Spirituality
08 Feb 15
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Apr 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMy time is limited today.
[b]I said it proves the demons are fallen angels, not that all fallen angels are demons, That is because we know that the "fallen angels" are the third of the angels from Heaven that followed Satan and were thrown down to the Earth with him.
I did not bother to look for the singular or plural of the words translated devil or demon. But we know that ...[text shortened]... devil; demon-like - devilish; a demon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature) - devil. [/quote][/b]
But I wrote above and teach -
I do not reason that just because Satan led the angels therefore the demons have to refer to the angels that he led.
I do not reason that because both are bad therefore they are exactly the same in nature.
Now I would add the word SOME.
I do not reason that just because Satan led the angels therefore the demons have to refer to SOME angels that he led.
Beside the angelic beings that followed Satan there are other beings that were caught up in that rebellion.
I wish I could write more. But you have heard most of this and are not likely to change you mind. And I am not going to dumb down a more thorough interpretation to match a traditional one which seems simpler to some Bible students.
Strong's Concordance is a great tool. But they could also be influenced by a incorrect incomplete understanding of the Bible also.
The word Old English word Easter occurs in the New Testament in the King James Version in Acts 12:4. And the word Easter appears in Stong's Exhaustive Concordance as entry #3957 of the Greek Dictionary because it IS a word in the Authorized Version.
Yet that is a mistake based on traditional thinking that the resurrection of Jesus should be called what the Pagans designated as Easter. So Strong's Concordance can be unduly influenced by an incorrect religious tradition to follow RCC to assimilate the pagan festival and make it refer to "resurrection Sunday".
The Recovery Version translates Acts 12:4 as "When also he seized and put in prison, delivering him to four quarternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people that is truer to the Greek than the KJV's Easter.
So your reference to Strong's Concordance referring to "devils" should be taken with a similar caution.
It should not surprise anyone that beside fallen angels there could be other beings that fell to Satan's side. While we may not know much about them, we should not be surprised if they apparently do exist.
Paul says - " I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers ... nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus" he could have stopped at just saying "angels". Adding other categories of opposing forces ... "principalities ... powers ... any OTHER creature" gives ground for us to admit there could be OTHER evil forces at work besides fallen "angels".
And that is literally all the time I have this morning.
Praise the victorious Lord Jesus.
28 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI am not trying to claim man's translations are always literally accurate. However, the King James translators are translating to their intended audience based on their understanding at that time. Surely they knew this Greek word they translated as "Easter" was "Passover" because they translated it as "Passover" in every other place where it appeared. However, this incident occurred after Christ became the "Passover" to end all Passovers" according to the Christian theology of that time. English Christians of that time had replaced Passover with Easter, so even though "Easter" is not technically correct it agreed with the Christian theology of the English of that time.
My time is limited today.
But I wrote above and teach -
I do not reason that just because Satan led the angels therefore the demons have to refer to the angels that he led.
I do not reason that because both are bad therefore they are exactly the same in nature.
Now I would add the word SOME.
[quote]
I do not reaso ...[text shortened]...
And that is literally all the time I have this morning.
Praise the victorious Lord Jesus.
Strong's Concordance gives the meaning as the Feast of Passover and even indicates it is from the Chaldean for Passover. However, it does add Easter at the end as another possible translation because of the King's James translators.
Now let us dismiss that distraction and refer back to the Greek word diabolos you mentioned earlier that you agree is correctly translated "Devil". This Greek word diabolos is found in John 6:70 where Jesus says the following:
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Anyone possessed by an evil spirit is the same as beling possessed by a devil (a demon) or a representive of Satan or Satan himself. Jesus also once said to Peter...
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Matthew 16:23 KJV)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not trying to claim man's translations are always literally accurate.
... the King James translators are translating to their intended audience based on their understanding at that time. Surely they knew this Greek word they translated as "Easter" was "Passover" because they translated it as "Passover" in every other place where it appeared.
What they may not have been sensative to was how much in the future unbelievers would malign the Christian church saying what was substantially true - "You got so much of your influence from pagan rituals like Easter bunnys, eggs, yul logs, reefs, garb for your priests, evergreen trees, mother and child portraits, and things from pre-Christian era superstitions. How then can you tell us your Gospel is unique."
You see, they may not have faced that criticism with the opposition that latter generations of disciples are faced. They may have considered that the Christendom was so triumphant that this would never be a aspect that the enemy slanderer could use to turn people away from the Gospel.
Today, we have to be acute to go back and ascertain the what the Holy Spirit had Luke write under inspiration. And he did not write Easter though your explanation has credence.
However, this incident occurred after Christ became the "Passover" to end all Passovers" according to the Christian theology of that time.
And we are in this time. And we need often to go back and see exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write and be faithful to that in translation.
Pointing out "devils" to me in Strong's Concordance doesn't make a strong argument for the loose interpretation you proposed.
Your point below on John 6:70 is more interesting one, I think. I'll skip down to it.
Now let us dismiss that distraction
I don't consider the need to accurately translate the Greek NT and to consider the needs of this present age as a "distraction."
When the critic points out that "Easter" is written in the New Testament, I am armed with an explanation. It might mean the difference between someone tossing their NT aside because someone like Bart Erhman or Richard Carrier has forcefully argued that its filled with pagan superstition, or reading a more accurate translation in thereby giving the Spirit a chance to save him.
... and refer back to the Greek word diabolos you mentioned earlier that you agree is correctly translated "Devil".
You admitted that you either had not verified a plural occurrence of the word diabolos.
This Greek word diabolos is found in John 6:70 where Jesus says the following:
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Because you used a small d ... "a devil" you understand, I think, that Jesus is saying that one of the disciples is -
" is a deceiver, a liar, and a murderer, as the devil is from the beginning; all which Judas was, and appeared to be, in the betraying of his master. "
If you argue that John 6:70 proves that you have THE Devil in the Bible and a devil in the Bible therefore you have "devils" in the Bible, I would say this:
In that you can have many liars, many slanderers, many deceivers, or many murders, in that sense you can have theoretically many devils.
Just like you have one Antichrist at the end of the age but all during the church age, especially towards the end, John said there are many antichrists.
So many liars, many deceivers, many murderers (or planning to murder) means Judas was "a devil" I have no problem with.
One of the 12 disciples was a human sinner doing devilish things.
Here one of the 12 disciples was like those whom Jesus scolded in John 8. In that chapter Jesus said to the opposers - "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth ... he is a liar and the father of it." (see John 8:44).
He didn't mean that Judas was another capital d - [b]Devil.
Anyone possessed by an evil spirit is the same as beling possessed by a devil (a demon) or a representive of Satan or Satan himself. Jesus also once said to Peter...
I prefer to go by what is written. For possession the word used is "demon" or "demons" in the Greek NT.
Your exegesis is saying in essence " Well "a devil" in John 6:70 gives me the right to speak of "devils". And this goes to show that even if "devils" [plural] is never written we are justified to read "devils" into those passages.
How about we go with what is actually written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Greek ? We may not always get perfect translation. We may interject some ideas influenced by our own times and era. But I think closer to the original is safer.
Your argument here is in essence - ' Understanding plural "devils" (even if not in the text literally) contributes to prove that fallen angels are demons. ' I think all John 6:70 proves is that one of the 12 disciples, Jesus said, was a deceiver, liar, potential murderer.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
This is an important verse.
The one and only Satan is the spirit that operates IN the sons of disobedience -
" In which you once walked ... according to the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience." (Eph. 2:2)
Within every one of us fallen people the evil spirit of Satan has ground to operate in us. And Jesus spoke directly to this evil spirit Satan as he was operating in Peter's man centered opinion.
The effective way to cut OFF his enfluence is to deny the self and follow the Lord within our spirit. The word of the cross and the termination of the soul-life, the independent self centered fallen old man, cuts down Satan's operation and brings in the kingdom.
This verse is important to show behind our best intentions Satan may be lurking. What was better than suggesting that someone as wonderful as Jesus not die. Behind this good hearted suggestion though, lurked Satan opposing the plan of God.
Your point here was:
Anyone possessed by an evil spirit is the same as beling possessed by a devil (a demon) or a representive of Satan or Satan himself. Jesus also once said to Peter...
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:23 KJV)
I have no big disagreement with this above. I would say whether possessed or not possessed by a demon, the evil spirit in the air, Satan, is operating in the sons of disobedience per Eph. 2:2.
Apparently some people are possessed with a demon or more. Others are influenced by a demon yet maybe not possessed bodily. All sinners since Adam's fall have a problem with the power of the evil spirit operating in them for disobedience to God's law making them "sons of disobedience" .
Brother Witness Lee helpfully put it:
"We have pointed out again and again that Amelek signifies the flesh, God's enemy within man. Satan is God's enemy. Through the fall of man, Satan has brought forth another enemy of God. This enemy, man's flesh, is God's enemy within man. In the eyes of God, the two greatest enemies of God are Satan and the flesh. In a sense, Satan also is in fallen man. But the actual subjective enemy of God in man is the flesh. For this reason, God hates man's flesh."
Here "the flesh" does not mean the physical body alone. It refers to the whole fallen human being that was corrupted being brought forth by the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I plan to open up a thread on Amalek and the significance of perpetual war with the Amalekites.
For now your reference to Matthew 16 and John 7 are appreciated much. I don't think though, that they prove that the fallen angels became demons that possess men's bodies.
There is no question that ALL of the followers of Satan are bad. The fallen angels act like the Devil and any other evil spirits act like the Devil. Both are going to follow their leader into the lake of fire.
The demons are the "dead" which are given up by the sea in Revelation 20:13 - Since the holding place, the watery place, which was to be the confining place of demons is no longer needed, the sea will be no more in the new heaven and new earth -
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, AND THE SEA IS NO MORE." (Rev. 21:1)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Apr 15
4 edits
Now one reason some Bible readers are suspicious of a proposed gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 is that it seems to throw the history of things off.
I can sympathize with the doubt. But I consider other portions of the Holy Bible where things are revealed to us not strictly in historical sequence.
A parallel can be seen with the 18th chapter of Exodus. The event of Jethro visiting Moses and Moses arranging leaders of smaller groups to assist him in judging the Israelites actually is inserted in Exodus between the continuity of history from Exodus chapters 17 and 19.
In other words, historically, the events of chapter 18 came after the building of the tabernacle, ark, and preparation to march into Canaan. Historically the events of chapter 18 should therefore come after chapter 40.
This is seen by reading Deuteronomy 1:8-18. Moses, in writing Exodus, INSERTED in between Exodus 17 and 19, somewhat out of historical sequence, the events of something that happened after chapter 40's events. The reason he did this is not elaborated on in this post. But briefly, we believe that after the defeat of Amalek he wanted to give a portrait of the kingdom.
The organization of the subsidiary judges to assist Moses in carrying out leadership and judgment is a window into the millennial kingdom. Exodus is a picture book of God's full salvation. So a preview of the kingdom was inserted out of historical sequence to make a doctrinal point, ie. when the perpetual Amalek (a hand against the throne) is dealt with in spiritual warfare, the resulting issue is God's kingdom comes about.
So, for those who question - "WHY would God not speak of any pre-adamic age in the historical flow as it is laid out in Genesis.?"
I would say God's purpose is similar to the arrangement of Exodus 17, 18, 19. Historical flow is seemingly suspended and an insertion is made to make a revelatory point. What is recorded for Exodus 19 are events Deuteronomy 1 tells us, should have occurred after the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 40.
The pre-history before the creation of Adam was inserted in Isaiah 14 and in Ezekiel 28 and only lightly hinted at where we naturally would expect it, in Genesis 1.. The particular matter of history before the six days is not developed in Genesis. Latter in the whole revelation of the Bible that history (as much as God intends to disclose) is found in portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonship[/b]The point I was making is that it makes no difference whether you call these unclean spirits that possessed the bodies of these people in the Holy Bible devils or demons or evil spirits. The point is that their leader is identified by Jesus as Satan; so these unclean spirits must be part of the "fallen angels" following Satan referred to elsewhere in the Holy Bible.
I am not trying to claim man's translations are always literally accurate.
... the King James translators are translating to their intended audience based on their understanding at that time. Surely they knew this Greek word they translated as "Easter" was "Passover" because they translated it as "Passover" in every other place where it appeare ...[text shortened]... first heaven and the first earth passed away, AND THE SEA IS NO MORE." (Rev. 21:1)
And besides comparing these devils or demons to Satan, Jesus goes on to refer to them as "unclean spirits" as we see below:
Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it.
(Matthew 12:43)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 Apr 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The point is that their leader is identified by Jesus as Satan; so these unclean spirits must be part of the "fallen angels" following Satan referred to elsewhere in the Holy Bible.
Yes their leader is Satan.
You assume that the only beings Satan led were the angels in heaven.
Others see that "the dead" given up by the sea in Revelation 20:14 refers not to "dead" fallen angels but other beings of whom we do not know much about. They also followed Satan. So he is their leader also.
It is not hard to understand if you recognize the judgment of the earth being made waste and emptiness is not just a chaos ready for formation and habitation. It is the result of an angry destruction of that world by God.
That we do not know very much about that world, is not in dispute by me. And I would be cautious of too much speculation. But these "dead" beings somehow confined by the watery sea, were not human.
In rebellion, they somehow wander about in "waterless places" seeking bodies to inhabit since they lost theirs.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
"When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it roams through waterless places looking for rest, and not finding rest, it then says, I'll go back to my house where I came from.'
How they leave their place of appointed confinement, the sea, I do not know. But when the watery place, the sea, gives up all the dead, the sea is no longer needed.
This is the same as Hades, which is the holding place for all the dead human beings is discarded because of no longer being needed -
"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne ... And the dead were judged by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works.
And the SEA gave up the dead which were in it. and death and HADES gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged ... And death and HADES were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death ... And the sea is no more." (See Rev. 20:12 - 21:1)
Death and Hades - the holding place of all dead human beings including those drowned at sea.
The SEA - the watery place in contrast to "waterless places" where the demons were ordained to stay. But they escaped from Jesus judging them by rushing down in the bodies of pigs into the sea.
Jesus explained that the rebellions demons wander about on land away from the sea in "waterless places" looking for the bodies of sinner human beings, to infest.
"When the unclean spirit goes out from the man, it roams through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came out.
... Then it goes and takes along with itself seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter in and settle down there. And the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. " (See Matthew 12:43-45
These evil unclean spirits we believe are other than the evil fallen angel that made up one third of all the angels, and followed Satan. Expositors who teach this are not necessarily trying to be innovative or inventive or novel.
We are simply trying to put the pieces of the puzzle of God's revelation together.
What cause is there to believe that fallen angels wander about in "waterless places" ? I can think of none whatsoever.
I do know that DEMONS in Revelation 16:13-14 are symbolized to us as FROGS. And frogs are an amphibious creature that lives part in water and part on land like the unclean spirits who wander away from the water into waterless dry places.
Here we see demons symbolized as amphibious frogs -
"And I saw, out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits as FROGS;
For they are the spirits of demons doing signs, which go forth to the kings of the whole inhabited earth to gather them to the war of the great day of God the Almighty." (Rev. 16:13-14)
You can continue to be convinced that the only evil spirits are angels. Others of us have good reason to agree with the ancient Pharisees, at least on the point that there are spirits and angels (Acts 23:8,9). And the unclean spirits / demons are like frogs living part in the water and part on the land (waterless places).
30 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI understand your point. However, I believe these unclean spirits or evil spirits a.k.a demons or devils could still be part of the fallen angels.The point is that their leader is identified by Jesus as Satan; so these unclean spirits must be part of the "fallen angels" following Satan referred to elsewhere in the Holy Bible.
Yes their leader is Satan.
You assume that the only beings Satan led were the angels in heaven.
Others see that [b]"the dead" given up by the sea ...[text shortened]... / demons are like frogs living part in the water and part on the land (waterless places).[/b]
Remember that the cherub angel named Lucifer, who became known as Satan the devil because he did the evil deed of possessing the body of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve. So these demon evil spirits could be the sons of God that also became devils or demons by possessing the bodies of men in order to have sex with the daughters of men and become the fathers of the Nephilim (giants). See Genesis 6:1-4.
The watery places could refer to water in the oceans left over by the worldwide flood in which all the Nephilim (giants) died; and these fallen angels or demon spirits no long had bodies they could inhabit, and so became imprisioned until some were gradually able to escape when the evil of men on earth after the flood increased enough to give them access.
There is no reason to attribute these evil spirits to an imagined pre-adamic civilization between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Apr 15
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand your point. However, I believe these unclean spirits or evil spirits a.k.a demons or devils could still be part of the fallen angels.
RJ, you are welcomed to believe differently from me. You are fully entitled to another viewpoint.
The very terms "devils" is an invention which you seem to want to insist on using. I can do without "devils" in my vocabulary because "demons" is what has been provided by Scripture.
I don't know if you feel that not having the word "devils" in your theological vocabulary makes it harder to support your interpretation. Does not referring to "devils" make your theory of angels to demons more difficult to support ?
I would like to see an argument that does not have to use the word "devils" that supports your interpretation.
Remember that the cherub angel named Lucifer, who became known as Satan the devil because he did the evil deed of possessing the body of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve.
I have never thought that he was called Lucifer [Latin] BECAUSE of the deed of Genesis 3 with the serpent. He was called Daystar or [Latin Lucifer] in reference to being the bright being in the early dawn of the universe -
" How have you fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the dawn! " (Isaiah 14:12a)
I think your reasoning is that only after the incident of the serpent the name "Daystar" is appropriate for Satan. I see no reason to insist that has to be the case. Rather "O Daystar, son of the dawn!" - a bright being in the early "dawn" of creation.
I see no reason to think this being was only "Lucifer" AFTER the serpent tempted Eve. Daystar, son of the dawn" is probably a positive title that he could have continued to enjoy had he not tried to ascend above the stars of God and exalt himself to be like the Most High.
You see Daystar, son of the dawn is a dignified title. It is even a title of beauty. And before the serpent incident, I believe the Anointed Cherub's heart was lifted up because of his beauty (Ezek. 28:17)
If we reason that Satan was only beautiful as a serpent and his heart was lifted up as a serpent in the garden because of his beauty that makes less sense. Look at Ezekiel 28 again.
Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre ... Thus says the Lord Jehovah, O you who sealed up perfection ... perfect in beauty (v.12)
You were the anointed cherub who covered ... indeed I set you, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God, you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (v.14)
You were perfect in your ways FROM THE DAY YOU WERE CREATED, until unrighteousness was found in you. (v.15)
Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty. " (v.17)
I don't believe that he was lifted up because of his beauty in the garden of Eden as a serpent. Now there are some pretty serpents with nice patterns. And perhaps the first serpent was especially beautiful. But I rather think he was not lifted up in heart for the beauty of being a reptile.
Rather he was lifted up in heart because of the beauty that he was originally created with. He was glorious from the day he was created. That beauty of his created state is what fed his self love and not any beauty of him as a reptile among the beasts of Adam's world.
I suspect that you may appeal to Second Corinthians 11:13-15 :
"For such ones are false apostles, deceitful workers, transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ.
And no wonder, for Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if also his ministers transfigure themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:13-15)
The serpent in Eden who spoke to Eve doesn't compare in splendor to the Anointed Cherub perfect in beauty from the day of his creation, celebrated and walking in the presence of God's glory.
The state in the garden associated with a serpent is a definite demotion, a severe degree downward in dignity, a drastic decrease of unimaginable splendor of a being "perfect in beauty" (Ezek. 28:12c) in his original creation.
Being a more subtle beast than all the other beasts of the field is relatively superior in some ways. But it should be compared with a creature who "sealed up perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty ..."
The "more subtle" reptile among earth's beasts is no comparison to the splendor of the original Daystar in the dawn of God's creation created from the beginning "perfect in beauty".
And the lifting up of Satan's heart because of that beauty was the proud self loving rebellion that took place before the reptile serpent is noticed by Eve.
So these demon evil spirits could be the sons of God that also became devils or demons by possessing the bodies of men in order to have sex with the daughters of men and become the fathers of the Nephilim (giants). See Genesis 6:1-4.
The problem I have with this interpretation is that it says these being became demons because of possession of human bodies. But the Bible never says they became demons. The way I read it they were demons anyway and not just after taking possession of some poor sinner's body.
And it never says angels possessed or angels were cast out. For example -
Luke 8:2English Standard Version (ESV)
2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,
If the Holy Spirit wanted us to understand that seven fallen angels went out of Mary, it could have plainly said so. Your view is made weak because the distinction between fallen angels and demons is constantly there in the Scripture.
Your reasoning seems always to be "Both are bad. Both are evil. Both are from Satan. Therefore both are the angels." Its a viewpoint. But all of us Bible students will not be going along with that interpretation.
The watery places could refer to water in the oceans left over by the worldwide flood in which all the Nephilim (giants) died; and these fallen angels or demon spirits no long had bodies they could inhabit, and so became imprisioned until some were gradually able to escape when the evil of men on earth after the flood increased enough to give them access.
There is no reason to attribute these evil spirits to an imagined pre-adamic civilization between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
It is not "imagined" that the earth was waste and empty in verse 1. It is read. It is interpreted as indicative of divine destruction similar to that spoken of where the two words are used together ie Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23.
One translator writes "toho-wa bohu ... The two words used together only in [Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23] examples which favour the conclusion that here also [Gen. 1:2] they describe the result of previous overthrow." [ my bolding ]
Most of the objections I heard to this analysis takes the words apart and shows that separately they do not have to indicate judgment. But it is not insisted that apart they have to mean judgment. But the idiomatic pair as a play on words, does reveal judgment from God when used together in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23.
Latter I may comment on your Nephilim theory with oceans.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Apr 15
2 edits
The watery places could refer to water in the oceans left over by the worldwide flood in which all the Nephilim (giants) died;
The seas are something that God designated before the flood of Noah.
"And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called SEAS; and God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:10)
He did not wait until Noah's flood to form seas. And for Revelation to say "the sea was no more" is better interpreted to mean the sea from the third day in Genesis 1.
and these fallen angels or demon spirits no long had bodies they could inhabit, and so became imprisioned until some were gradually able to escape when the evil of men on earth after the flood increased enough to give them access.
Its reasoned well. But the accumulation of other facts persuade me that though this could be, it wasn't.
According to Genesis 6 the Nephilim were the offspring of these illegal unions.
"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." (Gen. 6:4)
I do not read here that the Nephilim were demon possessed. What I see is that the Nephilim were the CHILDREN of the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men.
Your changing that somewhat. You are saying in essence "the Nephilim were demon possessed." Maybe. But what it says is that they were the mighty men, not mighty demon possessed men.
This does involve the deepest imaginable occult. But what I understand is the angels left their lawful status and had relations with human women. That is not possession of a spirit. That is just a deranged relationship between some angels who had the power to do this and human women.
The offspring were the things of which mythology is built - the mighty men of old. The ancient Greek and Roman gods are what I think it means - Mercury, Zeus, Hercules , etc. etc.
They had some basis in history.
That they were demon possessed in a conjecture.
They could have been in addition to being strange human babies.
All it says though is that they were the children of these unions.
Now it is usually objected that "the dead" given up by the sea cannot be any DEAD before Adam brought sin and death into the world. And to that I would reply that it could be a death God is referring to of a world so different and not Adam's world.
What I mean is that "the world" in Romans 5:12 has some limitations on it.
"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned - "
The dead left over in the universe who were demons confined to the seas that God made on the third day, belong to another era; another "world"; another epoch and economy.
The full nature of that world may have been so foreign that God deems it better that we know little about it. He hasn't told us everything to satisfy our curiosity.
I also think Satan displays some familiarity with the subject of death and dying in his temptation of Eve. This seems to be from previous experience in what was another "world" not under Adam's dominion.
"And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened ... etc." (Gen. 3:4)
The Liar and Slander displays some previous familiarity with death. It was from a distant and previous epoch which resulted in God judging the earth. That earth was under the dominion of Daystar, a glorious Anointed Cherub who became Satan.
He hates man because God has created a new creature and said - "Let THEM have dominion ..." . The old order is destroyed, the old deputy authority fired and awaiting eternal judgment, depending on how the new creature man cooperates with God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by RJHindsWe can have an honest debate ( now for about the fourth time in the last few years.)
I don't see how we can have an honest debate or discussion when you keep making strawman arguments by misstating what I write or replying to something I did not say as if I did say it..
It was early in the morning and it is possible that I misunderstood something. You should be able to see that for the greater part I am reading your explanations very carefully.
So where did you feel unfairly represented?
30 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipThere were several misrepresentations. The first of which is your reply to the following:
We can have an honest debate ( now for about the fourth time in the last few years.)
It was early in the morning and it is possible that I misunderstood something. You should be able to see that for the greater part I am reading your explanations very carefully.
So where did you feel unfairly represented?
Remember that the cherub angel named Lucifer, who became known as Satan the devil because he did the evil deed of possessing the body of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve.
You said the following that implied that I said Satan the devil was called Lucifer because of his deed in Genesis 3 with the Serpent, which is the opposite of what I actually said.
I have never thought that he was called Lucifer [Latin] BECAUSE of the deed of Genesis 3 with the serpent. He was called Daystar or [Latin Lucifer] in reference to being the bright being in the early dawn of the universe
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 May 15
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI see the problem and it is a misunderstanding on my part. It is not a strawman argument.
You wrote:
Remember that the cherub angel named Lucifer, who became known as Satan the devil because he did the evil deed of possessing the body of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve.
I am not sure what you wrote is a proper sentence. I sometimes do not write proper English also.
But in my response I did make a significant mistake. As I check and re-check my response I see where you have a legitimate compliant.
I responded firstly -
I have never thought that he was called Lucifer [Latin] BECAUSE of the deed of Genesis 3 with the serpent. He was called Daystar or [Latin Lucifer] in reference to being the bright being in the early dawn of the universe
Okay. I see my mistake and I sincerely apologize. But this was an early morning misunderstanding and not a deliberate erecting of a strawman argument.
And the argument you made following this one I thought was well thought out and told you so. It was something I never thought of concerning the Nephilim.
Strawman arguments are usually a tool to make the other debater look foolish. If that had been my goal I would not have said that your Nephilim rationale (IF I understood you correctly) was well thought out.
At this point though, I am not sure this early morning exchange was without mistakes in my understanding your sentences.
Thankyou.
Do you have another complaint ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 May 15
4 edits
Hopefully having corrected my misunderstanding above, let me give a proper response to what I think you are saying.
You wrote:
Remember that the cherub angel named Lucifer, who became known as Satan the devil because he did the evil deed of possessing the body of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve.
And now I would respond:
Anointed Cherub, Daystar and [Lucifer] are all positive names. Satan and Devil and Dragon or the ancient serpent, are definitely negative titles. Exactly when this being began to be called Satan the Devil, I do not know.
However, he was the adversary of God from within God's kingdom before he is seen as the serpent in the garden.
I think that you have to realize that to deceive the angels he had to be Satan like. And to want to usurp God he had to be Satan like. And to want to rebel and make himself like the Most High he had to be Satan like.
I think these evil God opposing, God usurping, revolts, insubordinations, God slanderings, oppositions etc. occurred before or with the events of him being cast down by God.
If I understand what you are saying, I don't think the casting down of Satan ( from the mountain of God or from heaven) was precipitated by the lie of the serpent to Eve. I firmly believe and would teach that he had long been expelled as a rebel and adversary to God before the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3.
01 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship
Hopefully having corrected my misunderstanding above, let me give a proper response to what I think you are saying.
You wrote:
Remember that the cherub angel named Lucifer, who became known as Satan the devil because he did the evil deed of possessing the body of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve.
...[text shortened]... led as a rebel and adversary to God before the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3.
[/quote]
What I am trying to point out is that Lucifer was seen as perfect until iniquity was found in him by his adversarial act of becoming Satan the Devil by possessing the body of one of god's physical creatures in order to deceive the woman in the Garden of Eden.
Lucifer's example of possessing the body of the Serpent made him the Devil, referred to as Beelzebub chief of the demons by the Pharisees. These demons were those sons of God (angels) who came unto the daughters of men to take wives of those they chose. This speaks of the possession of the body just as the Devil first did to the serpent. A demon is like the Devil in that it is an angel that left its former spiritual state of no marriage in Heaven to possess the body of a physical being on Earth.
There was no rebellion in Heaven before the creation of man because ALL the angels of God shouted with joy at the physical creation. That would include the annointed cherub Lucifer.
The war in Heaven does not take place until after Christ is taken up into Heaven as is revealed in Revelation chapter 12. It is then that there is war and no place found for Satan and his angels in Heaven (they are banned from Heaven) and they are thrown down to the Earth.