The question Are the fallen angels in 2 Peter 2:4 that are in chains of darkness the Watchers or Nephilim, and how do they compare to Satan and his angels that fell? led to the following discussion
Scott Spears
Are the fallen angels in 2 Peter 2:4 that are in chains of darkness the Watchers or Nephilim, and how do they compare to Satan and his angels that fell?
Since you mentioned “Watchers”, the Book of Enoch is a fraud and so do not take it as scripture. One assume that the Book of Enoch was quoted in Jude but the Book of Enoch plagiarize that verse from Jude. Ask Jesus for discernment because that verse in Enoch reads as scripture but not in the same style as all the other writings in that same Book of Enoch.
Enoch chapter 18 is about God punishing certain aspect of creation that did not come forth for when He had called and that alone opposes the truth in verse 11 in the accepted scripture below.
Isaiah 55: 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word 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 whereto I sent it.
12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
The Book of Enoch is a lie and therefore a fraud for there can be no lie of the truth.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Jesus said this about angels….
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
So the sons of God in scripture were never angels, let alone “fallen angels” because why would God perform an unholy union for the women to be called “wives” to them in His words? He would not and so the sons of God were of the godly lineage of Seth which is the roots of Israel’s family tree that married outside of that godly line of Seth with other lineages from Adam, even Cain’s.
Since Israel were also known as the “sons of God” but no longer as only Christians are known as “sons of God” when born again of the Spirit.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
One day in the future, the Jews of Israel will believe in Jesus Christ and become the sons of God again.
Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
Ken Ammi
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”
Please be careful about generically stating, “Jesus said this about angels” when He was much more specifically speaking about, “the angels of God in heaven” thus, the loyal ones.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
As for, “the godly lineage of Seth…godly line” that’s a myth based on prejudice and you appear to be saying that only exclusively males of that godly line were such terrible sinners (what was their sin?) that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.
Scott Spears
Hi Ken Ammi, One should consider that if the angels in Heaven were never created to reproduce, then the same applies to fallen angels.
And the irony is that God would never perform a union with daughters of men with fallen angels if you think about it. He would be aiding and abetting in their sins if that be the case; a rather unholy matrimony. By the way, He is not marrying same sex couples nor human beings to animals either. So it is not happening for the women to be called wives in His words to “fallen angels”.
And certainly, fallen angels cannot be identified as the sons of God.
So now for Job 38:7, when the sons of God got together, and Satan was among them, Job was among the sons of God both times for God to point him out twice to Satan in John 1:8 & Job 2:3.
Do we not worship God in creation? Then so were the sons of God and Job was among them. God reminding Job of what he sang with the sons of God in Job 38:7 regarding how God laid the foundation of the earth was a pivotal moment for Job to eat his own words.
Now for proving the godly lineage of Seth as Israel’s family tree. You can read the genealogy in Luke 3rd chapter but the connection is here in this verse below.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
So that is evidence of Israel’s family tree. They used to be known as the sons of God by blood lines and by conversion to Judaism, but now that Christ has come, we, the believers, are known as the sons of God.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Romans 8:14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
So hardly a myth for how the sons of God were before Christ came.
Maybe, God be willing, you can put out a second book correcting your first book? It just might sell more than the first book.
Ken Ammi
Well, the fallen ones did something they were never created to do, they weren’t supposed to: that’s what makes them sinners.
Indeed, “God would never perform a union with daughters of men with fallen angels” which is why they, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it, and, “took them wives.”
Thus, that does away with, “He would be aiding and abetting in their sins” but be careful since I could much more easily argue, “God was aiding and abetting in the sins of Adam and Eve by placing a forbidden tree in the garden.”
As for, “fallen angels cannot be identified as the sons of God” I’m unsure why you assert that but, fine, Angels are identified as such before, right up until, they sinner but never as such after their sin.
Careful, you mashed together Job chaps 1, 2 and 38 but you can’t do that since 38 is about how the sons of God witnessed the creation of the Earth so Job was definitely not “among the sons of God” in that case, it’s just not the case that, “Job…sang with the sons of God in Job 38:7” since it’s not, “regarding how God laid the foundation of the earth” but rather, “when I laid the foundation of the earth” which was, “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”
I’m unsure how Luke 3 proves an entire, “godly lineage of Seth” and also unsure by whom, “They used to be known as the sons of God by blood lines” or how they had a, “conversion to Judaism.”
I didn’t refer to, “a myth for how the sons of God were before Christ came” and I understand that “sons of God” refers to more than one thing. The myth is that an entire lineage was godly and another entire lineage was ungodly.
But if Sethites were so godly, why were they such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood?
Also, why only exclusively male Sethites and only exclusively female Cainites?
Scott Spears
Hi Ken Ammi;
You should consider that their first estate is being of the kingdom of Heaven and not suddenly, they are able to make themselves able to reproduce with mankind when God did not make them that way in the first place.
Plus His commandment is for man to multiply as He commanded the living things to reproduce after their own kind. If a dog mated with a cat, nothing is going to happen because His word says only after their own kind are they able to reproduce.
The fact that in spite of this union of the sons of God with the daughters of men, they were still men, men of renown, giants for some, but still men.,, and they died like men.
Celestial beings cannot reproduce with terrestrial beings.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Now if they were sons of God as angels, and yet not fallen yet, then why would God marry them off when angels are not marrying nor given in marriage as Jesus testified?
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
If the sons of God were fallen angels, why identify them as sons of God in His words? If He would not marry the angels with mankind, then surely He would not marry fallen angels with mankind. God is not an idiot.
And yet the daughters of men were called wives to these sons of God in His words and so God did join them, thus leaving them with only one conclusion in truth that the sons of God is a term the Israelites used as a family reference to their godly family tree tracing them back to Seth.
God is not joining couples in same sex marriages. God is not joining human with an animal in a marriage ceremony either.
God is not going to perform an unholy union for why your application of putting that tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden as being the same thing when it is not.
What God joins together in a marriage covenant by His action is not the same thing as putting that forbidden tree in that Garden of Eden & telling Adam not to eat from it.
Sons of God cannot refer to anything else other than Israel’s family tree otherwise that would be confusion in His words. They would just call angels as angels.
The godly lineage of Seth before the flood as that sons of God, married outside of the godly lineage as the daughters of men entails other children by Adam & Eve besides just Cain.
If you consider for when Israel became a nation, it was forbidden to marry immediate family members then but not before since Abraham married his half sister, Sara.
So you can see the usage of the sons of God back then to learn from history not to marry outside of the 12 tribes of Israel. But history did repeat itself when marrying Philistines and learning their ways and their gods for why Israel has backslidden so many times, and punished by God for it too.
So not a little metaphorical foot note at all but real history.
As for mixing Job 1 & 2 chapters with 38, how can you rectify 38 with Job 1 & 2 when Job was mentioned among the sons of God TWICE in Job 1 & 2?
Therefore you and many like you are misunderstanding what God is saying to Job in shaming him by that reference in Job 38 as the only way He can shame Job is because Job was with the sons of God when they sang songs of worship about Him laying the foundation of the earth even though Job nor the sons of God were there when it had happened.
May God cause the increase… as I know I cannot.
Ken Ammi
Indeed, “their first estate” was, “being of the kingdom of Heaven” which is from where they absconded in order to sin.
I’m unaware of any indication of such as thing as, “suddenly, they are able to make themselves able to reproduce” and that, “when God did not make them that way in the first place” is a merely invention.
Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
Angels and Nephilim are called man/men so that’s a non-issue.
“Celestial beings cannot reproduce with terrestrial beings”: I’m unaware of anyone in all of history who claimed that any and all “Celestial beings” can reproduce with terrestrial beings, this is about Angels.
It appears that you’re no familiar with the material you seek to comment upon (which is okay since we all have to learn sometime) since you say, “why would God marry them off” when the whole entire point is that God did no such thing, such is why they’re considered sinners. I already told you, “Indeed, ‘God would never perform a union with daughters of men with fallen angels’ which is why they, ‘left their first estate’ in order to do so, as Jude put it, and, ‘took them wives.’”
As for, “angels are not marrying nor given in marriage as Jesus testified” there’s no indication of any such thing. Please re-read what you quoted since you missed the point. You asserted, “angels are not marrying nor given in marriage” as an all-encompassing statement. Yet, you missed Jesus’s words, His emphasis, His qualifying statement, His point since he spoke of, “angels of God in heaven” ergo, the loyal ones.
You will have to ask God, “why identify them as sons of God in His words?” All I can tell you, again, is that as per Job 38:7, as a direct route, it can refer to non-human beings.
Agan, you keep writing in terms of, “He would not marry fallen angels with mankind” but you discredit yourself when you keep doing that since, again, now one ever claimed anything like that.
You then pose a non-sequitur since you merely assert that, “wives” has to only mean “God did join them” which is incoherent. You just argued that the word “wives” has to only mean “God did join them” but the word “wives” is used in lesbian same sex marriages but now you say, “God is not joining” those so your argument collapsed.
Now, please stop arguing just to argue by looping back to issues I already addressed but ignoring those and merely repeating your assertions. As you did above, you repeat, “godly family tree tracing them back to Seth” but you merely sidestepped, “As for, ‘the godly lineage of Seth…godly line’ that’s a myth based on prejudice and you appear to be saying that only exclusively males of that godly line were such terrible sinners (what was their sin?) that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.”
Since you’re arguing based on a faulty premise, your point about the tree is a non-issue.
You then invented that God is only allowed, by you, to only refer to any one thing by only one word but that’s incoherent. In fact, you say, “They would just call angels as angels” but why would God or ancient Israelites use a modern English word? In fact, “Angels” are called Malakim, bene ha Elohim, ben Elim, elohim, ‘ir.
Yes, I know you hold to a late comer of a view based on myth and prejudice so merely continuing to assert your assertion doesn’t answer any of the questions about it that you ignored.
Yes, many centuries post-flood, “it was forbidden to marry immediate family members” but what of it, especially when you admit, “but not before since Abraham married his half sister, Sara.”
Friend, please read a text before appealing to it as some sort of defeater: there’s zero indication that in, “Job 1 & 2…Job was mentioned among the sons of God.”
So, you ignore issues that are inconvenient to your man-made tradition, you invent stuff and then argue against yourself, you manipulate God’s word (hopefully out of literal ignorance and being slopy), and then you engage in (subconscious?) projection when you complain, “you are misunderstanding what God is saying…”
But as for Job 38: it states what it states, as I proved to you, but you invent a fantasy scenario in order to protect your late-comer of a man-made tradition: please repent.
Scott Spears
Hi Ken Ammi.
You should consider that original heavens and earth was a part of that kingdom of Heaven as God did walk among Adam & Eve in creation and so when Adam had sinned and thus brought death and decay into creation, the heavens and the earth was separated from that Kingdom of Heaven along with the serpent that was in it for how Satan did fall from his place from that Kingdom of Heaven.
Now for the angels; Jesus plainly sated that they do not marry nor given in marriage thereby testifying to the purpose of the creation as not formed to reproduce at all.
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Now think about that for a moment; if angels can change their state then what assurance will we have that we will not change our state and be able to reproduce again? And if we could do that, then why mention that we will be like the angels that never marry nor given in marriage for that would make God a liar if in turn angels can marry & be given in marriage?
And why would Jesus testify to the power of God in regards to the firstfruit of resurrection if angels can marry & be given in marriage? It would be an empty vain boast, and again a lie, would it not?
You should consider that the Book of Enoch is a lie for how it mirrors Greek & Norse “gods” mingling with mankind.
In Enoch 18th chapter, in the heavens in God’s throne there are supposedly stars and things in creation that are being punished for not coming forth when God commanded them to come forth.
Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word 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 whereto I sent it.
A lie and therefore the Book of Enoch is a lie as there can be no lie of the truth in scripture.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
No way are angels. let alone fallen angels, would be married by God to mankind for them to be called “wives’ in His words for neither one marry nor are they given in marriage as a celestial being cannot reproduce with a terrestrial being.
But if you are sold on that mentality of the mythical gods mingling with mankind, it will take a miracle from the Lord to set you straight since you are not applying His words in His discernment to reprove good from evil teachings by His words in rightly dividing the word of truth.
Ken Ammi
I’m unsure how, “original heavens and earth was a part of that kingdom of Heaven as God did walk among Adam & Eve in creation” since the actual original heaven was whence the sons of God witnessed the creation of the Earth.
Thus, “the heavens and the earth was separated” ontologically.
But then again, you refer to “heavens” plural and the first heaven is the Earthly atmosphere.
Thus, “Satan did fall from his place” in the third heaven.
Note that you spoke generically but Jesus spoke very specifically:
You, “Jesus said this about angels” in general, “angels are not marrying nor given in marriage” in general, “angels; Jesus plainly sated that they do not marry nor given in marriage” in general.
Jesus, “the angels of God in heaven” specifically so, the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.
The reason why, “we will not change our state and be able to reproduce again” is because we’re told we won’t. Again, this was not about, “be like the angels” but be like, “the angels of God in heaven.”
I’m unsure why you tell me, “You should consider that the Book of Enoch is a lie” when I already told you, “1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, ‘In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.’”
I’m unsure why you tell me, “celestial being cannot reproduce with a terrestrial being” when I already told you, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created ‘a little lower’ than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic ‘kind.’”
It seems that you’re not interested in the biblical data anymore and will just ignore it and will just repeat yourself as if you haven’t been replied to.
But if you are sold on that mentality of the late-comer of a mythical and prejudicial view, it will take a miracle from the Lord to set you straight since you are not applying His words in His discernment to reprove good from evil teachings by His words in rightly dividing the word of truth.
Scott Spears
You are mistaken about the reference in Job as if the sons of God were there when He laid the foundation of the earth when God was just pointing out to Job being among the sons of God that sang about what He had done in creation weekly in their presentation to the Lord, that Job was not there; even though he should know better because he was singing songs about that with the sons of God.
As for selling that mentality, the Book of Enoch is a fraud and because of its existence is why you are influenced by that false teaching in seeing the sons of God as angels rather than the godly lineage of Seth.
Since Christians are now the sons of God, then so was Israel by blood and Gentiles converted to Judaism before Christ came for how believers in Jesus Christ are now the sons of God.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
There is no reason for God to use a term sons of God to represent angels when it is a reference for Israel’s family tree. I have shown more than enough scriptures to you that traced lineage back to Adam as signifying him as a “son of God” but you seem to gloss over it as if it has no effect on your belief.
So before you judge me as being of that mindset as if influenced by teachings outside of the Bible, you should “discern” with Him that you are the one because of that fake Book of Enoch as scripture cannot go against scripture for why Enoch is not accepted as scripture.
May the Lord help you see the truth in His words.
Ken Ammi
You, “You are mistaken about the reference in Job as if the sons of God were there when He laid the foundation of the earth.”
Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
You, “God was just pointing out to Job being among the sons of God that sang about what He had done in creation…”
Job, “______________________” (as in, nothing).
As I already noted, there’s zero statements about Job being among the sons of God.
So, you’re making up stuff, again, just to protect a name-made tradition.
I’m unsure why you’re playing mind reader regarding “its existence is why you are influenced.” So, why influences got you to believe a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice?
You say, “There is no reason for God to use a term sons of God to represent angels” but, again, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
Now, since Jude and 2 Peter 2 refer to a sin of Angels there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible: what and when was their sin?
Of course, “scriptures to…traced lineage back to Adam as signifying him as a ‘son of God’…has no effect” because I already know that one word, term, or phrase can refer to more than one thing and be used in more than one way.
Scott Spears
It is this part here you are not discerning “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. That is nowhere written in scripture for Job to know that nor us either. So the only way that point can be for Job was Him addressing how he was among the sons of God that shouted for joy over His wonderful acts of creation even though they were not there when it had happened. They as well as we can see the wonders of creation and we sing songs to that effect as well even though we were not there either.
All His questions to Job was that he was not there when He did all of those acts of creation and yet Job was there with the sons of God singing about it.
Like Job should have known better.
Ken Ammi
Friend, it’s utterly incoherent that you know about, “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” which was told to Job but then you claim that neither we nor Job, “know that.”
As for, “the only way that point can be for Job” was, “the Lord answered Job…and said.” Please, please just read God’s word can manipulating it and discrediting yourself in the process for your love of protecting a man-made tradition.
Indeed, “All His questions to Job was that he was not there” so God is telling Him about what happened, “when” it happened.
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.