Spirituality
17 Apr 10
24 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by finneganI don't think you are being too reasonable about this. What I hear as a complaint is "Well, if the Bible is about God why are there angels good and bad and demons mentioned? This is polytheism".
You are not really taking my point. Polytheism by definition requires many gods, Monotheism only one. I do not dispute that much. However, we are often told that polytheism is a more primitive and less satisfactory theology than monotheism. For example, the conversion of the Arab peoples to Islam is represented as an advance, just as the conversion of t ...[text shortened]... a plethora and call them whatever name suits the prevailing orthodoxy. Saints, angels, Jinns....
Perhaps this line of argument started by something mentioned about the Nephilim in Genesis 6. How much is written about the Nephilim in the Bible? Not much. If you're distracted from montheism because of that scant reference it could be that you really just want to be distracted.
Angels never hang around and take center stage in the Bible. When they do appear they do their little task and get quickly out of sight. They recede rather quickly into the backround. I don't think you can charge the Bible with putting out a lot of distractions from the unique God by a few occasional mentions of the tasks of angels.
Why not read through and determine in yourself that you wish not to be distracted by the mention of angels, good or bad, or demons ? The vast majority of bulk revelation concerns God in the Bible.
I would suggest that you read for awhile with an attitude of "This time I am going to concentrate on what is said about God."
Choking on the Nephilim in Genesis 6 is kind of like sitting down to a large turkey feast and hunting for a bone to get stuck in your throat.
We may be tempted to discuss the tiny little bit we know about Nephilim with you because we like to see people at least interested in the Bible. But all in all I think you should just put that tiny little reference on the back burner for awhile.
Nourish your spirit on the pages and pages of things told us about God. The Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of John is a good place to do that.
24 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou say in an earlier post on this thread "it is plain for all to see." I would prefer to establish some agreement about what we are reading in the Bible - that is hard enough without complicating matters.
I don't think you are being too reasonable about this. What I hear as a complaint is "Well, if the Bible is about God why are there angels good and bad and demons mentioned? This is polytheism".
Perhaps this line of argument started by something mentioned about the Nephilim in Genesis 6. How much is written about the Nephilim in the Bible? Not much. If s told us about God. The Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of John is a good place to do that.
On a fairly reasonable and uncomplicated reading of the Noah story I remark that it indicates explicitly a God who regrets his own work, a creation that has not gone to plan, a rage which punishes the whole population of the Earth and in general a God that is pretty hard to reason with and dangerous when angry. All of these qualities I find anthropomorphic and primitive. That makes sense in terms of social history and anthropology but no sense in terms of modern proclamations about the perfect God. It is entertaining but not edifying.
In response I am stunned by the claim that "some of the fallen angels began to notice the beauty of the women. Emboldened by their beauty while also realizing that the seed of the woman was to come from one of them, they began a policy of colonization as it were. By impregnating ..." I suggest this requires a pretty imaginative reading of Genesis and the imagination at work here is not within the boundaries of conventional Christian thinking.
This does not make the Old Testament God appear suddenly more reasonable, more Just, more accessible.
And for an Atheist or Agnostic, who has difficulty tolerating the conceits of monotheism, I am afraid it is very redolent (Serving to bring to mind; evocative; suggestive; reminiscent) of polytheism.
Reading the Bible repeatedly could have many effects. It is patronizing to suggest I have never read it properly but incessant reading would not, in my judgment, lead me to a theory that fallen angels were hectically impregnating the passive women of the planet in the period from Creation to the Flood.
Your phrase "When they do appear they do their little task and get quickly out of sight" is suddenly hilarious.
25 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganThis morning I only can respond to a portion of your post. But I will respond latter to the rest:
You say in an earlier post on this thread "it is plain for all to see." I would prefer to establish some agreement about what we are reading in the Bible - that is hard enough without complicating matters.
On a fairly reasonable and uncomplicated reading of the Noah story I remark that it indicates explicitly a God who regrets his own work, a creation th ...[text shortened]... y do appear they do their little task and get quickly out of sight" is suddenly hilarious.
=======================================
On a fairly reasonable and uncomplicated reading of the Noah story I remark that it indicates explicitly a God who regrets his own work,
=======================================
At the end of God's "work" He pronounces that all that He saw was "very good". The man was in a state of innocency, "very good", and warned about the exercise of his "very good" free will before two sources: one representing dependence upon his Creator, and the other a thrust for independence.
Man's choice to follow a path for a thrust for independence brought him into bondage to God's advasary and enemy. polluted man with the Satanic nature, brought sin and death into his sysem and alienated him to the life of God and estranged man from God and from his fellow man.
The result of this corruption was the steady downward collapse of human society which culiminated in total wickedness issuing from man's imagination and actions. It is at this point God says that He is sorry that he made man and moves to judge the world yet rescue some for a new beginning.
I associate the main source of the judgment and God's sorrow to have to act to be the wrong choice of man's free will. I think it still stands that the originally created man with that free will was pronounced "very good".
I do not understand God's regret here as a regret to the creation of man. Rather a regret to the outcome of the created man's wrong exercise of his free will.
I don't suspect this will answer all your problems. But it is a brief response on why what seems a problem to you is not to me.
Jesus Christ uses the Noah story to warn us. In that regard I see God's mercy in that He provided and example for the world to learn from from the earliest ages of humanity.
The story also reveals God's mercy on Noah and his family who "
found grace in the eyes of the Lord" and upon the creatures who were brought with him into the ark.
The holding off of the judgment is also revealed in the advent of Methusala. Methusala was recorded to be the longest living man on earth. His name means "when he does it will come". The "it" to come was the Flood. Enoch, the father of Noah, therefore prohetically knew that divine judgment was going to come.
Both Enoch and Noah were a testimony and preachers to that society giving men ample time to repent. God held off the judgment for the entire life span of Methusela (Enoch's boy) - 960 some years. The implication of Methusela living the longest amount reveals the patience and tolerance of God was prolonged.
He was not eager to wipe out the world. He was giving man the ample time to repent. So I do not see the fickle deity raging on in the way you do. Rather I see the righteous God, who must judge sin, sorrowing over man's wrong self chosen path, but nonetheless prolonging His divine patience for as long as possible, before He comes in to judge yet rescue a remnant for a new beginning.
That the whole account is in the first book of the Bible serves as a warning for millennia of societies afterwards. And that I think shows the love and mercy of God as well.
That is all I can write this morning.
25 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillI appreciate that we do not want to waste a pleasant Sunday morning on religion - better stuff to do with our time. I look forward to your comments on the more important part of my posting and the weird role assigned to angels in relation to the Noah story.
This morning I only can respond to a portion of your post. But I will respond latter to the rest:
I associate the main source of the judgment and God's sorrow to have to act to be the wrong choice of man's free will. I think it still stands that the originally created man with that free will was pronounced [b]"very good".
Jesus Christ us ...[text shortened]... shows the love and mercy of God as well.
That is all I can write this morning.[/b]
Thus far I take it that Free Will is a problem, thinking independently is a problem, submission and obedience is preferred, lots of people can be destroyed as a sort of merciful message to the survivors, many or most seem to be destroyed in punishment for the offences of their ancestors or fellow citizens...
The Noah story is obviously topical. This apocalyptic cry that civilization is taking us to the dogs lies behind a range of fundamentalist movements in modern Islam as well as in American Christianity and reflects a deep fear of modernity.
25 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by finneganI am back now.
I appreciate that we do not want to waste a pleasant Sunday morning on religion - better stuff to do with our time. I look forward to your comments on the more important part of my posting and the weird role assigned to angels in relation to the Noah story.
Thus far I take it that Free Will is a problem, thinking independently is a problem, submission a ...[text shortened]... ments in modern Islam as well as in American Christianity and reflects a deep fear of modernity.
The name Methuselah means "when he DIES it will come". I made a typo above.
====================
I look forward to your comments on the more important part of my posting and the weird role assigned to angels in relation to the Noah story.
==========================
There is no hurry for me to get to the fallen angels. First, I want to establish that God's LOVE does not mean that He gives up His righteousness. The implication of your criticism is that God was unloving and cruel to judge. I reject this.
Forty days and forty nights of ever worsening catastrsophy is better than sudden anhilation. I believe that the people under judgment had time to be reconciled to God as to thier eternal destinies if not their temporal ones.
=====================
Thus far I take it that Free Will is a problem, thinking independently is a problem,
==========================
This slander I also will reject. The command to Adam was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam had plenty of room for independent thought. He could muse on the tree. He could philosophize about it. Discuss it, write a poem about it. He could do anything EXCEPT eat from it.
Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the line that he was not to cross. There is NOTHING else that God warns him of as a cause of him to DIE.
There is something that will cause man to die. There is something that will bring man under the sway of a malicious and malignant advasary to God. He would gain a kind of knowledge. But he would lose the power to handle that knowledge. Though he would KNOW evil, he would not always possess the life power to resist the evil that he knows. Though he would KNOW good, he would not always possess the life power to perform the good that he knows.
It is the lie of Satan to slander God. It is Satan's slander to portray God as the arbitrary despot who wants to limit man from his highest and best purpose.
In a nutshell, Satan's task is to convince man that God is the Devil and that the Devil is God. It is to lie to the point of convincing man the he (Satan) is the friend of man to liberate man while God the Creator is the enemy of man to cramp human blessing and rob humanity of its highest purpose and joys.
The first man Adam fell for this libelous slander to portray God as the despot. In succumbing to this deception sin and death began to eat away like gangrene upon man's being. And creation itself collapsed under it deputy authority into a heap of collapse.
===================
submission and obedience is preferred,
==========================
To me the person arguably most authoritative and impressive in human history is Jesus Christ. And He spoke constantly of His submission to the will of His Father.
If you have some "free thinking" person who you find more impressive than Jesus of Nazareth tell me who that might be. I'll do some comparisons.
I want to see if your "Do Your Own Thing" staunch individualist displays the moral power, authority, and beauty of Jesus of Nazareth.
By the way, I am not a political activist or a part of the religious right. If you want an evangelical's thoughts on that from an insider's view who has had second thoughts, I suggest you read some of Frank Schaeffer's thoughts.
He and his dad Francis Schaeffer were architects of the religious right in the US. And Frank has some interesting second thoughts on the movement from the standpoint of a former insider.
I will not be arguing with you about something I am not involved in.
25 Apr 10
Originally posted by finnegan===========================================
I appreciate that we do not want to waste a pleasant Sunday morning on religion - better stuff to do with our time. I look forward to your comments on the more important part of my posting and the weird role assigned to angels in relation to the Noah story.
Thus far I take it that Free Will is a problem, thinking independently is a problem, submission a ...[text shortened]... ments in modern Islam as well as in American Christianity and reflects a deep fear of modernity.
I appreciate that we do not want to waste a pleasant Sunday morning on religion
==========================================
I would not like to waste any time on any day on religion. And I do not think that Christ is a religion. To me He has been a living Person, an unusual one, but a living Person nonetheless.
I have met Jesus.
26 Apr 10
Jaywill, I have read your post and I may respond another time but you have yet to clarify as promised FreakyKBH's description as follows:
After some time, some of the fallen angels began to notice the beauty of the women. Emboldened by their beauty while also realizing that the seed of the woman was to come from one of them, they began a policy of colonization as it were. By impregnating women with their seed, they could effectively choke off anything resembling the human race, thereby rendering God's promise null, void.
This was nearly accomplished: by the time of Noah, there were left only eight fully human believers on the earth,...
26 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by finnegan=================================
Jaywill, I have read your post and I may respond another time but you have yet to clarify as promised FreakyKBH's description as follows:
[b]After some time, some of the fallen angels began to notice the beauty of the women. Emboldened by their beauty while also realizing that the seed of the woman was to come from one of them, they began a policy of co ed: by the time of Noah, there were left only eight fully human believers on the earth,...[/b]
After some time, some of the fallen angels began to notice the beauty of the women. Emboldened by their beauty while also realizing that the seed of the woman was to come from one of them, they began a policy of colonization as it were. By impregnating women with their seed, they could effectively choke off anything resembling the human race, thereby rendering God's promise null, void.
This was nearly accomplished: by the time of Noah, there were left only eight fully human believers on the earth,...
===============================
Freaky submitted those statements. I think I know what he is refering to. I will give my brief comment.
I believe that the mythological characters, ( ie. of Greek and Roman gods ) that we all have heard of, had a basis in something that happened in the deep occult realms of ancient times. Notice what the Bible says:
"The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took wives for themelves from all whom they chose... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they gave birth to children to them; these were the mighty men who were of old the men of renown." (Genesis 6:2,4)
Some argue that the "sons of God" could only refer to humans. My opinion is that "sons of God" in this passage are angels as is "sons of God" in the book of Job (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7)
First I would point out that the phrase "men who were of old the men of renown" refers to mythological figures. In other words, there were some extraordinary people around whom mythological stories developed. The myths are embellishments upon historical persons who were the outcome of some very deep occultic activity involving bad angels who performed some powerful and extraordinary crimes.
Now, I know that of all the angels that followed Satan, some were so dangerous that they were singled out for more severe restriction. Thier crimes against God and humanity were so awful as to separate them from all the other bad angels:
" ... God did not spare the angels who sinned but delivered them to gloomy pits, having cast them down to Tartarus, they being kept for judgment." (2 Pet. 2:4)
Some evil angels were separated from others and placed in the lowest prison, called here "Tartarus". Not all of the Satanic angels merited this punishment.
Jude corresponds - "And the angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place, He has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6)
Who were these particularly worse angels ? What was their crime ?
My belief is that they are the sons of God in Genesis 6 who somehow gave up their angelic natures and entered into deep occultic unions with human women. Their goal was to thwart God's eternal purpose, derange the order of things, and generally derail human life.
I cannot tell you how this was done. But I would not underestimate the Satanic powers of the Devil. He became the antithesis of all that God is with as much of the powers that he had. And I don't know just how much he had or has.
Nephilim, I believe, means "fallen ones". Moses wrote that they were in the earth in those days and afterwards. I think they were the result of angels producing children with human women.
Don't ask me how this could happen. I don't know. And as much as it may tickle our curiosity to know, the word of God seems not to entertain us. It tells us only what we would benefit by knowing. It happened and those supernatural perputrators of the crime were confined in God's solitary confinement.
That is all I have time for right now.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganOn a fairly reasonable and uncomplicated reading of the Noah story I remark that it indicates explicitly a God who regrets his own work, a creation that has not gone to plan, a rage which punishes the whole population of the Earth and in general a God that is pretty hard to reason with and dangerous when angry.
You say in an earlier post on this thread "it is plain for all to see." I would prefer to establish some agreement about what we are reading in the Bible - that is hard enough without complicating matters.
On a fairly reasonable and uncomplicated reading of the Noah story I remark that it indicates explicitly a God who regrets his own work, a creation th ...[text shortened]... y do appear they do their little task and get quickly out of sight" is suddenly hilarious.
Part and parcel.
Your comment here is exhibit A in support of why God brings the haughty low and raises up the humble. Instead of submitting yourself to Him and His word, you've made yourself master over both. The results are right there in black and white. Your "fairly reasonable" and "uncomplicated reading" of the Bible is neither. You arrogantly presume to know what the Bible is saying by virtue of a superficial interpretation (someone else's, of course) and wholly isolated from any other light available.
The Bible is full of various anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, as witnessed here. Fair enough. However, your inability to distinguish illustrative portions of Scripture is compounded by your lack of understanding of any of the ancient languages in which the Bible was written--- thus your dependence upon superficial interpretations. Were you able to look just a smidgen below the deplorable renderings you're saddled with, you'd find that the word translated 'repent' speaks nothing of regret, but instead, to a change of mind. Neither one is an accurate portrayal of God's actual character, but rather, serve as language of accommodation in order to convey something in human terms. The fact that you think of God as regretting His actions here, however, simply reveal how simplistic of a view you hold in general toward Scripture.
Scripture requires a panoramic view, to be certain, but it first requires submission and humility. Not arrogance and ignorance.
I suggest this requires a pretty imaginative reading of Genesis and the imagination at work here is not within the boundaries of conventional Christian thinking.
Again, your haste to dismiss makes itself evident. You mentioned your previous studies in theology; I wonder if any of the commentaries previously used remain in your possession. If not, I am certain that even that which is available online will shed some light on the topic of the Nephilim. The light shed will clear up your misconception that this topic is somehow outside the "boundaries of conventional Christian thinking." This concept has been around for, well, ever. That it isn't a cornerstone doctrine does not negate its historical standing, well within Christian thinking for several centuries.
26 Apr 10
On the Biblical stories of Nephilim and the fallen angels, I find that you are perfectly correct and not at odds even with a Catholic site I examined just to eliminate my allegation about mainstream Christians. I have to remark that it is possible to engage for many years with Christianity without entering into these exotica.
So I see why you are so enraged by my responses.
However it does not lead me to think Biblical theories are more reasonable - they are clearly far more crazy than I really absorbed up to now.
27 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganI didn't realize I was giving the impression of rage. I was really going for generally pissed off. Note to self: work on better specificity when furrowing brows.
On the Biblical stories of Nephilim and the fallen angels, I find that you are perfectly correct and not at odds even with a Catholic site I examined just to eliminate my allegation about mainstream Christians. I have to remark that it is possible to engage for many years with Christianity without entering into these exotica.
So I see why you are so en ...[text shortened]... theories are more reasonable - they are clearly far more crazy than I really absorbed up to now.
27 Apr 10
Just to confirm that I know less than you do about the Bible but I would suggest that this is in small part because I have been over generous in giving Christians the benefit of the doubt on their wilder fringes. You will notice in my posts that I desist from insulting the entirety of Christian thinking (though I enjoy a dig and can’t avoid becoming irritated) and instead take the view that it has lost its validity in the light of modern thinking. My recurring phrase is that we see so far today because we stand on the shoulders of giants.
In the Catholic Encyclopaedia we find the Nephalim thrive on this page, confirming the “orthodoxy” of conventional Christianity in these tales.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm
This entry includes recognition of the similarities with Babylonian myths: “The similarity between scenes such as these and the early Babylonian accounts of the struggle between Merodach and the dragon Tiamat is very striking. Whether we are to trace its origin to vague reminiscences of the mighty saurians which once people the earth is a moot question, but the curious reader may consult Bousett, "The Anti-Christ Legend" (tr. by Keane, London, 1896). The translator has prefixed to it an interesting discussion on the origin of the Babylonian Dragon-Myth.”
See my next post
27 Apr 10
Continued...
The same cross reference to heathen mythology is seen, for example, at www.juneaustin.co.uk/nephilim.html
“Myths from ancient Mesopoamia refer to a number of gods and goddesses, collectively named the Nephilim, or sometimes the Anunnaki. Chief among these were An, Enlil, chief god of Earth, Enki, the god of water, Ninhursag, the mother goddess, and Inanna, goddess of love. Enlil is often portrayed as having a somewhat negative attitude towards humankind, while Enki is depicted as a compassionate god who initiated the birth of civilization. The Nephilim though are not only mentioned in Mesopotamian texts, as they also appear in the Bible, most notably Genesis 6:4-6”
This linkage is accounted for generally in a manner such as the following:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Were_the_Nephilim_mentioned_in_the_Bible_as_aliens
“The fame and dread of the Nephilim, it appears, gave rise to many mythologies of heathen people who, after the confusion of languages at Babel, were scattered throughout the earth. Though the historical forms of the Genesis account were greatly distorted and embellished, there was a remarkable resemblance in these ancient mythologies (those of the Greeks being only one example), in which gods and goddesses mated with humans to produce superhuman heroes and fearful demigods having god-man characteristics. “
The question is whether these forms of explanation are valid. At the minimum, they prevent any claim that the stories in the Bible are unique to the Jewish histories and origin myths and it is arguable that the Jewish account was written later. There is certainly a lot to show that the Jews acquired many ideas from the Babylonians. And that reverts of course to the origin of this thread.
27 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganAgain, the similarities need to be considered in light of all information, not merely some information.
Continued...
The same cross reference to heathen mythology is seen, for example, at www.juneaustin.co.uk/nephilim.html
“Myths from ancient Mesopoamia refer to a number of gods and goddesses, collectively named the Nephilim, or sometimes the Anunnaki. Chief among these were An, Enlil, chief god of Earth, Enki, the god of water, Ninhursag, the mother g ...[text shortened]... uired many ideas from the Babylonians. And that reverts of course to the origin of this thread.
As a whole, the extra-biblical sources have been treated since discovery in the same manner as they are classified now: mythologies. There is nothing within the biblical accounts to suggest the same.
That being said, that mythologies have sprang from historical events is not a unique situation: we have a wide-range of examples from modern history which attest to this very thing. Although we would be hard-pressed to ascertain the origins for every myth or legend, we can be certain they were based on some factual history.
The factual history upon which other mythologies are based--- regardless of when either was committed to writing--- is found right there in Genesis.
27 Apr 10
8 edits
Originally posted by finneganMuch of what you have told us is what Genesis 6:4 already told us millenia ago.
Continued...
The same cross reference to heathen mythology is seen, for example, at www.juneaustin.co.uk/nephilim.html
“Myths from ancient Mesopoamia refer to a number of gods and goddesses, collectively named the Nephilim, or sometimes the Anunnaki. Chief among these were An, Enlil, chief god of Earth, Enki, the god of water, Ninhursag, the mother g ...[text shortened]... uired many ideas from the Babylonians. And that reverts of course to the origin of this thread.
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ... these were the mighty men who were of old the men of renown."
We see superhuman size in Galiath in 1 Samuel 21 and 1 Chronicles 20 as a descendent of Rapha. He was about nine feet high. Og, the king of Bashan had to sleep in an iron bed of about 13.5 feet by about 6 feet.
"Giants" are described in extrabiblical liturature. The Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians, and Egyptians all wrote stories of famous heroes, men of supernatural size and strength. Greek literature abounds with heroes of this type.
In all accounts the superheroes came from sexual unions between immortal "gods" and mortal humans. I have no idea how this could happen. However, I did notice that in the book of Daniel the angel Gabriel is once described as "the man Gabriel" I do believe.
Check me somebody. The implication is that the spiritual being could briefly appear, perhaps, as human ? And the evil angels left their status as angelic beings and impregnated women, perhaps?
Do we really know what some of the mightier angels, good or bad, were capable of doing ?
I do not feel a personal need to become familiar with all these stories. As curious as they are, for my purposes I am happy to simply be informed by the Bible that these mythologies had some basis in something in the deepest occult realms which occured.
The biblical teaching is that all this actvity was negative. In the bible there is no exalting of supernaturally gigantic men. It is evident that when "giants" or associations to Nephilim appear they are usually on the wrong end of God's will.
I don't know about Freaky's assertion that no normal people were left by the time of Noah's flood. Perhaps I can take a second look at that extreme view. It appears that the flood apparently did not eliminate the appearance of the Nephilim. Then again, neither was the wickedness of humans eliminated from the world by the flood.
Moses writes that there were Nephilim on earth before and after the flood. They appear again a number of times up until the time of King David.
In other parts of the Scripture the Nephilim take on other names, I believe. Perhaps we should not regard them as being strictly human. We read of the Rephaim (or sons of Papha), Anakites, and Anakim, and they are refered to as "the giants". They are always male.
Satan's way seems to always rush ahead of God and create some perverted counterfeit of His plan. The blessing promised upon all the nations to Abraham was that they could receive the Spirit of God:
"Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf ... in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (See Gal. 3:13,14)
God's plan is to dispense His Spirit into those redeemed that they would be sons of God in the new covenant sense - "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26)
But these sons are born of God. And they must mature in growth in the divine life. It is a matter of God's life and nature filling them and saturating them - conforming them to the image of Christ the Firstborn Son of God.
The bottom line here is that all this Satanic activity with the Nephilim can only mean distraction from the will of God. It is an assault against the Divine plan. It may be exalted by people of ancient cultures. In the eyes of God this was all opposing and counterfeit producing warfare waged against God and man by the Devil.