Bible Questions & Discussion PAGE 359

Thank you, S. Spencer.

Preparing for the unknown.

When studying the story of Peter and His denial of Christ; the first thing that tends to come up is the self confidence of Peter and his arrogance in thinking he was stronger than he actually was. That is certainly a valid point; although it could be said for all the Disciples at that time who ran off. What is also evident is the sense of complacency; or predictability which they all thought could be depended on; closing their hearts and thus blinding their minds to the frequent prophetic warnings from Christ about his death that was soon to come.

The same thing applies to us as believers; for instance if we have had a long season (as in this country) of relative freedom. Should organized governmental persecution; war, famine or another pestilence come are we too set in our ways to be able to endure?

There is; of course the inevitable day of death; either for ourselves or others we know. Ecclesiastes 9:13 states that it comes as a snare and on an unknown schedule. Getting our affairs in order as a believer involves the daily disciplines and working toward His goals which involves; one way or another fulfilling the Great Commission. The disciples were to learn what was needed to begin growing the church; and were given the Comforter and thus His presence to guide them ( John 14:26). The next major change was after Paul was martyred; as well as Peter. They both warned of the wolves in the flock who would soon be preaching falsehood. Satan is constantly to be watched for; both causing falsehood as well as persecution to affect the Body of believers.

Just as we would prepare for a natural disaster; it pays to be proactive with prayer and our devotional life. It strengthens us with our trust in the Lord through scripture meditation and memorization; but is also necessary as a witness to others; both lost individuals and those caught in life's unexpected trials. Wisdom with physical resources means we can aid others

Hi Ruby Lea Read,

The part of Gen. 6 that is being discussed was only vs. 1-4, about the sons of God and mating with the daughters of men (ha-a-dam). The "sons of God" are only 5 times in the Old Testament, and the Son of God was said once in Daniel 3. I believe I listed all of the scripture that has the sons of God where all references are to angels.

I could write more but I usually keep it short, but it would not change my understanding. Not all understand it the same and that's ok. If you have another view, you want me to see please show it, I always study what is not the same as my understanding. Truth is what is important not being right or wrong.

God bless,

RLW

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV - Does this mean that we wear gold crosses around our necks? Does this mean that we go to the tattoo parlor and ask for a cross to be etched/cut into our skin.......which is against the law by the way ->



"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:28 KJV

Ruby Lea Read A parable is #3850 in Greek: it means a similitude, fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral) apothegm or adage, comparison. It would seem that some could see the Word of God as being written as a parable but I do not, this is how I see it, by the Word of God! Ps.12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. The word pure is #2889; it means pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial or moral sense) sound, unadulterated, uncontaminated, morally innocent or holy. Prov.30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (6) Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Mt.4:4 But he answered and said. It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Deut. 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Isa.55:11 So shall my words be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it. (To see the Word of God as a parable is giving way to much freedom for ones own interpretation, which is not a good thing!) Jn.14:23 Jesus answered and said unto them, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (( The Words of the LORD are pure, unadultrated, uncomtaminated, Every Word of God is pure!)) One more thing if everybody saw the Word of God as a parable then everybody would interpret it as they see it. where would the Truth be in that? 1 Cor.14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,. . .

Brother Ronald:

All these scriptures you have referenced to understand Genesis 6, add a few more, get them in correct order, and I believe you will SEE.

God Bless YOU!

Hi Alex,

I am recovering from right hand surgery I had yesterday, so I need to rest my hand for a few days or so. I will get back to you when I can two -hand type again without pain.

Jimbob:

I agree Matthew 24 is PROPHECY, but it's meaning is HIDDEN in a PARABLE

Psalms is also a PROPHECY.

Psalms 49:4 I (the spirit of Christ wrote Psalms) will open my mouth in a parable .....

Psalms 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable ....

The whole bible is written by the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the whole bible is a parable, the meaning is HIDDEN from the physical eyes.

Job is a PROPHECY, but it's meaning is hidden in a Parable, the physical eye can't see the truth of the parable.

Job 27:1 Moreover Job CONTINUED his PARABLE ...

Job 29:1 Moreover Job continued his PARABLE ...

If Job is continuing his parable, it has been a parable from the beginning.

Ezekiel is a Prophecy, but hidden in a parable.

Ezekiel 17:2 Son of Man, put forth a riddle, and speak a PARABLE to the house of Israel of Israel.

Ezekiel 24:3 Utter a PARABLE unto the rebellious house .....

Ezekiel, through the spirit of Christ, is PROPHESYING that the words of God are a PARABLE, and can't be understood without the spirit of Christ revealing it to you.

Micah 2:4 In that day (the day he is speaking the words of Matthew 24) ONE (CHRIST) shall take up a parable against you ....

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a parable spake he not to them.

You know ALL of God's words a Parable, because his word says so.

Mark 4:34 But with a parable spake he not to them, (the disciples never understood a word he was saying) and when they were alone, he expounded all things to them.

You have to be alone also, and the spirit of Christ will expound all things to you.

Revelation 19:10 ...for the testimony (words) of Jesus is the SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

You need to rethink the abomination of desolation, the rapture, and a single anti-christ.

God Bless YOU as HE reveals his words to you.

Hi S Spencer,

Good deal, I agree it takes all scripture to see the truth. Missler writes that it was in the fifth century it flourished which is probably true, but we see it started way before. We see in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and what Jesus said about the Nicolaitans in Revelation.

Augustine did support the Sethite and Cainite view of Gen. 6 teaching, he also brought in other teachings.

We should deliberate; whether it is philosophy, the love of wisdom, or truth, that is in the scriptures unveiled by the Spirit of Truth to eyes and ears open to see and hear it.

Thanks, and God bless,

RLW

Cheryl.

Continued.

PS. The Origin of the Sethite View should have ended midway through Part 2, right before the problems with the Seth view.

Part 9 and final.

In Summary

If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.

It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.

For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)

For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following:

George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975.

John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879.

Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976.

Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952.

Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.

I hope this Helps.

God bless.

Cheryl.

Origin of the Sethite View Continued.

Part 8.

The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.

7. Post-Flood Implications

The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.

8. Prophetic Implications

Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")

See Part 9.

"Cheryl.

Origin of the Sethite View Continued.

Part 7.

6. New Testament Confirmations

"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5

Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.

Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.

The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7

See Part 8.

Cheryl.

Origin of the Sethite View Continued.

Part 6.

It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17

If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

5. The Unnatural Offspring

The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18

Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19

See Part 7.

Cheryl.

Origin of the Sethite View Continued.

Part 5.

All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16

The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

See Part 6.

Cheryl.

Part 4.

Origin of the Sethite View Continued.

The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12

The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

2. The Daughters of Cain

The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 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 which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2

It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain?

See Part 5

Cheryl.

Part 3.

Origin of the Sethite View Continued.

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5

The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

See Part 4.

Cheryl.

Part 2.

Origin of the Sethite View

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5

See Part 3.

Hi Cheryl.

I would like to share a lengthy article by Chuck Missler that parallels with what Brother Ronald and Yinnick has shared.

Part 1.

Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.

However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)

Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.

See Part 2.

Ruby Lea Read I have not been taught traditions of men, I allow the Holy Ghost to teach me all things (Jn,14:26). When Jesus uses a parable we are told its a parable. Mt.Ch.24 IS NOT a parable, but it is a timeline of things to come, some things even happening now.. It is prophecy for the Lastdays, which we are living NOW!

Jimbob:

If you didn't understand the comments I made the first time, they is no need to comment farther.

Yes, Christ is coming back to this earth, and he is coming in the clouds of heaven, but not the way you have been taught by the traditions of man, It's a parable.

Search the scriptures, the answer is not in one chapter of one book.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which is IN YOU will teach you all things, and you need not that any man teach you ...

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips, and another tongue will he speak to his people.

The last day of THIS AGE, the feast of the passover, has been going on now for 2000 years, when it is complete will go to the NEXT AGE.

You have to understand the OLD, it was THE SHADOW of the NEW.

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come .....

God Bless YOU!

pg. 2

Mark 3:23-26 . Observe what occurs when a kingdom or anything is divided against itself, i.e. opposes or is the opposite of itself. It cannot stand!

All of us are in a state of dissociation which is a distorted process of thinking whereby two systems of belief which cannot coexist are both maintained. What we can decide between, though, is fixed , because there are no alternatives except truth and what is not true. And there is no overlap between them, because they are opposites which cannot be reconciled and cannot both be true. You are guilty or guiltless, bound or free, at peace in your mind or at war. Opposites must brought together, not kept apart. For their separation is only in our mind, and they are reconciled by union, as we are. In union, everything that is not real must disappear, for truth IS union. In other words, whenever light enters darkness (its opposite) the darkness is abolished. It shows us the darkness is not there i.e. it does not exist.

Peace

GOD IS

Hi Anonymous,

So far none of the responses regarding how these falling angels reproduced makes any sense.Perhaps familiar Biblical Scripture will bring us to more sound reasoning.

John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This logically means that flesh cannot produce spirit and Spirit cannot produce flesh, i.e. God does not give birth, create, or produce flesh. John 3:8 provides a glimpse of what spirit is, which obviously is not characteristic of the flesh. John 6:63 states, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh counts for nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit, and are life." So, the flesh does not matter, thus the spirit is ALL that does have meaning, and nothing else. John 4:24 says "God a Spirit: and they that worship him (Him) must worship in spirit and in truth. Nothing here indicating God is flesh. Contrarily, it is an emphatic statement, leaving no doubt. We must NOT worship in flesh and in what is NOT TRUE, i.e. untruth, lies, unreality, illusions, anything of the flesh or mind that thinks apart from Him.

Once again, I'm following a pattern from many of my previous postings, which some may begin to recognize: in reality or the Mind of God, which is Knowledge, truth cannot have an opposite. In truth and eternity and the Kingdom of God, they cannot coexist. Knowledge is stable and has no degrees or fluctuations. Only in time and in an unstable mind that perceives in a myriad of degrees, not on the same level with the Thoughts of God, maintain a faith in opposites. Is this not obvious in what we perceive as going on today in this world? Or at any time in the world's history? Or even on this website?

In lieu of this, How can Jesus literally be 100% God and !00% man (flesh)? Opposites produce strain on the mind, and God is not strain, but peace. Look at Matthew 9:16-17. Observe what opposites did to the garment and bottles.

see pg. 2

Ruby Lea Read Do you believe Jesus Christ will return in the clouds to gather together his elect, the church, the bride of Christ? Mt.24 is prophecy. If you dont see that then your understanding of Endtimes prophecy is something that makes no sense! The words of the LORD are pure words, every word has meaning from the LORD Himself, we should be careful in not changing those words to what we think they mean but take them as they are written! Mt.24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? The disciples clearly asked Jesus what will be the sign of his coming, and of the end of the world. What about the abomination of desolation? What about the antichrist? What about the mark of the beast? All these things come to be in the Lastdays, which we are living now. The Son of man coming in the clouds IS Jesus Christ coming to gather his elect, that is Lastdays prophecy..

Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow. and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. This verse says (dividing asunder of soul and spirit) dividing #3311: it means a separation, to part, to disunite, be difference between. The soul and spirit are separated at death, the spirit goes to God who gave it while the soul goes with the body to the grave awaiting the return of Christ. The dead in Christ shall rise first, thats all true believers in Christ who have passed on before us, their spirit will return with Christ to meet their soul, which is the dead in Christ that will rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air, or in the clouds. soul to the grave= Ps.44:25 Ps.49:15 Ps.89:48 spirit to God = Eccle.12:7 2 Cor.5:8 Jn.5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. And shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I like the bible!!!!!!!!

I pray you are having a good day, Cheryl. This is a very good question and a great concern. The interesting thing about the Sons of God it is clear that these beings are what are normally described as Angels in the Bible. When the Angels take on the form of Humans they appear to be able to obtain their anatomy and internal structures. Such as the time when the Angels came to visit Lot and his family they ate with them Genesis 19:3. In order to eat it would take more for them than just taking on the form of a human. So I am sure that they must also possess the reproductive system if they possessed the immune system. Jesus was a different occasion He had to be born human in order for His sacrifice to be valid. He had to be born of spirit so that the corruption of man could not seep in yet at the same time be human because blood had to be shed to signify the sacrifice. God doesnt bleed so human blood was needed. What was miraculous about the conception of Jesus Christ was the fact He could be born with no man involved. But there is nothing in the scriptures stating Him to be the firstborn of the spirit and flesh. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man all at the same time, however, the results of the Nephilim were spirit and flesh due to their forbidden nature (hence the name Nephilim which means The Fallen ones (from the Hebrew naphal, "to fall")) they where never meant to be, but because God allows the free will of man to dictate what goes on in the earth they happened. This resulted in their deformed states. They were the best-looking creatures. They were exceedingly great in stature and power though and they, of course, being birthed from evil were diabolical. And their wickedness leads to the flood of the earth. Yes, there was a level of free will used in the demise of the people of that day. But the people of that day had barely a say in what occurred. So the Lord had mercy on them and the Lord preached to the spirits of those people. God always supplies grace.

There IS fear in love; but perfect love does NOT cast out fear; because LOVE hath torment. HE that loveth IS made perfect in fear. I must choose one or the other as to which is true and eternal; from the Voice for God.

The truth is true and nothing else is true. This statement has two parts: without the first, the second has no meaning, but without the second, is the first no longer true. Truth cannot have an opposite. This can not be too often said and thought about. For if what is not true is true as well as what is true, then part of truth is false. And truth has lost its meaning. Nothing but the truth is true, and what is false is false. Truth must be true throughout, if it be true. It cannot contradict itself, nor be in parts uncertain and in others sure. What God creates has no alternative. The truth arises from what He KNOWS; not what we perceive.

Perception has a focus.It is this that gives consistency to what we see. Change but this focus, and what we behold will change accordingly. When seeing a wholly sinless world is ALL we want to see, when this is ALL we seek for in the name of true perception, are the eyes of Christ inevitably ours. What the body's eyes see/perceive is only conflict.

Much of our strange behavior is directly attributable to our definition of guilt; we've accepted the belief the guiltless are guilty. Love and guilt cannot coexist, and to accept one is to deny the other. Guilt hides Christ from our sight, for it is the denial of the blamelessness of God' children. Love creates Itself and nothing but Itself. To the "devil" purity is seen as arrogance and the acceptance of the self as sinful is perceived as holiness. TEACH ONLY LOVE.

Romans 2:11 Romans 13:10 Eph. 1:4 Eph. 5:14 Eph. 3:17-19 Eph. 4:29 Philippians 4:8 Titus 1:15 2 James 3:17-18 1 John 1:5 1 1 John 4:7-8

Peace

GOD IS

Cheryl:

Your not going to understand everything at one time, Christs feeds you daily, as he see fit; keep studying, when Christ wants you to see, YOU WILL SEE, it's HIS WORKS and HIS TIME FRAME, there are about 750,000 words and thy all have a key to understanding, when you don't understand something, move on to other scriptures, Christ will reveal himself as you study. The more he reveals of himself the more you will want to know, you will come to the point when you can't get enough, you will hunger and thirst after his righteousness.

God Bless You!

I read Psalm 126 today and thought of your posts .

Thoughts on knowledge and perception:

pg. 1

True perception is the basis for knowledge, but knowing is the affirmation of truth and beyond all perceptions. We can be right- minded or wrong-minded, and even this is subject to degrees, clearly demonstrating that knowledge is not involved. The term "right-mindedness" is properly used as the correction for "wrong-mindedness," and applies to the state of mind that induces accurate perception. Only perception involves partial awareness. Knowledge transcends the laws governing perception, because partial knowledge is impossible. It is all one and has no separate parts. In time, we perceive. Only God is knowledge, and eternal.

From knowledge and perception respectively, two distinctive thought systems arise which are opposites in every respect. In the realm of knowledge no thoughts exist apart from God, because God and His creation share one Will. The world of perception, however, is made by the belief in opposites and separate wills, in perpetual conflict with each other and with God. What perception sees and hears appears to be real because it permits into awareness only what conforms to the wishes of the perceiver. This leads to world of illusions, a world which needs constant defense precisely BECAUSE it is not real. The Holy Spirit must perceive time, and reinterpret it into the timeless. He must work through opposites, because He must work with and for a mind that is in opposition.

The opposite of Love is fear, yet what is all encompassing cannot have an opposite. Yet we can perceive incorrectly that it does, thus believing fear is of God and not its opposite. Could we say that love is the source of the opposite of God? Hmm. 1 John 4:18 . There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. The opposite of this verse which would obviously derive from an opposing source, would be.....

see pg. 2