Of Angels and Ancient gods

It is interesting because in Genesis 1, God made man on the 6th day, and told man to be fruitful and multiply.

Then in Genesis 2, it says that "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up," "the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed"

Since 'Adam' was created after the dry ground and before the vegetation, it would seem as though Adam was created on the 3rd day.

So it would make sense if God created Adam on the 3rd day, and Eve on the 6th day (which was when all the livestock was created.)

Now. Genesis 1 : 27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." followed by "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


Now there are two ways you can interpret this. Which way is correct, I'm not yet sure. But I'm interested to hear your ideas.

1. God created Adam on the 3rd day and Eve on the 6th day. Then God created man in His own image (the sons of God?). So you had Adam and Eve in the garden of eden with mankind mulitplying and making cities elsewhere.

2. Genesis 1 is a summary of creation. It shows in what order God created, and that man and woman were completed on the 6th day (in which Eve was created on the 6th day.) And that after the fall of Adam into sin, God told them to be fruitful and multiply. Then Genesis 2 focuses the aspect of creation onto Adam, how he and eve was created, and how their lifestyle started.


Interpretation 2 is the more commonly held belief that Adam and Eve were the first of the entire human race and that there were no others but them in the beginning.

However, interpretation 1 answers a few more questions like why Adam was created on one day, and 'man in our image' was made on another; or like when cain, Adam and Eve's second child, left to marry in another city.
 
Taken from Prophecy update. (link at the bottom)  There are 8 parts, I'll post 3 of them in different posts. If you want the rest, let me know and I'll post the rest.

Cory

Notes on the Nephilim: The Giants of Old (Part 1) - by James Montgomery Boice

Sons of God/Daughters of Men

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:1-4)

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The first verses of Genesis 6 are transition verses. On the one hand, they wrap up the pre-Flood history of the earlier chapters, showing the state of degeneracy to which the race had fallen. On the other hand, they prepare for the story of Noah and the Flood that follows; it was because of this degeneracy that the Flood came. Unfortunately, the meaning of these verses is not self-evident. They have raised questions that have been discussed for years.

The passage tells us that "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (vv. 1, 2). This apparently straightforward statement is actually confusing because the subject of the sentence might refer to either of two things. "The sons of God" might mean descendants of the godly line of Seth, who according to this interpretation would be said to have married unbelieving women. Or it might refer to angels, as do the only other exact uses of the phrase in the Old Testament (Job. 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).

The thing that makes these verses so interesting is that three New Testament passages seem to refer to them: 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4, 5; and Jude 6, 7. These passages say in part: "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built" (1 Peter 3:18-20); "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others" (2 Peter 2:4, 5); and "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day" (Jude 6).

If these passages are related, as they seem to be, the incident of Genesis 6 has bearing on the doctrines of judgment, the afterlife, and even the work of Christ following His crucifixion but before His resurrection or ascension. The New Testament verses explain what Christ was doing when, as we say in the Apostles' Creed, "he descended into hell."

THE GODLY AND THE UNGODLY

The interpretation of Genesis 6 which takes "the sons of God" as referring to the godly line of Seth is most natural since it avoids the obvious problem of how spirit beings could copulate with humans. Moreover, it has weighty support in that it is the view of many theological giants of church history. It is not an early view-we will come back to that later-but it appears in such thinkers as Chrysostom and Augustine in the early church, and is adopted by reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and their followers.

Of the early views Augustine's is most important because he had a great influence on later interpreters. Moreover, he placed his interpretation within a broad theological context. Augustine's treatment occurs in The City of God, in which he is trying to trace the origin, nature and development of the two cities (the society of those who love God and the society of those who love self). This is significant, because it fits his objective to view Genesis 6 as continuing the story of the two cities which, according to Augustine, emerges in Genesis 4 and 5. He writes of the passage, "By these two names [sons of God and daughters of men] the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For although the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace.... When they [the godly race] were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society." (1)

This view fits into the pattern of Genesis 4 and 5. Moreover, it fits into the whole of Scripture in which, as Francis Schaeffer notes, "there is a constant prohibitionagainst the people of God marrying those who are not people of God." (2) If this is the proper interpretation of Genesis 6, the point is well taken.

THE SPIRITS IN PRISON

However, there are reasons for rejecting this interpretation in favor of the angelic or supernatural view, and it these we now come. The first reason is linguistic. That is, so far as the biblical use of the phrase "the sons of God" is concerned, there is every reason to it as referring to angels.

This has been denied by the side, of course. Keil and Delitzsch maintain that the angel view is "not warranted by the usages of the language" and is "altogether unscriptural." (3) But what is the evidence? The phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim) is used only three other times in the Testament, as indicated earlier-in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. In each case it clearly means spirit beings, twice those fallen spirits who accompanied Satan in his periodic appearances before the Lord in heaven. This is so clear that the translators of the New International Version drop the longer phrase entirely and simply substitute the word angels: "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came with them." (Job 1:6; cf. also 2:1). A similar form of this phrase (bar elohim used in Daniel 3:25 of the fourth figure Nebuchadnezzar saw when he looked into the burning furnace into which Daniel's three friends had been thrown. In this case it probably refers to a fallen angel or even a theophany, but the actual identity of the being involved is not given. Nebuchadnezzar merely says, "The fourth looks like a son of the gods."

An objection to this view says that the phrase "sons of God" is used in the New Testament of all believers, hence men and women, as opposed to angels or demons, and that it appears in Luke 3:38 specifically of Adam. But this actually proves the point. For what is it that distinguishes Adam (but not Eve), believers in the New Testament period (but not necessarily believers in the Old Testament period) and angels from all other beings in the universe? The answer is that each is directly created by God. Adam clearly was. So were the angels. Believers are termed "sons of God" because they are born of God directly by His Spirit (cf. John 3:3-8).

The second reason why the angel view of Genesis 6 should be preferred is that this was the view of the translators of the Septuagint, who rendered "sons of God" as "angels," and of other Jewish writers prior to the time of Christ. The key book is 1 Enoch. It is available to us through an Ethiopic text of which only three manuscripts survive. Yet in spite of this paucity of manuscripts it was probably "the most important pseudepigraph [a work written in the name of someone other than the actual author] of the first two centuries B.C.--the judgment of R. H. Charles. (4)

Enoch writes, "And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'They were in all two hundred[They] took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments.... And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells.... And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways" (chs. 6-8). The book continues by showing the judgment of God against the fallen angels, in which they are bound up in prison in "the uttermost depths" of the earth.

First Enoch is not a biblical book, of course. Its interpretation of Genesis 6 is not inspired. It could be wrong in many places and undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, it is significant for our interpretation of the text because it was apparently known by Peter and Jude who, in their oblique references to the same subject, seem to put their stamp of approval on it, at least in this matter.

Several studies ago, when we looked at Enoch and his preaching to the ungodly of his age, we quoted Jude 14, 15: "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."' We did not mention it at the time because it was not pertinent then, but these words are actually from 1 Enoch. The phrase "seventh from Adam" is found in 1 Enoch 60:8. The prophecy itself, containing the fourfold repetition of the word "ungodly," is found in 1:9. Since Jude clearly has Enoch in view in verses 14 and 15, how can he not also have Enoch in view in verse 6, just eight and nine verses earlier, when he says that "the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home" have been judged and "kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day"?

When we carry our inquiry to 2 Peter we find the same situation. To begin with, 2 Peter and Jude are closely related in that most of 2 Peter 2 is paralleled in Jude, and there are parallels in the other two chapters. This causes us to think that Peter, like Jude, was probably also aware of the angel interpretation. Again, Peter uses language similar to Jude's in referring to the angels who sinned. He speaks of God's judging the angels by "putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for [final] judgment" and of God's judging the people by flood.

We are moving in the same realm in 1 Peter, where Peter writes, "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built" (1 Peter 3:18-20). This text adds the idea of a special ministry of Christ to these fallen angels during His descent to hell between the times of His death and resurrection. It does not mean that He offered the gospel to them; that would suggest that after death there is a "second chance" for salvation-a doctrine repudiated elsewhere (Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 6:2). It is rather that Christ proclaimed His victory over sin and the devil to the demons. Peter refers to this event to encourage believers in their witness before this world's magistrates. (5)
Prophecy update page
 
Notes on the Nephilim: The Giants of Old (Part 2), The Genesis Record - by Henry Morris

Genesis 6:1, 2

Moral and spiritual conditions in the antediluvian world had deteriorated with the passing years, not only among the Cainites but eventually among the Sethites as well. Materialism and ungodliness abounded, except for the small remnant connected with the line of the promised Seed, along with those few who may have been influenced by the witness of such men as Enoch.

Then, in the days of Noah, a strange and terrible event took place, leading rapidly to such a tidal wave of violence and wickedness over the earth that there was no longer any remedy but utter destruction. The "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and took them as their wives, the children of such unions being "giants in the earth," mighty men of renown, monsters not only in size but also in wickedness (Genesis 6:1, 2, 4).

One's first reaction to this passage (and the standard interpretation of the liberals) is to think of the fairy tales of antiquity, the legends of ogres and dragons, and the myths of the gods consorting with men-and then to dismiss the entire story as legend and superstition.

On the other hand, modern Christians have often attempted to make the story more palatable intellectually by explaining the "sons of God" as Sethites and the "daughters of men" as Cainites, with their union representing the breaking down of the wall of separation between believers and unbelievers. Another possible interpretation which avoids supernaturalistic implications is that the phrase "sons of God" referred to kings and nobles, in which case the commingling so described is merely an account of royalty marrying commoners.

Neither of these naturalistic interpretations, however, explain why the progeny of such unions would be "giants" or why they would lead to universal corruption and violence. Although Scripture does teach that believers should not wed unbelievers (II Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 7:39), there is no intimation that this particular sin is unforgivable or more productive of general moral deterioration than other sins. Regardless of intellectual difficulties, it does seem clear that something beyond the normal and natural is described here in these verses.

The interpretation of the passage obviously turns on the meaning of the phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim). In the New Testament, of course, this term is used with reference to all who have been born again through personal faith in Christ (John 1:12; Romans 8:14; etc.), and the concept of the spiritual relationship of believers to God as analogous to that of children to a father is also found in the Old Testament (Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1: 10; Deuteronomy 32:5; Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:6). Not one of these examples, however, uses the same phrase as Genesis 6:2, 4; furthermore, in each case the meaning is not really parallel to the meaning here in Genesis. Neither the descendants of Seth nor true believers of any sort have been previously referred to in Genesis as sons of God in any kind of spiritual sense and, except for Adam himself, they could not have been sons of God in a physical sense. In context, such a meaning would be strained, to say the least, in the absence of any kind of explanation. The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarification is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, because they had been created, not born. Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom God had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5; Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1: 16).

The actual phrase bene elohim is used three other times, all in the very ancient book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7). There is no doubt at all that, in these passages, the meaning applies exclusively to the angels. A very similar form (bar elohim) is used in Daniel 3:25, and also refers either to an angel or to a theophany. The term "sons of the mighty" (bene elohim) is used in Psalm 29:1 and also Psalm 89:6, and again refers to angels. Thus, there seems no reasonable doubt that, in so far as the language itself is concerned, the intent of the writer was to convey the thought of angels-fallen angels, no doubt, since they were acting in opposition to God's will. This also was the meaning placed on the passage by the Greek translators of the Septuagint, by Josephus, by the writer of the ancient apocryphal book of Enoch, and by all the other ancient Jewish interpreters and the earliest Christian writers.

Apparently the first Christian writers to suggest the Sethite interpretation were Chrysostom and Augustine.

The reason for questioning this obvious meaning, in addition to the supernaturalistic overtones, is (for those who do not reject the idea of angels) the opinion that it would be impossible for angels to have sexual relations with human women and to father children by them. However, this objection presupposes more about angelic abilities than we know. Whenever angels have appeared visibly to men, as recorded in the Bible, they have appeared in the physical bodies of men. Those who met with Abraham, for example, actually ate with him (Genesis 18:8) and, later, appeared to the inhabitants of Sodom in such perfectly manlike shape that the Sodomites were attempting to take these "men" for homosexual purposes. The writer of Hebrews suggests that, on various occasions, some "have entertained angels unawares" (Hebrews 13:2).

It is true that the Lord Jesus said that...in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). However, this is not equivalent to saying that angels are "sexless," since people who share in the resurrection will surely retain their own personal identity, whether male or female. Furthermore, angels are always described, when they appear, as "men," and the pronoun "he" is always used in reference to them. Somehow they have been given by God the capacity of materializing themselves in masculine human form when occasion warrants, even though their bodies are not under the control of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces which limit our own bodies in this present life.

When Jesus said that the angels of God in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who have been cast out of heaven were incapable of doing so. It clearly was not God's will or intention that angels mix in such a way with human women, but these wicked angels were not concerned with obedience to God's will. In fact, it was probably precisely for the purpose of attempting to thwart God's will that this particular battalion of the "sons of God" engaged in this illegal invasion of the bodies of the daughters of men.

Satan had not forgotten God's prophecy that a promised Seed of the woman would one day destroy him. He had implanted his own spiritual seed in Cain and his descendants, but God had preserved the line of the true Seed through Seth. When Noah was born and Lamech was led to prophesy that "comfort" concerning the Curse would come through him (Genesis 5:29), Satan and his angels must have feared that their opportunities for victory in this cosmic conflict were in imminent danger. Desiring reinforcements for a coming battle against the hosts of heaven, and also desiring, if possible, to completely corrupt mankind before the promised Seed could accomplish Satan's defeat, they seem to have decided to utilize the marvelous power of procreation which God had given the human family and to corrupt it to their own ends. Men now were rapidly multiplying on the earth and by implanting their own "seed" in humanity, they might be able to enlist in only one generation a vast multitude as allies against God. So these "sons of God" saw the daughters of men and "took them wives [or, literally, 'women'] of all which they chose."

Some commentators have said that, since the phrase "took them wives" is the same phrase as normally used throughout the Old Testament for "taking a wife," there can be nothing involved here other than normal human marriage. Therefore, they argue, these "sons of God" must be merely male believers in the Sethite line who married good-looking women of the Cainite (or other) line with no regard to whether or not they were true believers in God. This argument, however, is weak and is hardly sufficient to overthrow the heavy weight of evidence otherwise. The word used for "wife" (Hebrew ishah) is commonly also used for "woman," regardless of whether or not she was a married woman. The word for "take" (Hebrew laqach) is a very common verb, and can have any noun as its object. Shechem, for example, "took" Dinah and lay with her, though he was not married to her (Genesis 34:2).

The fact that these creatures could take whatever women they chose further suggests a general state of profligacy which made indiscriminate sexual unions quite commonplace. This is also suggested by Christ's descriptive phrase "marrying and giving [out] in marriage" (Matthew 24:38) as characteristic of the careless attitudes of the days of Noah.

If, for the sake of argument at least, we assume that the bene elohim were, indeed, angels, and that angels can assume such a total human form that they actually have male reproductive systems, then a grave question would have to be posed relative to the nature of the progeny that would result from their sexual intercourse with human women. The identity of the "giants" is discussed further below, but the seriousness of this problem does have a bearing on how we should interpret these unions. Fallen angels have no possibility of salvation, but fallen men and women do have at least this possibility. What, then, would be the case with "people" who were half-angel, half-men?

This seems to be such a grotesque situation that it does appear extremely doubtful that God would have allowed it at all, even if it really were physiologically a realistic possibility. And yet, as already indicated, it does violence to the actual text of the passage if we make it mean merely that the sons of Seth began to marry the daughters of Cain. (If this were what it meant, why did not the writer simply say so, and thus avoid all this confusion?) And why the giants, and why the universal violence?

The sons of Seth were surely not all godly men; so why should they be called sons of God (remember, they all perished in the Flood)? Furthermore, Adam had many sons in addition to Cain and Seth; were they spiritual "sons of God," too? Not very likely, at this period of history. Furthermore, why stress only the union of godly men with ungodly women? What about the "daughters of God"? Were they being married to "sons of men"?

This naturalistic interpretation is so forced and awkward that it seems to do disservice to the doctrine of divine inspiration to suppose that this is really what the writer meant to say. He surely meant to convey to his readers the idea that, in these days of Noah, such an awful irruption of abnormality and wickedness burst forth on the earth that it could only be explained by a demoniacally supernatural cause.

Rationalistic exegetes, of course, do accept the plain meaning of the text here and agree that it speaks of angel cohabiting with human women. Then, being rationalists, they maintain that since this sort of thing is impossible, the writer of Genesis was simply drawing on the myths and legends of demigods in various religious traditions.

On the other hand, is it not possible that the Bible has the true record and these various legends of giants and demigods represent the distortions that had accrued through long centuries of verbal transmission of the tales in cultures removed from the true patriarchal transmission line?

It is significant that the Septuagint renders the phrase "sons of God" as "angels of God." This was the Old Testament version in dominant use in the Apostolic period, and thus this would be the way the phrase would have been read by Christ and His apostles. The apocryphal book of Enoch was extant then, as well, and was apparently known to the New Testament writers (Jude 14); and it intensely elaborated this angelic interpretation. As an apparent result of these facts, this interpretation is strongly implied, and probably required (as noted below) by three New Testament passages: Jude 6; 11 Peter 2:4-6; 1 Peter 3:19, 20.

Admittedly, however, there is a grave difficulty in the idea of angel/human sexual unions, not only the question of whether such a thing is possible, but even more in the theologically paradoxical and grotesque nature of the progeny of such unions. Is there any way to resolve this dilemma?

A solution seems to consist in recognizing that the children were true human children of truly human fathers and mothers, but that all were possessed and controlled by evil spirits. That is, these fallen angelic "sons of God" accomplished their purposes by something equivalent to demon possession, indwelling the bodies of human men, and then also taking (or "possessing") the bodies of the women as well. The men whose bodies they possessed were evidently thereby made so attractive to the careless and rebellious women of the age that they could take over and use any of the women they chose. The seductive beauty of the women, probably enhanced by various artificial cosmetics and allurements developed by that time, was itself sufficient to induce men to constant obsession with sex, assuring a maximum rapidity of multiplication of the population. Thus, the "sons of God" controlled not only the men whose bodies they had acquired for their own exploitation, but also the women they took to themselves in this way, and then all the children they bore.

These particular Satanic angels, therefore, compounded their original sin in following Satan in his rebellion against God by now leaving "their own habitation" and keeping not their "first estate" (literally, "principality"), "going after strange flesh" as later did the Sodomites "in like manner" (Jude 6, 7). Therefore, God no longer allows them to roam about the earth like other demons, but has confined them "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," casting them down to a special "hell" (literally, "Tartarus," not the ordinary place of departed spirits) where they are "to be reserved unto judgment" (2 Peter 2:4).

This fearful phenomenon of demonic "taking" and "habitation" of human bodies has often been repeated since, though apparently never yet on the global scale which Satan attempted in the days of Noah. Many such cases of demon possession are noted in the New Testament, and missionaries still testify to its common occurrence in heathen lands today. Even in modern "Christian lands" where the influence of the gospel has until now kept it to a minimum, this form of Satanic activity is evidently rapidly increasing. Spiritism, witchcraft, and other forms of occult belief and practice-even Satanism itself-are captivating the minds and bodies of multitudes today, specially among young people.

A closely related phenomenon is the tremendous recent upsurge of interest in the "host of heaven"--in terms of astrology, the so-called chariots of the gods, the various unidentified flying objects, and their strange occupants. Although scientists quite properly have pointed out the fallacious assumptions and interpretations involved in these, there remains a stubborn residuum of scientifically inexplicable, yet apparently well-verified, phenomena attached to these highly unusual types of data.

It should not be forgotten that there do exist "principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12) and that Satan is "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2). Evil angels, as well as God's unfallen holy angels, apparently on certain occasions have the ability both to appear in material forms of various sorts (even as "ministers of righteousness" -- II Corinthians 11:15) and also to inhabit and control the bodies of human beings. Furthermore, Jesus warned that, in the last days, "fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven" (Luke 21:11). It may be that this particular feature of the days of Noah is beginning to be repeated in the modern proliferation of this great complex of unexplained and spiritually intimidating occult phenomena, the purpose of which seems to be to gain direct Satanic control over the minds and bodies of hosts of human beings before Christ returns.
 
Notes on the Nephilim: The Giants of Old (Part ),Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites? by Chuck Missler

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.

Origin of the Sethite View

It was in the 5th century AD 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)

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.

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 God (10) 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? 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?)

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)

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)

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, oiketherion, 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 devices (26) 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, next month.)

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. Matthew 24:37.
2. Matthew 24:37.
3. Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26, as well as Old Testament allusions such as Daniel 2:43, et al. 4. Cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (where they are in existence before the creation of the earth). Jesus also implies the same term in Luke 20:36. 5. A footnote in an edition of the famed Scofield Bible, in suggesting that "sons of Elohim" does not always denote angelic beings, points to one ostensible exception (Isaiah 43:6) but the term in question is not there used! God simply refers to Israel as "my sons" and "my daughters." Indeed, all of Adam's race are termed God's "offspring" in Acts 17:28 (although Paul is here quoting a Greek poet). 6.The sons of Elohim are even contrasted with the sons of Adam in Psalm 82:1, 6 and warned that if they go on with the evil identified in verse 2, they would die like Adam (man). When our Lord quoted this verse (John 10:34) He made no mention of what order of beings God addressed in this Psalm but that the Word of God was inviolate whether the beings in question were angels or men. 7. Luke 3:38. 8. John 1:11, 12. 9. 2 Corinthians 5:17. 10.2 Corinthians 5:1-4. 11. Luke 20:36. 12. This term appears only twice in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6. 13. Genesis 4:18. 14. Genesis 11:6. 15.This instruction was given to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob. Even the presumed descendants of Ishmael cannot demonstrate their linkage since no separation was maintained. 16. A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (Pentateuch), p. 29. 17. Gen 4:26 is widely regarded as a mistranslation: "Then began men to profane the name of the Lord." So agrees the venerated Targum of Onkelos; the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel; also the esteemed rabbinical sources such as Kimchi, Rashi, et al. Also, Jerome. Also, the famed Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, 1168 AD. 18. Exodus 12:5, 29; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23; 5:15, 18, 25; 22:19, 21; 23:12; Numbers 6:14; et al. Over 60 references, usually referring to the freedom from physical blemishes of offerings. 19. Each human gamete has 23 pairs of chromosomes: the male has both "Y" (shorter) and "X" (longer) chromosomes; the female, only "X" chromosomes. The sex of a fertilized egg is determined by the sperm fertilizing the egg: "X+Y" for a male child; "X+X" for a female. Thus, the male supplies the sex-determining chromosome. 20. Deut. 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 26:60; 2 Corinthians 13:1; et al. 21. Jude 6, 7; 2 Peter 2:4-5. 22. Homer, Iliad, viii 16. 23. Jude is commonly recognized as one of the Lord's brothers. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:9; Jude 1:1.) 24.The only other use in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:2, alluding to the heavenly body which the believer longs to be clothed. 25. Genesis 6:4. 26. 2 Corinthians 2:11. 27. Luke 21:26; 2 Thess 2:9, 11; et al. 28.The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Vol V, p.2835-2836.
 
Dear Thaddius,

In the event that you are really interested in all of that Old Testament stuff, there IS another very good source. Anne Catherine Emmerich, the foremost Catholic Visionary. She was a full five wound stigmatic who lived in the early part of the nineteenth century. Fasted for over 20 years. From as long as she could remember she had visions -- angels and demons -- she said the fallen angels were so numerous that they would cloud the sky, if they weren't invisible to "most" people. Every time they would take her to church she would have a detailed vision of whatever they were talking about, and she would see everything and wonder about the 'discrepancies'. For the longest time she thought everyone saw the same thing, until she was old enough to begin to try to talk about it.

Anyway, go to www.tanbooks.com and look up Anne Catherine Emmerich "Life of Jesus" -- don't buy it from them -- they are operating under Chapter 11 and will hold onto your order until they can print up a few more at a discount. But Barnes and Nobles keeps the popular titles in stock (www.bn.com).

Anyway, in the next few hundred years they discovered that Anne Catherine Emmerich's knowledge of the flora, fauna, and geography -- in all instances where she disagreed with the Bible, or supplemented it, were largely verifiable.
 
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Be careful when dealing with leo, he thinks all TRUTHE is a personal insult.
i have seen demons in men.
i have felt them pass me by.
i have left their presence.
They are real as air.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
This is being full armoured in the Word in this spiritual high place.
 
adelpit i may not like leo, but i do Love him. do not bring your jugdement here. because it is not welcomed.
'No personal attacks
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Nov. 01 2003,3:35)]adelpit i may not like leo, but i do Love him. do not bring your jugdement here. because it is not welcomed.
'No personal attacks
Click to expand...
Adelphit talks about "Personal Insults".  Well, on the Day of Judgment his Judgment will be very 'Personal'.  Now, here on Earth, we often get swept into God's Chastisements of Entire Societies.  God generalizes.  The Flood, Sodom and Gemorah -- nothing personal -- God just killed everybody.  When the Angels of Death took every first born male son in Egypt, it was nothing personal.

But on the Day of Judgment you will be separated out individually.

So I don't know why Adelphit would even think to be complaining about such a thing.  If a person is morally wrong about Religion and is teaching a corruption inspired of Satan, does he suppose that an important element in the discussion wouldn't be to suggest an immanent damnation.   Now, there can only be a few explanations for why a person may be in error, and if it isn't a willful League with Satan, then it must be, when most innocently construed, Pure Stupidity.  Now Adelphit thinks it an insult to be called stupid rather than vicious -- but what else may he suggest to account for his error.
 
Polytheism, defined by Webster’s dictionary as “belief in or worship of many gods” (568). What motivated men to worship many gods? Was it that God only wanted one chosen nation, or was it of others influence? Could the ancient people groups like the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Mesopotamians had been influenced by the fallen angels, otherwise known as demons. Each of these cultures had a polytheistic religion; also each had a “god” for every aspect of their lives. The Egyptians are especially fascinating, being one of the oldest people groups, and one with the most complex religion and pantheon of gods in the ancient world. These gods had powers over the sun and moon, the change of season the flooding of the Nile, and the rains. They had all the powers of God, but they could not create life. God had to over come them in-order to have His people come out of Egypt, which leads to the theory that these gods where not figments of the imagination, but that they are real, spiritual beings. If this is true it would explain why idol worship was so prolific and wide spread in the ancient world. The plagues are one of the best examples of how these gods are real, and why God had to overcome their power.
The first plague, was when Moses went down to the Nile and struck the water with his staff and the water turned to blood. Pharaoh’s magician where also able to perform this miracle. The Egyptian gods that were effected by this are Hapi, and Osiris. By turning the Nile into blood the Egyptian gods were proving that God was doing nothing special. The second plague of frogs both Aaron and the Egyptian magicians were able to do. The rest of the plague the Egyptians could not stop, or replicate. The last
plague, the plague of the first born, had special implications to the Egyptians. Child birth was considered to be a very dangerous time for both the mother and child, when the demons would try to attack the mother. The Egyptians believed that the god Bes would keep their children safe during and after child birth. He was the protector of the divine child, or pharaoh’s son (Lurker, 33). The Egyptian gods could not thwart any of the plagues, or change the plagues severity, which could just lead the ancient Egyptians to believe that the Israelites God is just stronger than theirs. The Egyptians would say this, so not to discredit their own gods, and make them angry with them.
Why would the ancient Egyptians be so concerned with angering their gods? Was it the chaotic life that they lived from day to day with no true security, or was it because their gods had real powers? In order for the magicians to be able to turn all the water in Egypt to blood, it would require a supernatural power, and then for them to also be able to summon the frogs leads more evidence to supernatural powers at work. These gods are the fallen angels, the demons, or followers of Lucifer. They are the ones that God had to overcome.
What would lead men to worship these demons, what would put the idea in their heads to make them not want to follow the true God, and be one with Him. Could it be that the fallen angels had a more intament relationship with the people? In Genesis 6:4 it talks about the Sons of God going to the daughters of men and having children with them, they are called the Nephilim. Most of the ancient people had their own men of renown, Greece had Hercules and Achilles, Rome had Romulus and Ramos, and Egypt had Osiris. Osiris was the first Pharaoh, he was given kingship over the land by his father Geb, the earth god (Redford, 302). Geb divided Egypt into to parts between his two sons Osiris and Seth. Geb eventually bestowed both kingdoms to Osiris because Seth was a unjust ruler. Seth in jealously killed Osiris, but has a son named Horus who avenges his father. Osiris becomes the king of the underworld, and is the chief judicator of the dead. While Horus becomes the ruler of the Egyptian kingdom. The Osiris story is one of the most recognizable of Egyptian religion. The Egyptian gods where always known for being with the people and having the same human aspects as the people do, hatred, jealousy, and pride. All characteristics of the fallen angels, all reasons why they fell too.



this is what i have written up so far, i think it sucks as of now maybe i will change it, its about half done
 
Dear Lion,

  I don't think it a matters whether the Fallen Angels, as Demi-Gods, had more appeal to the ancient peoples then the True God, but whether the True God had any inclination to have a Relationship to them.

  Look at the case of Abraham.  Abraham was Righteous.  Therefore God sent Melchessadek in order to establish a Relationship.  Apparently God did not mind keeping Himself secret from the evil and unrighteous.

  We can see that God did make Himself known even among Peoples who were not entirely strict in keeping to what we would know as a valid Monotheism.  The Three Kings who came to visit the Baby Jesus were impelled by their own tradition's Ancient Prophecies.   God was not shutting these People out.

  As charity covers for a multitude of sin, Righteousness may attract the Providence of God despite a people's ignorance or blindness concerning the strict letter of the law or theological nicities.  

  Besides, until the Dispensation of Christ, we need to wonder whether any People's Belief's and Practices had any other then a Worldly Significance.  It is not as though anybody had the dispensation of Eternal Life yet.   The only matter of concern would be that Evil Societies would be smitten by God, as at Sodom and Gemorrah, or would be Blessed if they were Righteous, as The Tribe of Job had been Blessed after Job withstood the Tests of God.
 
LOJ, I think you have made some very good points.

May I introduce a point of view which may at first seem very radical, but I hope it would make sense as you think about it.

Not all of the gentile (non-Jewish) nations of the ancient world worshipped idols and polytheistic gods.

There was one exception.

Of all the "first wave" of great ancient (Gentile) human civilisations, only this one survives to the present day. Of the world's most ancient writing systems, only the written language of this people is still in wide use. This civilisation has endured more than 4000 years of wars and conquests, while countless mighty empires have risen and fallen around her. Today the land allocated to this people by God is still the same land their ancestors lived on more than 4000 years ago. In fact, in ancient times, this nation was known by its people as the "Land of God". But for at least the last three millennia of her long history, this nation has foolishly turned away from the God that protected it and brought prosperity to its ancient sage rulers and hence suffered the consequences. 2500 years ago it entered into a spiritual dark age, which it is only beginning to get out of now. Yet in God's infinite mercy and grace this people was never totally abandoned by God. Therefore among all the Gentile civilisations that arose in the third millennium BC it alone survives to this day.

Which ancient civilisation I am referring to?

The nation of China.

I believe the God of Ancient China (during what I call the "Faithful Age", before the Chinese fell into the spiritual dark age) is identical to the God of Israel and consequently identical to the Christian God. Now this may seem like a very radical and extreme (if not heretical) view, but it is a serious one. There is a lot of evidence going for it. Admittedly the evidence is not directly Biblical, but that is I think due to practical limitations. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it was written by Jews who had no physical contact with the Chinese and therefore it is not possible for China to be recorded in it in any detail. (But actually China is mentioned in the Bible at perhaps a quite significant point as the "land of Sinim") The history and the geography of the Bible only concerns a rather limited area of human civilisation centred on the Jews, yet God must have had significant influences on all human cultures throughout the world and this historical detail would not be recorded in the Bible.

However, if we examine the most ancient and authoritative Chinese classics (often referred to as the Five Classics), we find that the Chinese God is virtually identical to the Jewish God but is totally different from the God of all the other polythestic and mystical cultures. Here is just a short list of the reasons to believe that the Chinese God is identical to the God of the Bible. There are many more but a full analysis would probably require a book, which I am not able to write.

1. The Chinese God (the Chinese word for God is Shangdi, a term also used by Chinese Christians, literally it means "Superme Ruler") is never worshipped with idols, images or pictures of any sort. This is very unique among Gentile cultures, especially considering the fact that the ancient Chinese did not have any physical contact with the ancient Jews so China's ancient monotheistic tradition is truly indigenous and not just trying to "copy" the Jews. The ancient Chinese built temples for their God like the Jews did (but this as I said is not trying to copy the Jews for there is no physical contact between Jews and Chinese in the ancient age and the building styles are totally different). An example of this sort of temple still exist in China today. It is the Temple of Heaven in Beijing. If you walk into the temple's main hall, you would find that unlike all the Buddhist, Shinto and Hindu temples of all the other Asiatic cultures, there are only abstract patterns but no idols or pictures of any kind. The Chinese God Shangdi is only represented very abstractly by a plaque on which it is written in Chinese ideographs: "The God of Heaven and Earth".

2. The Chinese God as shown in the Five Classics is monotheistic. Now as far as I am aware ancient China was the only Gentile nation that worshipped a monotheistic God. It is true that in later periods of Chinese history, after China's spiritual fall, this monotheism has not been strictly adhered too (especially since the infiltration of Buddhism from India into China), but in China's most authoritative classics, Shangdi is the only God of the Chinese nation. Even in today's fallen age, many Chinese still subconsiously follow this tradition. They may "worship" foreign idols in a very utilitarian manner (if they are superstitious) but Shangdi is the only truly Chinese God they would respect and take seriously in any way (admittedly after a spiritual fall of three thousand years, today's Shangdi is quite "humanised"). Even modern Chinese atheists rarely speak of Shangdi with disrespect.

3. This I believe is the most important aspect. The character and attributes of Shangdi is totally different from the gods of polytheistic cultures. The Egyptian and Greek gods were little more than more powerful versions of sinful human beings. Apart from their power (and they are not all-powerful anyway, humans in fact could potentially challenge them) there is nothing godly about them. In fact, from a moral perspective some of these gods are worse than human sinners. The Chinese God is not like this at all. Shangdi, like the Jewish God, is a moral God, a God of righteousness. Shangdi is also transcedental, all-powerful and did not just sit on a distant throne. He intervened with human affairs and listened to prayers. The Five Classics clearly shows Shangdi's interaction with the Chinese sage kings of old.
The Chinese God is a Good God in every sense of the word. One of the Five Classics, called the Book of Songs, contains a collection of about 300 poems written in the second millennium BC. Many of these poems are personal prayers to Shangdi, many others are praises of Shangdi's goodness and righteousness.

4.The ethical philosophy Shangdi taught the ancient Chinese is very similiar to the ethics found in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. It is possible to find a Chinese version that resonates with almost all of the Proverbs. The Ten Commandments are not found explicitly in the Chinese classics, (because China did not have Moses) but the ethics in these classics would resonate and agree with all of them. In fact, Shangdi taught the ancient sage kings of China humility before all else. As a result the sage kings of ancient China understood that their power were not their own and came from God, and as recorded in the Five Classics, all of their people lived in bliss under their rule. They did not abuse their power like the later (and modern) Chinese dictators. It seems that the ancient Chinese undertood the essence of democracy (which is to worship God) 4000 years ago, something that their descendants have apparently forgotten. Ancient Chinese ethics was very noble, something the polytheistic and mystical cultures did not have. For example, during a year of extreme draught in ancient China due to the wrath of God as a result of the Chinese's disobidence, the Sage King Shang Tang who ruled China at the time offered himself to God as a sacrifice so that the draught would cease. According to the Five Classics the draught stopped as a result of his faith and willingness to sacrifice himself for the people.

5. The Chinese written language (Chinese ideographs), one of the oldest in the world, apparently shows knowledge of early events as recorded in the Bible. The Chinese ideograph for "greed" is represented by a woman with two trees. (The original sin in the Garden of Eden) The Chinese ideograph for "big boat" literally means "boat with eight people" (there were eight people in Noah's Ark). The Chinese ideograph for "righteousness" is the ideograph for "me" lifting the ideograph for "lamb". Literally this means one is righteous if animal sacrifices are offered to God. There are hundreds of examples like this. Now, all of this may still be a coincedence if the other oldest written languages of the world also show similar things. But among the four most ancient written languages (of which Chinese is the only one still in actual use): Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, Ancient Sumerian cuneiforms, Ancient Indus Valley (not to be confused with India, which is actually a later civilisation) glyphs and Chinese ideographs, only Chinese ideographs demonstrates Biblical origins. The others (well the Indus Valley writings still cannot be understood by anyone today) are all based on polytheistic traditions and demonstrate no connection with Biblical accounts. According to the most authoritative ancient Chinese mythology (not the later debased Buddhist stuff), the human race began with a man and a woman, the man's name is Andeng, the woman's name is Nuwa. This is the phoentically sinified versions of Adam and Eve. Another Chinese legends states that when the Chinese written language was created, the evil spirits cried with shock, as the secrets of Heaven have been revealed to the world of man and coded into the Chinese ideographs, so they could no longer control it easily.

6. The coming of Jesus Christ is indirectly predicted in the Chinese tradition. According to ancient tradition, every 500 years the God of heaven will send a sage to China in order to teach the people the Great Way. The last Chinese sage was Confucius. There is exactly 500 years between his death and the year when Jesus began to preach the Good News. Coincedence maybe? Perhaps. But in addition to this Confucius also commented that a great Holy King will arise in the West who will have perfect virtue. He also said this Holy Man will begin his teachings after thirty years. Jesus was about thirty years old when he began to preach. It seems there is more than just coincedences here.

7. Many great Christian scholars have also believed in the identity between the Chinese God and the Judeo-Christian God. They include the first Christian missionaries to China from Persia in the 7th century AD, the 17th century great Catholic Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci, who has probably been made a saint by the Chinese Catholic Church (I am not sure about this, once I found a Chinese Catholic site specifically dedicated to him, Chinese catholics are asking him to pray for them on this site, and also to pray for China too. It's quite interesting that although Ricci was Italian, he is seen by some Chinese catholics as a patriotic symbol, perhaps because he was a Confucian scholar as well as a Catholic Christian), the great 19th century Christian missionary and western Confucian scholar James Legge, who translated many Chinese classics into English, and the great 20th century Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang (who was also Christian and was widely learnt in both western and eastern philosophies).

8. Think about your argument that the false gods are actually evil angels. Now if the Chinese God were false, why would the Chinese be monotheistic and not polytheistic like all the other heathen cultures? It doesn't make much sense. Which god is the true one can be decided by signs, but it can also be decided to a certain extent by the ethical attributes of this god. None of the gods in any of the polytheistic cultures that I know of are all-righteous like the Chinese God Shangdi is.

9. I think you are correct when you said that it is not that God only wants one "choosen nation", but it is because the evil angels have blinded most of the cultures of the world. Now the Chinese may not have had a relationship with God that is as initimate as the Jews did, but apparently the Chinese recognition of the true God was enough to spare China from most of the evil influences. True, in China too evil angels have been at work throughout history, but the degree is far less compared with say, ancient Egypt, and they have never been able to become the subject of worship that would replace Shangdi completely. Perhaps this is why ancient Egypt and Babylon were eventually destroyed but ancient China survives today.

I believe the Chinese God is identical to the Judeo-Christian God. But I do not believe the Chinese Five Classics have the same degree of authority as the Bible does. For the Bible is actually God-inspired. But since the ancient Chinese during the Faithful Age did worship the one and only true God, I think the Chinese Five Classics, which resonate with the Bible to a very impressive degree, would have more weight of spiritual authority than the mythologies and legends of polytheistic cultures.
 
Enoch and Elijah both have already been given Eternal life by THE FATHER THRU Translation.amen
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
i have not heard leo say Jesus is the Lord or The Lord Jesus even once.
i am nothing0.
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Adonai also means THE LORD. AMEN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top