The Christian Resource Center of New Hampshire posted an article, in the form of a PDF, titled Fallen Angels and The Days of Noah so I will be focusing on that aspect of it.
It notes, “Genesis [6] tells us about a group of angels (referred to as ‘the sons of God’ in the Old Testament) that saw how beautiful human women were so they left their first estate [Jude] in the spiritual realm and came to earth in order to commit a horrible sin of adultery between angels and humans.”
Well, it wasn’t adultery since they got married—yet, it may be that spiritual adultery against God was meant.
Moreover, “These are the ‘Fallen Angels’. These angels are also referred to as the ‘Watchers’” to which I will add: millennia later, during the Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD).
It’s noted that the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, “resulted in ‘Super Men’ and giants referred to as ‘Nephilim’…super powerful spirit/flesh abominations.”
I’m unsure if what’s meant by “Super Men’ and giants” is the claim that two categories of being where the results or whether Nephilim are being referred to as both.
Regardless, this begs the questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the Christian Resource Center of New Hampshire usage? Do those two usages agree?
As for, “spirit/flesh” there’s no indication of that. I’m assuming that’s an assertion based on fallacious Angelology so I will note that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
We’re told of, “‘fallen angels’ (these are different than Satan’s demons” yet, there’s no indication of that since there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible and demons are those very fallen Angels, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Next to be mentioned is, “The Book of Enoch” actually referring to 1 Enoch—whence they got the term Watchers—about which it’s noted, “The Book of Enoch, which was preserved by the Ethiopian Christian Church and recently also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran, tells us much more information about these ‘Fallen Angels’ and what took place.”
That 1 Enoch is in the Ethiopian canon doesn’t make that one canon uniquely correct but rather, uniquely incorrect since 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah (see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) in fact, that cannon also contains a text titled, “The Life of Adam and Eve” which claims that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angels to worship Adam.
The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of biblical texts but also community rules as well as apocalyptic literature and various other genre.
Thus, 1 Enoch, “tells us much more” something, “about these ‘Fallen Angels’ and what took place” which seems to consist of folklore from, again, centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.
We’re also told, “the Book of Enoch and it is quoted in the book of Jude” and Paul quotes Greek poets so, what of it?
Yet, we’re told that late-dated Bible contradicting folklore is one of the, “‘Deuterocanonical’ books [which] are used as an ‘expert witness’ by the Holy Spirit.
Next up is a section meant to, “dispel some of the misunderstandings that have arisen” such as, “The belief that the term ‘sons of God’ refers to a so called ‘godly line of Seth’ and the term ‘daughters of men’ refers to the so called ‘ungodly line of Cain’” which is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice.
It’s noted, “There is nothing ‘godly’ about the line of Seth other than Jesus Christ Himself. Everyone else in that line was a sinner just like all the rest of humanity.” And while I do hold that myth and prejudice has been built around Sethites, godly doesn’t just refer to the 100% perfectly sinless 100% of the time.
Recall what I noted, “As for, ‘spirit/flesh’ there’s no indication of that” and that, “Angels are always described as looking like human males.” Well, it’s next noted, “the ‘sons of God’ referred to angels who were male only” and, “MISUNDERSTANDING #2 – Angels are only spirit beings and cannot have sexual intercourse with human beings (flesh).”
Yet, that’s followed up with, “It is true that angels are spirit beings” for which there’s no indication, “however, in certain cases, they can definitely take human form” for which there’s no indication.
We’re then told, “there are as many as 9 classes of angels” for which there’s no indication, “mentioned in the Bible including Seraphim, Cherubim, Archangels, and Angels.”
This is just a category error that violates the law of identity. If one of the, “classes” of Angels consists of Angels then that’s circularly redundant. Also, Seraphim and Cherubim don’t belong amongst classes of Angels since they’re not Angels by definition—and I’m quite unsure what the other supposed other five classes are supposed to be. Only Archangels and Angels are to be categorized as Angels—and it seems there’s only one Archangel, Michael, by definition: he’s the arche.
We’re told, “At least one and possibly more classes of angel are capable of taking on the fleshly form of humans” but, again, there’s no indication of that.
Yet, that’s a very popular un-biblical man-made tradition and the articles seeks to support it thusly, “when Jesus came to Abraham with 2 other ‘men’ who were actually a type of angel. These angels had the full appearance of human men.” Note the disconnect from the biblical teaching which causes the artificial insertion of an un-biblical man-made tradition: one merely presupposes that Angles are spirits, one reads how that (time and again) they’re always described as man/men, one merely artificially inserts that they take on the fleshly form of humans.
The biblical view is as I have noted it: Angels are of a fleshly of their own sort that looks just like human males—with additional capabilities.
Thus, merely asserting something no biblical text ever says is proposing a solution to a problem that was caused by un-biblical man-made traditions.
Another misunderstanding is based on that Jesus said, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”
Another misunderstanding is based on that Jesus said, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Matt 2).
The article leaves it at, “Jesus definitely said that the angels in heaven do not marry and are not given into marriage. The story is centered on marriage only and specifically states that there are NO children involved. Jesus answered their question as it was stated and only addressed the marriage issue.”
I’m unsure how, “The story…specifically states that there are NO children involved” but okay. The point is that Jesus was not referring to all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “‘of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
We then come to why the article presupposes that Angels are spirits, “Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water” (1 Peter 3:18-20).
Now, this is pretty tricky on various levels.
The article notes, “the ‘spirits’ (fallen angels) which were disobedient in Noah’s day” yet, Gen 6 begins with, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.” So, the question becomes: when was that? Well, it’s somewhat vague so it may have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first started having children which was centuries before, “Noah’s day.”
Those spirits could also refer to the fallen humanity of which only those in the ark survived.
Now, even if we grant that it refers to Angels, it’s hermeneutically inappropriate to topple every single description of Angels due to one single word: that would be a word-concept fallacy. If that’s the case, then an appropriate conclusion would be that since in any language any one thing can be referred to in various ways then we’d have one single place in the (Greek) NT where Angels are referred to as spirits and leave it at that: it’d be a strictly linguistics issue—for such issues, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
2 Peter 2:4 is quoted thusly, “God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell…” and this comment is made, “God cast them in to Hell (the prison mentioned in 1st Peter above)” but the Greek term is, “Tartarus.”
Last, the following photo was included and labeled as, “Egyptian Depiction of Nephilim” without any elucidation of that mere assertion.
I’ve no idea how pharaoh Akhenaten, and fam, has anything to do with Nephilim—nor how they possible could.
See, the article noted, “one of the main causes why God needed to flood the earth and kill all living things” and the article quoted Gen 6:5-13 some key aspects of which are, “the LORD said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air…Noah [his wife, their three sons and their sons’ wives] found grace in the eyes of the LORD…God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
So, since Egyptians, including Akhenaten, didn’t exist until centuries post-flood how could they possibly have anything to do with Nephilim since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form? Post-flood Nephilim are logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible since, at the very least, God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply