was a period called the Pachachama, when humankind was cruel, barbaric, and murderous. Human beings did whatever they pleased without any fear. They were so busy planning wars and stealing that they completely ignored the gods..." [Incas, PM:134] "The sun-god Ra, was warned by his father, the Watery Abyss, that humankind had grown too wicked and was on the verge of full rebellion against the gods." [Egypt, PM:135] "In time, the people began to misbehave, killing each other and ignoring their children, so Madumda sent a great flood..." [Pomo Indian, WR:MNNA:113] The Atrahasis epic, one of the oldest Flood traditions in the world, ascribe the Flood to humankind's being 'noisy' to their gods. Some see in this reference to noise a reference to violence. So, OT:BBCALL:36: "In the Atrahasis Epic's account of the flood the reason that the gods decide to send the flood is the 'noise' of mankind. This is not necessarily different from the biblical reason in that 'noise' can be the result of violence. Abel's blood cries out from the ground (4:10) and the outcry against Sodom and Gomorra is great (Gen 18:20). The noise could be generated either by the number of petitions being made to the gods to respond to the violence and bloodshed or by the victims who cry out in their distress"
[PM] Parallel Myths, J.F. Bieflein, Ballantine: 1994. [OT:BBCALL]The IVP Bible Background Commentary--Old Testament. Walton, Matthews, & Chalvalas. IVP:2000 [WR:MNNA] The Mythology of Native North America, David Leeming and Jake Page, UoklahomaPress:1998. [PLACE IN TEXT] Foot Note II...The Amalekites
As Glenn Miller points out Every record of the Amalekites in other, incidental passages (i.e., focused on other items or characters), support the view of their vicious culture: They attacked the stragglers when Israel first came out of Egypt …they had to LEAVE HOME and travel a great distance to do this.) They later attacked Israel AGAIN without provocation (Exodus 17, coming all the way to the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula at Rephidim!), but were defeated. [We would think a smart group of people would do what the Canaanites did and migrate, but they didn't.] They partnered with Eglon and attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (3.13) They participated in a 'scorched earth' policy toward Israel ["Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. 4 They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys .5 They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it. (Judges 6.3)] This plundering is referred to in Saul's time: "He (Saul) fought valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, delivering Israel from the hands of those who had plundered them." (1 Samuel 14.48) Saul obviously DID not exterminate the entire tribal group (which probably ranged far south into the Sinai area [ABD, "Negev (Iron Age)]), for they lived to continue raiding and hauling families off for the slave trade ["David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided (lit. "stripped") the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, 2 and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off [lit. "drove them", as the cattle in v.20] as they went on their way. 3 When David and his men came to Ziklag, they found it destroyed by fire and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. 4 So David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. (I Sam 30.1)] Even their treatment of their slaves looks bad : [1 Sam 30.11: "They found an Egyptian in a field and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat—12 part of a cake of pressed figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, “To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?” He said, “I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago.] [8]
Besides which... An Amalekite killed Saul… the Lord’s Anointed. "Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so also did all the men who were with him. 12 And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan and for the people of the Lord and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. 13 And David said to the young man who told him, “Where are you from?” And he answered, “I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite.” 14 Then David said to him, “How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” 15 And David called one of the young men and said, “Go, cut him down.” So he struck him and he died. 16 And David said to him, “Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.’” [2 Samuel 1: 12-16]
The Amalekite says that he "mercifully" ended Saul's life after the king was mortally wounded, but some have wondered if he was telling the truth since 1 Samuel 31:4 seems to indicate that Saul dies of self inflicted wound after his armor bearer baulked at killing his master. However it is entirely possible that the armor bearer thought Saul was dead and fell on his own sword, dying quickly but leaving Saul still alive, which is when the Amalekite came upon the scene. Certainly David’s reaction to the recounting shows that he believed the Amalakite had killed Saul. What is interesting here is that Saul had already asked his armor bearer to slay him, but his armor bearer had declined “for he was greatly afraid”, however the Amalekite had no such qualms. This reflects a story told earlier when Saul’s servants declined to kill Ahimelech and the other priests on his order, but Doeg, the Edomite, willingly complied. (See 1 Samuel 22:16-19). Certainly the text goes to lengths to point out that the man was a Amalekite, who seems eager to make the journey to find David and tell him of the death of Saul and Jonathan. He seems to assume that David would be delighted to hear that his enemy is dead and would reward him for bringing this good news. If we take the Amalekite's story as true as David did, it is a chilling result of disobedience. God commanded Saul to completely destroy the people of Amalek (1 Samuel 15:2-3). Saul failed to do this – and not only did he lose his kingdom because he failed to annihilate the Amalekites, but an Amalekite brought a bitter end to his life. [PLACE IN TEXT]
Foot Note III..
What Did Jude Mean By Strange Flesh?
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. [Jude 1:7]
There are those that believe that Jude was not referring to homosexuality when he penned the above statement about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah going after strange flesh. The argument goes something like this… If Jude had meant homosexuality, then the word translated into the English strange would have been the Greek allos, which is supposed to mean another of the same kind. However Jude used the Greek word heteros,. However I am not convinced of the validity of this argument since the word allos, is used four times in a single verse in 1Corinthians and does not refer to ‘the same kind’ All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one (allos) flesh of men, and another (allos) flesh of beasts, and another (allos) flesh of birds, and another (allos) of fishes. [1 Corinthians 15:39]
Besides which there are plenty of instances where heteros also means another of the same kind… For example… And again another (heteros) scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. [John 19:37] For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other (heteros) is not edified. [1Corinthians 14:17] But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other (heteros) Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. [Acts 23:6] And when it was determined that we should sail for Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other (heteros) prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Augustan band. [Acts 27:1]
Since this issue, unlike many others, can not be resolved by merely looking at the technical meanings of the words, we will have to consider a number of other factors... 1) The first point one has to remember is that we are told as early as Genesis 13:13 that “the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against Jehovah exceedingly”. Genesis 18:21 has God Himself going down to survey the moral landscape and see for Himself if the cry that had come to Him was founded. 2) There is every indication that the men of Sodom had no idea that the individuals visiting Lot were angels. Every time they are mentioned in the account they are referred to as “men” (Hebrew 'îysh). whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3). and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth, [Genesis 18:2] And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. [Genesis 18:16] and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. [Genesis 19:5]
And as Apologetics Press says “even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females”. 3) Sodom and Gomorrah were not the only wicked cities destroyed. Note the wording of Jude 7…. “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them… suffering the punishment of eternal fire”. These cities were [Genesis 14:2-3] that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar). All these joined together in the vale of Siddim (the same is the Salt Sea).
Although Zoar was saved due to Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee [Genesis 19:18-22], are we to believe “that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”?” 4) Finally in the words of Dave Miller… And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)- is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. [9] [PLACE IN TEXT]
End Notes
All URL’s Accessed March 2010 [1] Meaning, origin and etymology of the name Enosh. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Enosh.html [2] Antiquities of the Jews - Book I. Chapter 3. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm [3] Eliezer Segal. Targum "Onkelos" to the Torah. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudMap/MG/MGOnkelos.html [4] Targum of Onkelos - English Translation by J.W. Etheridge.
http://www.ultimasurf.net/bible/aramaic/targum/onkelos/genesis/genesis_4.htm [5] Enos’ Legacy: Owning God. http://www.gracebiblechurch-hr.org/written/sundayschool/Enos%20Legacy.pdf [6] Pgs. 122-123. As quoted in False Dawn by Lee Penn. Pages 261-262 [7] Glenn Miller. How likely is it that Noah was the only righteous person on the whole earth, at the time of the Flood?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stealtime.html#noah [8]Good question...shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html [9] Dave Miller, Ph.D. Homosexuality and “Strange Flesh” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2596 | 
Index to Section 9B... 
