Giants, Angels and the Sons of God
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so
1 Timothy 6:20
Good enough for Tim (as above), then good enough for Tom! Or any Dick or Harry for that matter!
Aliens, monsters, demons, ghosts, vampires, werewolves and the paranormal!! From demigod gladiators, warrior goddesses, to mystical creatures of all that is grotesque and vile! While in actual fact, being nothing more than a deceptive, fabricated caricature of our Makers creation and a satanically inspired, orchestrated slur against His precious name.
Furthermore, never in history have we seen such a fascination, exposure and the pre occupation of such a rigmarole of fantasy and make-believe. I say fantasy and make-believe ... because ninety odd percent of what the public view as the supernatural is just that ... pure fantasy ('nonsense' could even be a better word)! With a satanic agenda no doubt (plus a big sting on the end of its tail)! Of brainwashing the masses in the name of entertainment and making make-believe appear normal, through its hi tech and cunning modern day, apparatus set-up. reminiscent of the following NT verses:
"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" ... "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish" ... "for this cause God shall send them strong delusion" ... "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast" ... "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world" ...
With the purpose of making it look normal and possible for alien, mystical, or supernatural creatures, to have free physical access, even sexual contact, in the everyday affairs of man. With the purpose of making it look real and inevitable that we are, or soon will be, on a crash course with friendly or hostile extraterrestrials coming down from outer space. With all this happening, while the Bible is clear this invasion is from inner space, the lower world, by evil creatures who are pure foe. For the purpose of preparing and deceiving man for the reign of the beast.
Besides, there is a huge profit to make by exploiting the masses who refuse truth for fantasy. Or are conditioned into more fantasy.
Appealing to the flesh or the spirit?
We are not going to use the Apocrypha, any other book or writing on this subject, to try and prove the case. However, we will use these false teachings and end-time fables against themselves. Therefore, forget about theological massaging techniques and warm fuzzies ... I will just be using the Holy Bible as usual, plus a wee bit of history and archaeological back up, confirming the Bible.
Moving on ... scripture is very precise and clear about the way it always divides asunder two opposites very effectively. Like the flesh from the spirit f'instance! Here I will use scripture very effectively in dividing and revealing two distinct groups of children in regards to mankind in the spiritual sense. One is fallen and the other redeemed. Meaning, we have the 'children of the flesh' (the sons of men) and we have 'the children of God' (the sons of God), the righteous seed. Also known as the children of the promise we see from Rom. 9:8:
"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Clearly seeing and discerning accurately from the word of God, two types of children in scripture!
Then there is another realm of creatures, in the spiritual, where angels or spirits exist in a parallel, but in a different world and on a different plain, having access to man spiritually, only through the loop hole of seducing or manipulating man to concede to their lies and deceit.
Today, there happens to be two schools of thought in regards to who 'the sons of God' are in Genesis. One is the folk who see the clarity and simplicity of scripture and see 'the sons of God' as those men that are merely God's people. Then there is the other school who refuse to interpret scripture clearly and complicate the whole issue. One get their revelation straight from the Holy Bible in regards to who 'the sons of God' are, whereas the other get it from the Apocrypha found in the book of Enoch.
Now let's take the book of Enoch as the chief example: This book is not found in the Bible but is used as valid authority along with the proverbial "Hidden Books", otherwise known as the "lost books". To be more accurate and factual, as a Bible believer we view the so-called "Hidden Books" along with the Apocrypha, in the context of 'extras biblical commentary'. This why we could never use them nor the book of Enoch as final authority. This book states that the sons of God were angelic fallen creatures who fathered the Nephilim born of the natural daughters of Adam.
Whatz more ... the name Nephilim is not found anywhere whatsoever in the whole Holy Bible and is the pretext that new age Christians build their whole theory on. It is also the reason why ALL the modern perverted bibles have adopted this name instead of the scriptural name 'giants'. Quite obvious really ... giants are giants as in just giant people. Whereas the Nephilim are viewed as being half human and half alien. Therefore, if giants are just people of a lager size after all, like African and Asian pygmies are people of a smaller size, then the Correctionist school's theory is flushed down the loo in just one pull of the chain.
Moreover, because it has now been adopted by large segments of Christendom about the Nephilim, it is now well entrenched and taught everywhere as scriptural, when in actual fact it has come from a completely different source than the Bible, namely the Apocrypha. If the Apocrypha has never even been accepted by the "Christian" mainstream as part of the canon of scripture then why has the Nephilim theory?
Furthermore, the Bible reveals two seed lines throughout its books, where the two schools of thought appear to run parallel with. One is the righteous seed line which goes back to Abel, then Seth (the true line). Whereas the other is the wicked unrighteous seed line that goes back to Cain (the religious line). There is no doubt that the religious line (the source of "extra biblical commentary) is the instigator in the Nephilim theory being a result of angelic beings having sex with earthly women, contrary to the simple Bible believer who sees the consistency throughout scripture of who the sons of God always were and are today ... God's children on earth!
Just think if angelic beings had access to the daughters of men today, they may be able to come and carry your wife away when you were busy away at work, and use her to produce a family of humanoids. Moreover, there would be nothing you, or anyone could do about it (apart from 'the Men In Black' or 'Ghost Busters' that is). Really!! If it worked then (pre historic - 'alien abduction' that is) ... why not now?
Can you now see such folly in this teaching? Because, as just stated, there is a school of thought today which promotes two classes of sons of God ... one human and the other angelic. This one conveniently gets the approval of both Christians and Mystics together. However, I cannot, for the breath of me, find one verse in the Bible which conclusively supports angels as being termed 'children' (please let me know if you can prove otherwise). There's also no biblical evidence to show angels grew up from babies or could link them with babies. Stick to the scriptures and I promise you the scriptures will dispel all forms of confusion along with the complicated schools of human thought, which are out to undermine your Bible, replacing it with their so-called "expert" interpretation of the truth, in order for truth to loose out, so people will not come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved.
We must also remember that Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Therefore, how can what is flesh be born from what is spirit? Jesus said it simply could not be done. Should this not be the end of the story and put to rest the unscriptural rubbish we have been confronted with, by twisting a couple of verses to prove the rest of the Bible does not mean what it says?
Much teaching today; with the help of the Sci-fi industry, Hollywood and our wildest sensual imaginations; has tried to convince us that angels, even devils, can have sexual relations with women in the physical sense and even breed their children from women. With the secular industry marketing these creatures, from aliens to demons (lesser gods), marrying them up with the theological industry marketing them as angels. Along with the theory these angels fell from grace through sexual violation with womankind, whereas scripture reveals they fell from Heaven (not on earth) when they supported Lucifer in heaven, following His rebellious crusade of usurping God. The scripture they use to justify their claim about angels sexually intermingling with mankind is:
Gen. 6:2. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." Verse 4 ... "and they bare children to them".
To prove that spiritual beings and humans can physically engage sexually, and interbreed and produce physical offspring, you have to scripturally prove that the 'sons of God' are, or were indeed angelic beings. Right!? Following is indisputable proof men were called the sons of God in the Old Testament, never angels.
Luke 3: 23-38 ... the righteous seed lineage in reverse:
"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
It is quite clear here that Adam was the son of God, as a son of God, in the Messianic lineage. Which means (without a shadow of a doubt) if Adam was the son of God, then so was righteous Seth (who replaced murdered Abel), Enos, and all the righteous lineage from and back to Jesus. These were indeed the sons of God (plural)! Jesus of course, being the only begotten Son (capital S) of God (which the Authorized Bible leaves no room for doubt)!
More scriptural evidence
Here's more rock solid OT proof in regards to the righteous line from Adam through to Seth, to Jesus, to the Church:
Ps. 82:6 ... "and all of you are children of the most High (sons and daughters of God)."
Deut. 14:1. "Ye are the children of the LORD your God (that's saints not taints!)"
Ho. 1:10. "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God".
Unequivocally, irrefutable, wouldn't you say!? Men, not spiritual beings, are referred to as the sons of God in the OT. Never, never angels!
Is 43:6. "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth (nothing to do with the sons of God coming down from heaven)."
Now we will go through to the New Testament and see a new criterion but always remaining consistent to who the children or sons of God always are throughout scripture:
Gal. 3:26. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Only those who have been grafted into Christ, becoming part of the seed lineage, can be named "children of God" post OT.
John 1:12. "But as many as received him (that's Christ), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
More scriptural confirmation again that the condition for salvation and entry into God's family and the incredible eternal inheritance of sonship, would you not say? Nowhere does this point to spiritual or angelic beings. If the OT purveys to this, then so would the NT, by agreeing or confirming this is what true biblical sonship is.
More emphatic proof
Not convinced? Are you meaning the word of God is not enough? Let's turn over a few more stones, allowing common-sense to prevail, or go stale:
If 'sons of God' is referring to angels in the OT (as we have been taught in many circles) then angels still should be referred to as sons of God (especially those ones that have not fallen) as I can't see how anything has changed in this area, even with the introduction of the New Covenant. Also, if angels are neuters (genderless beings) as Jesus quite specifically points out, then how could they procreate with humans? If they could, then why aren't fallen angels still doing this with mankind? Especially now, as it is suppose to be "as it was in the days of Noah". Jesus is also quite clear about there being no marriage in heaven, as He pointed out that we will be like the angels. Therefore, procreation is over when the saints leave earth for heaven! Which brings me to this scripture:
Gen. 6:4. "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
The scripture above makes it clear the giants on earth at the time the sons of God came and went into the daughters of men was a result of intermingling of two seeds ... the righteous with the unrighteous. Therefore, being giants in those days was nothing to do with a mixture of human and angelic seed, but because of the hundreds of years of separation between Seth's line and Cain's line coming together.
Scripture also shows the offspring from the daughters of men "became mighty men which were of old, and men of renown". This is because when two of a kind, from different separated lineages intermix, you get hybrids, which are usually bigger and stronger, through the better genes coming through as more predominate. Therefore, even though these humans were gifted, there is no suggestion to believe they were supernaturally endowed. There is also no suggestion to believe they were "monsters" even though they were tall large people.
Genesis makes it clear only two of a kind can procreate. Therefore, how can an ape mingle with a human f' instance (aren't they closer related to man than other mammals?) let alone another being that is not even flesh and blood? It simply can't be done! If these giant people were the mixture of two types of species; heavenly and earthly, natural and supernatural, 'flesh and blood' mixed with angelic; then no doubt they would have been freaks, completely in the "monster" context, if hypothetically they could somehow mix seeds, even beyond just producing hybrids. Moreover, Hollywood would have a valid point to make, in propagating the imagination or fantasy that alien creatures (devils), or supernatural beings (devils) can produce a generic master race by breeding or intermingling with humans. Thus justifying mans endeavour to produce a superman, experimenting with generic engineering and cloning. Thus entertaining and opening the minds of the deceived masses to a spiritual invasion of lying and seducing spirits (devils - from inside the earth not outside the earth) and conditioning the world for the reign of antichrist. Aided by so-called "biblical" scholarship, who like to mystify the Bible instead of taking it literally.
Existing giants pre and post flood
Also, there were not only individual giants in the new earth pre-flood, but there were "races" of giants (ten footers plus) post-flood ("also after that" - Gen 6:4), which the children of Israel had to contend with. These were the sons of Anak, the Anakims. There is no scriptural record these were the offspring of angelic beings intermingling with mankind. They too were men of flesh and blood and known in the end as "the remnant of the giants" (Deut. 3:11, Josh. 13:12) ... the last stronghold of giants after the Flood. The Lord merely wiped them out due to their idolatry, if I remember right. After this, there were only remnants (small groups) of these people. When little David cut off the head of one of these remnant giants, sorry to be graphic, but what squirted out of Goliath's arteries ... green dish-like liquid? Nope! Goliath was a man not an alien or half alien. Neither was he a freakish monster or humanoid. However, he was one of the remnants of the giants still left on earth, as we still have some with us today through genetic throwback, and not through a product of alien adduction or angelic sex with humans.
There is also much (suppressed) archaeological evidence of other extinct remnants of giants (seven footers plus) in parts of the world, as well as an African race living today averaging nearly seven foot tall. A brother, who stayed at our home, shared with us how they'd discovered a roomful of neatly laid out seven foot skeletons in an undersea cavern in one of the South Sea islands, after he and his son broke an ancient curse in the name of Jesus, which had prohibited their discovery or hindered the superstitious islanders from entering up to this point in time. Also, there are still occasionally folk around today who are born with twelve fingers and twelve toes. Even a member of royalty in England had twelve fingers. Furthermore, none of their parents claimed to be an alien, would you believe? My father inlaw knew one girl in Christchurch with twelve toes, when he was a lad, who apparently, to the best of his memory, was a normal person. Proves, the remnants of these races are still in our genes, and are as human as anyone else.
Therefore, there were giants pre "sons of God" turning up in the pre-flood world, as well as during and after also. Which means, giants being labelled unnatural (or supernatural for that matter) does not fit the bill in any sense both biblically or historically, in great contrast to smaller races like the bushmen of the Kalahari, or tiny pygmies of the Congo still in existence today. This would mean if we label them unnatural or supernatural, then we would also have to label the little raced people as unnatural or supernatural as well. It also proves that on just one continent alone, even today, we can have contrasting races existing where their average height maybe double the average height of the other race. A huge contrast, even by today's comparisons!
Therefore, there being giants on the earth (just like there were giant reptiles and giant mammals coexisting at the same time as man) proves nothing whatsoever in regards to supernatural beings intermingling with mankind. Bearing in mind the largest of all creatures living on earth at any given time in history, still exists today ... the blue whale would you believe? Have you given that much thought?
After his kind?
Now let's get back to angels supposedly marrying! Genesis 6:2 says, "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
Here we see the sons of God did not come to do straight out evil by purposely intermingling with earthlings to spoil their seed, as perverted fallen angels would have, going by all other biblical accounts. But because of the women's beauty they desired them and took them as wives (married them), which is to do with natural desire and nothing else. Although this burning natural desire run away unchecked, took them into the forbidden territory of lust, becoming their eventual downfall.
Hypothetical speaking, if these creatures were not men but angels, then their intentions would have been through a natural born desire. Also, why would they have wanted to marry them if they weren't human? At the end of the day there is simply no sound logic at all in the notion they were angels. Matt 22:30 says:
"For in the resurrection (when we go to be with the Lord) they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (a clear contradiction to the angels marrying mankind theory - biblically, it can't be done!).
However, these pre Flood marriages were of course only wicked in the sight of God as His servants were unequally yoking themselves with the unrighteous seed of 'the daughters of men' opposite to the righteous seed, 'the daughters of God' (Is 43:6 & 2 Cor 14:18)." Just because it says, "they took them wives of all which they chose", this does not necessarily mean they took them by force either. The sons of God could have been equally seduced by these strange attractive woman, which reinforced the corruption process.
Here's a good more recent example from history: Remember the true story of "Mutiny of the Bounty"? Rebellion always finds an excuse. Sin is ever deceitful, as is the heart of man:
"Commander Bligh thought more of his beloved exotic plants than he did of his crew," was the notion. This was at a time when usually a third of the crew in the Royal Navy of that particular era were ex crims anyway, whereas another third of the crew were pressganged conscripts, and the remaining third (largely outnumbered by the "riffraff") were regular volunteers, marines and officers. Somehow the smaller part of the crew had to rule and maintain the other two thirds from rebelling, which took brutal measures of discipline more often than once. The truth was when the sailing ship the Bounty arrived in Tahiti (just like Captain Cook's men and other visitors of that era) they were overcome by the tanned and beautiful, without defect, promiscuous Polynesian women. Aided along with the South Seas laid back lifestyle, the romance and adventure of the occasion, "they took them wives of all which they chose" and rebelled against their superiors in order to escape the drudgery and hardship of the British military, for the "bliss" of wishful thinking!
Yes ... "they took them wives of all which they chose" was the picture due to the circumstances of temptation placed on the "Christian" crew or Christian's crew. This, no doubt would have been the problem with 'the sons of God' ... the lure of attractive voluptuous women, they were free to claim as their own possession, marring their spiritual status before God? Or in other words ... leaving the plumb line of God's word, to pursue whoredom and gratification, with strange women:
Num. 15:39. "And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring".
It's common-sense really, at the end of the day, as 1 Cor. 15:33 points out:
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."
Reinforced by the command of 2 Cor 14:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
Followed by verses 17 & 18:
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
There it is ... "and ye shall be my sons and daughters"! That's sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty! Moreover, that's how we continue to be a son of God ... by separating ourselves from whoredom both spiritually and physically. Repeating again, this has nothing to do with humans being raped by aliens or forced into marriage by supernatural beings as they left heaven.
Now look at 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"! That's how we qualify to be a son of God ... by being born again. Nothing more, or nothing less. Or by happening to be born an angel in heaven, whereas angels were not born but created anyway.
In the OT there were saints (sons of God), because they looked forward, towards the cross by faith (Heb 11). In the NT there are saints (sons of God) because we look back to the cross by faith.
Oh, but that is toooo simple for many! Man would rather complicate the word by inventing his own fables. That way he can bamboozle the naive and unsuspecting with what scripture calls "the oppositions of science falsely so called" in order to avoid God's requirements and become a lord unto himself. With a little profit on the sideline, by selling his latest "revelation".
Here is proof in regards to believers in the OT
Or biblical evidence there were OT saints looking forward to the cross:
Ps. 2:12. "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."
2 Pet. 1:21. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
There is a teaching around that OT saints did not have the Holy Ghost before Pentecost in Acts Two. They also say the Lord could not be in you, then pre cross. If that is indeed the case, then why did David ask the Lord not to remove the Holy Spirit from him? Psalms 51: 10 &11? Here's indisputable proof the Holy Ghost was in them (His chosen) pre cross:
1 Pet. 1:11. "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."
So there were believers pre cross, who were also called saints, and were also called the sons or children of God. Some have used Jude 6-7 as proof and to point out the sons of God were somehow angels in the OT:
"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 Gomorrha, 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."
Who were giving themselves over to fornication here? Answer (which is quite clear) ... the inhabitants (men not angels) of Sodom and Gomorrha!
Who were going after strange flesh (the same gender) here? Answer (which is quite clear) ... the inhabitants (men not angels) of Sodom and Gomorrha! Yes, certainly not angels at all. In fact, Gen. 19:5 records the opposite.
The way I read this (unless it is my dyslexia kicking in) is that Jude is not referring to the angels in regards to giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, but the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha themselves, with Paul using them as a comparison. These cities were judged because of the acts of trespassing, just as the rebellious angels were judged by their acts of trespassing. Paul is giving a comparison in saying how the angels left their first estate and were judged, just as the inhabitants of the cities (flesh and blood) left their righteous state and lowered themselves into degradation, and were also judged. Again, the angels did not commit the sexual sins, but the people in the two cities. Although, without doubt, the cities populace would have been influenced by the fallen evil spirits, spiritually, anyway. Also, remember this was after the flood.
My argument again ... if angels were physically committing sexual sins with mankind (even causing offspring by the mixing of two seeds) before the flood, and again now after the flood, they would still be doing it today, as well as having offspring. Hypothetically, scripture also makes provision for this to take part, if it was possible, as it says:
Luke 17:26. "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man."
Luke 17:28. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot (the days of Sodom and Gomorrha)."
I just can't see any evidence, nor scriptural backing, of (fallen) angels meddling with woman today in a physical sexual way, having physical relationships of any sort (apart from fantasy stories and what movies and TV portrays, or what a person was made to believe through spiritual possession), let alone taking them for wives. The only thing I see happening, which has happened since the fall, is the evil spirits "spiritual" influence over man because of the fall, manipulating and arousing mans sensual appetites and sexual drives, causing all types of sin, from the lessor to the gross and most degrading. Hence, fantasizing to the degree of 'make-believe' between the two species, from Hollywood to the pulpits, in feeding mans fleshly appetites.
Lastly, we need to look at the last distortion and notion of fallen angels being 'the sons of God' misusing the book of Job to prove this teaching. Let's compare the following two verses together:
"there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD" (repeated as 1:6 & 2:1)
In the same sense as "there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house (verse 13):
Scripture does not rule out Job (a son of God) accompanying the sons of God before the Lord
Now the scriptures don't precisely say Job was at this feast in his son's house. But we can presume (in the context) that the messenger came to Job when he was at the feast. Just the same way we can conclude that Job was presenting himself to the Lord with the other sons of God. Although scripture does not specifically say he was there, it also does not rule out that he was not there. He was a son of God after all, was he not? Definitely not a son of Satan! Scripture is clear that what we give ourselves over to, we become servants to. Either God's or Satan's! Either children of the Devil or children of God! Moreover, Job was indisputably a son of God. Again, here is the evidence as 1 John 3:10:
"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God".
There we have it! Either a child of the devil, or a child of God. Which one was Job?
Satan the pretender
So when Satan came before the Lord he was coming among the sons of God as an impostor and accuser. He came as a son of God. A counterfeit son in other words. Accusing instead of ministering.
How did the Devil manage to infiltrate a group of men on earth? The clue is given in 1:7 & 2:2 when he answered the Lord's question about where he came from: "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
Obviously Satan, as a disembodied spirit (just like his other devils - fallen angels) had taken over someone in those days as he did with Belshazzar, King of Babylon. As he did with Judas (infiltrating the sons of God NT style - the disciples). As he will with the Antichrist (who travels to and fro throughout the earth). This way he can physically walk and travel the earth, and sit on a physical throne.
Satan came to God in the Book of Job physically as a man (among God's people), just as he came physically as a serpent to Eve in the garden of Eden (as a type of Church - God's people), just as he came physically to the second Adam in the garden (among God's people) of Gethsemane, through Judas this time.
There was a (physical) day
Also, angels, as spiritual beings, are not governed by time. Therefore, chapters 1:6 & 2:1 ("there was a day when the sons of God" ) cannot refer to angels as it was on a physical day (like a sabbath day e.g.) ... the sons of God came before the Lord. In the same context as the physical sons of Job having a feast at home as 1:13 ("there was a day when his sons") ... like a passover day e.g.!
If angels can't be called the sons of God then what should they be called? Scripture has a very simple answer ... merely, the angels of God! For reference sake please read Genesis 28:12, 32:1; Luke 12:8, 12:9, 15:10; John 1:51; and Hebrews 1:6, for more irrefutable proof.
Remember Matt. 22:30? "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
Following we have the contrast of the sons of God and the angels of God in unison, as both worship their same God in spirit:
Job 38:7. "When the morning stars ('the angels of God' in heaven) sang together, and all 'the sons of God' (on earth) shouted for joy?"
Remember also, that sons are born and angels are created!
Revelations tells us that angels are always ministering before the Lord, spiritually, and are not governed by time. Unlike ... "the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them (Ecc. 9:12)". In contrast to the 'sons of God', who now worship God in spirit and in truth.
1 John 3:1. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."
Could the true sons of God say Amen to the above? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From other sources (once again both spiritual and biblical discernment is advised)!
Sons of God and Giants Today
Sons of God, Giants, and the Word
Who Are The Sons of God?
Sons of God - Daughters of Man
Giants, angels and the sons of God (part two)
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Sons of God being men
It is scriptural that angelic beings can intermingle physically with mankind in a social sense and take on a physical appearance, even to the point of being entertained by people unaware, and sharing their tucker. Even Jesus in his resurrected form, where He could walk through walls, or suddenly appear, cooked breakfast and ate with the disciples.
In every case in scripture angels appear in the masculine form and are used interchangeably with the term angel or man. This is because a woman is a unique part of creation taken from man, and angels were created angels in the muscular sense, because they have certain characteristics that are commonly associated with men. F'instance, angels are protectors and wage warfare. The two woman carrying wickedness in Zec. 5: 5-11 to the land of Shinar, cannot be messengers of God but are to do with what is fallen. Two wicked cities were represented here (two women) Babel and Babylon. Therefore, angels in female form cannot be biblically seen as true angels of light ... God's angels. Therefore, beware when anyone uses the manifestation of an angel in female form or says they had a visitation from one. It is simply not scriptural. Always test the spirits and command them in Jesus name to reveal themselves.
In regards to the teachings of 'alien invasions' and 'abduction of earthly women' being dismantled biblically, there is only one verse left to defend angels being called "sons" (even sons of God) which is the highly "controversial" Job chapter 38, seventh verse (which we looked at in the previous article). Here is more to think about in line with the scriptures:
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
In this passage of scripture God is found answering his servant Job with demanding questions in regards to His glory and omnipotence. The first question we find God asking Job (verse 2) was to do with those who tamper with and darken counsel (obviously His counsel - the word). Here the Creator is centring His questions around the time when He was laying the foundations of the world, where the memory of these things would've been more freshly embedded in the minds of people living only 500 years or so after this 'prior to the Flood' period. The wicked were already established here (verse 13); being the time before the sons of God (the righteous seed) mingled with the children of men (the unrighteous seed) when righteous men were in harmony with the righteous heavenly creatures.
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
No problem with stars being angels here, because this is backed up by other scriptures. It also proves that when the angels fell (fallen stars) it was not because a party of them, in exploration mode, happened to be just visiting planet earth, and just happened to be enticed by the beauty of the woman folk down here as they passed by. No, because Lucifer himself enticed a third of the stars into a rebellion in heaven (he tried this with Jesus in the wilderness, did he not?), where they got cast down as punishment to hell. Certainly not into the clutches of adorable women.
Oh how the "alien" theorists love to push Jude 1:6, using this to mean the angels left their first estate by going down to earth on a great-crashing mission. This is not the Devil's way. He never even tried this in Eden. He is too subtle for that.
"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."
What does it say here? Which "kept not their first estate"! What is the first estate of a believer? Namely his body. The part that houses the spirit. As it is also for the angels, who also were created with bodies. These fallen angels were not allowed to keep their first estate, "but left their own habitation"! In other words they left their house, their bodies that were cast down and locked up in everlasting chains, until judgement day, when their chained bodies will unite with their spirits again (their conscious part) and will be thrown into the everlasting fire which God has prepared for them. In the meantime, they have become disembodied spirits, roaming around for a new house to possess, the bodies of men. The reason Satan goes to and fro across the earth and is also known as the prince and power of the air. For even more clarity and indisputable proof lets read Eph. 2:2 ...
"according to the prince of the power of the air (he is not physical and governs the invisible realm in the course of this world), the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience".
There it is! Satan is a disembodied spirit and the reason his devils are called spirits too! Here's more proof in Rev. 16:14:
"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world".
As an angel cannot produce sperm because it is genderless having no reproductive organs, it is also a further impossibility for fallen angels to produce sperm as they have become devils (creatures without the former glory of their former selves dressed in majestic bodies). In other words, fallen angels are now (evil) spirits and how can a spirit without a body produce sperm?
Where on earth (I mean in the Bible - no pun intended) does it say the angels departed - went - travelled - visited - zoomed - got beamed down to planet earth (you know - to the third rock from the Sun) to hijack the party, anyhow? Man does this but the Devil uses more devious means. He always hides his cover.
If these theorists used 1 Peter Two and not just the book of Jude, they would see this as being in the same context where Paul (using comparisons to prove judgement) says in verse 4:
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment"
Here we see a different picture emerge and see that the angels had ALREADY SINNED before they were kicked out of heaven BEFORE going to earth. This would mean in no way could these fallen angels still be called "the sons of God" if hypothetically they were called this in the first place. How could a fallen creature, following the Devil, be called a son of God? Therefore, this theory is once again smashed and renders this stupid argument groundless!
We all realize when the angels kept not their first estate (their bodies that housed their spirits) they were merely abandoning their positions of responsibility - their posts - their duties, to go up (not down) in deviance and in league with Lucifer for a bigger slice of heaven's cake (or should I say to take the whole cake). Then as a result God cast them down with Lucifer (they all fell down together - a tissue!) as Revelation 12:4 reveals:
"And his tail drew the third part of the stars (angels) of heaven, and did cast them to the earth"
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Remember, the "three wills of Lucifer ?:
"I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north (heaven)".
No wonder this name has been omitted and changed in most of the New Age versions in order to obscure his identity and what he really did. That is ... he got puffed up through his own beautiful eloquence, bling and talent that he thought he could out smart God and replace Him, just like Bible correctors today ... "I will ascend", "I will exalt", "I will set myself up as final authority", granting the Lord the rug to pull from under them:
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased (thrown or cast down)"
The result for these angels ... the chief angel Lucifer became known as the Devil and his enticed angels became known as devils. As Lucifer, the great red dragon, took them down with him, AFTER he got the heave-ho from heaven.
Which means these fallen angels were now confined to hell in the chambers of the earth, being reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, as 1st Peter Two and Jude say. Their bodies were now trapped in the inner earth (locked in the dark compartment of the nether parts) awaiting judgement, where their disembodied spirits could now roam the outer earth (the atmosphere) looking for new homes to possess in the creatures that lived on the surface. The only way they could do this with mankind was to lure their subjects (spiritually) through stealth and temptation into rebellion and sin, to get their desired foothold in their lives. Hence, the Fall and the further calamities which have visited the sons of men to this day.
Back to the Job 38:7: Here we must also consider in this passage that 'morning stars' and 'sons of God' are two distinct groups, not just one group who many have tried to prove. It says when one group "sang together" (namely the stars of the morning), and when all of another group "shouted for joy" (namely the sons of God) it was speaking of a harmonious event at one particular time in history, at its very foundations ... The earlier period between the Garden and the Flood, before the sons of God rebelled causing the great global wickedness, which triggered God's judgement.
Now the contradictory thing about the teaching which says the sons of God are alien beings (angels wilfully coming - not cast down to earth - coming direct to men), is that this verse has "supposedly" occurred before creation. Then they say that the sons of God fell some 1500 years after creation, when they did their bit with female "earthlings". This also means, only Lucifer had fallen up to this point, before or during enticing Adam and Eve at the beginning. Or maybe some fell earlier, them some later, like just before the flood? If this is the case, then angels could still be falling. This would also mean (according to this type of thinking) we could not trust God placing His angels in charge over us when some of His loyal angels might still defect if tempted and offered the right deal by Satan. Think about the ramifications if this was true? How could we trust a messenger from God?
Therefore, Job 38:7 is speaking of a special time in history when there were two distinct people on earth (Seth's line separated from Cain's line) where the righteous on earth harmonized with the angelical righteous in heaven ... morning stars and sons of God as two distinct type, yet in spiritual unison together (it was a totally different world then). All the while, the sons of Cain were conspiring to use their fair woman to pull down the other righteous group or were willing to give them up anyway.
As far as the righteous angels and sons of God worshiping together in unison ... this will occur again in Heaven, when the blood bought saints come together (are reunited) under Jesus. The present reality of this is found for the saints in Hebrews 12: 1-3 reminiscent of:
"When the morning stars sang together (obedient angels), and all the sons of God shouted for joy (obedient men from Seth's line)?"
Repeating again ... there's only two human lineage's in scripture ... the Children of disobedience and the children of the resurrection.
Are men and angels the same creatures?
The scriptural similarities are that both men and angels are created different than the beasts of the earth. Both are created with freewill (the word 'freewill' is mentioned at least seventeen times in scripture - sorry Johnny!) and with a spirit (Ps. 104:4 & Heb. 12:9) where the Sovereignty of God delegates these two creatures with independent sovereignty (only because God grants this gift) over their own individual spirits to think and make choices, and respond through love or rebellion. Biblically, obedience leads to divine blessing and divine inheritance. The beasts of the earth live by a different, 'instinctive' spirit, without the gift of restricted dominion and freewill faculty. After death their spirits return to the earth (meaning their existence is temporal) whereas men's spirits (meaning they are eternal creatures - like angels) return to their Creator who gave it (Ecc. 3:21 & 12:7).
The difference between angels and humans is in origin, function, and location. They are not the same species. They are not two of one kind like man and woman, male and female. One is earth bound, while the other is angelic. One is physical, while the other is spiritual. The spiritual creature was made to minister to both the Creator (in the Third heaven - heaven of heavens) and man, being in the centre plain of both (the second heaven - although having access to the other two). Man on the lower plain, earth (the first heaven) is to govern over his household and the earthly creatures (the beasts) under his Maker. As only two of a kind can bred, it is therefore impossible for angels and humans to breed together. Only man has been created with a seed to procreate and multiply (created as one individual), not angels, who were no doubt created in mass and not to procreate (Heb.1:7).
More between the angelic and earthly origin, function, and location
Mankind was created as just one man and one woman for the earth, with gender and reproductive ability to go forth and multiply and have dominion over the earth, under his Maker. In contrast, angels were created in mass with therefore no need for reproductive functions or gender. They never experienced childhood, and therefore cannot be called children ... that's sons or daughters of God. They have never experienced redemption and can never experience adoption either. Only children can! Their function and purpose is totally different
The effect (hypothetically speaking), if angels could reproduce and were the same species, would be astronomical. First you would have a new hybrid breed of humanoid super creatures. If they were of fallen nature (of course they would be, due to disobedience) their offspring would take over and dominate mankind as a super race. Therefore, over a period of time there would no longer be a pure breed of humans, which would mean today everyone would be part alien and part human (who wants to speak for themselves?). If the Lord managed to destroy the earth before the angelic/alien creatures took over, and if Noah and his family had remained pure humans, the lineage of giants would have come to an abrupt end at the flood.
However, scripture reveals how giants become predominant again in parts after the Flood. Which means the giants genes had come through to the new world through the family of Noah and become predominant again in groups. The only other explanation is that another band of renegade angels had come down and done 'their thing' with women again. If this had been the case, as I mentioned in Part One, then why are not angels still coming down and abducting our wives and daughters? Maybe they are too ugly or something (hey, speak for yourself!) or use the wrong brand of underarm deodorant? Or maybe angels, through time, have run out of their sex drive (was viagra invented then?). I know which explanation I stand by, and it may not be backed with "science so-called" or Hollywood, or the Religious Front, but is however, backed to the 'T' by scripture ... that only two of a kind can procreate and that fallen spiritual beings (devils) can only have "spiritual" access to man through deceit, fear, and sinful loopholes, and nothing else. Which means the Devil can only overcome and subdue people physically, by entering men and causing them to influence or usurp their will over other men, even to the point of oppressing or destroying them.
What about physical contact?
Yes, man can abuse and physically overcome us, if God wills, but Satan cannot do this directly. The above paragraph is very liberating of course, and strengthens our position and security in Christ, that serpents and scorpions do not walk through or over us, but that we walk over them, and crush them (Luke 10:19)! Do you believe it? This does not mean we go looking for them by the way, or build pictures of what they can "supposedly" do, but only stand on them when we come across them ... in Jesus name. Simply because ... greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world! This goes for our wives, and our sisters in Christ too, by the way! They are just as secure in their Maker too, on the grounds of Jesus' finished work. Even, if they weren't saved, alien abduction is only a 'lying wonder' (a spiritual experience), where a person needs deliverance in the name above all names. No, not from aliens or ETs (life out there simply cannot exist without a Maker), but from deceiving spirits (beings from inner earth) masquerading as beings from outer space.
Job had an experience with a spook one night (4:15), where the spirit was not overcoming him, but being used as a wakeup call from God. Here's a scripture for the elect dealing with the supernatural:
Luke 10:20. "Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
The evil spirits are subject to the believing, obedient saint, where we (humbly) rejoice in the fact that we are overcomers and eternally secure in Him, due to the shed blood of Calvary. Great news eh! It is indeed finished!!
When I sent Part One out nearly a year ago, two or three dear readers did not like what I had to say and were adamant that the sons of God were angels (obviously meaning angels could be growing children and may run off with an earthling wife when they are older). They kept pushing their point only armed with Job 38:7 in the end, and could never answer my question (in red below - excuse the graphic depiction). Because, if their theory was true, what is written in red below is undeniably what they were in essence actually saying or believing.
Here is my response to the last letter I received, where I never heard back, and am still waiting for a reply:
Our Brother said:Obviously, you are having the same problem understanding me. Where are you getting your definition of what a spiritual being is? and what is that definition? Could you lay it out for me with scripture? I do not see how you have done so in explaining your supposition. Show where they cannot do so?My answer:
Simple questions are simple to answer (or at least should be):
A spiritual being, or angelic being, whether faithful or fallen! Answer ... is a created being not made to have dominion on the earth? It is a heavenly host!
Man a (physical) being, was created to have dominion on the earth. That's a big difference! As I have said all along ... one is spiritual, the other physical. One is natural, the other supernatural. One heavenly, the other earthly. Now can you please answer my simple question which you are avoiding like the black plague???
"Is it possible for a 'spiritual being' to physically engage in sex with a woman, penetrating her sexual organ, ejaculating physical sperm to fertilize her egg, making her pregnant, so she gives physical birth to a live physical flesh and blood baby, born of a spirit being?"
Dumb de dumb dumb!!!??? (added later)
"The only difference given in Scripture between angels and men is the one dies, and the other does not."
Answer in regards to man's difference and function, and being equal and as the angels:
In heaven after the resurrection redeemed man only will be like the angels then, because of Matthew 22:30 says:
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
Luke 20:36. "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection
Notice they are the children (redeemed sons and daughters) of God because they are children of the resurrection. Angels are not the children of the resurrection, and are therefore not the children of God! Just angels!
Heb. 2:16. "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
Looks like a huge difference to me! Jesus NEVER took on the nature of angels by coming down to earth. He took on the seed of Abraham, a man. The nature of angels and the seed of Abraham being two distinct things. Period!
How do you fare in answering the following? Because every point asked and answered is fully in accordance with scripture. Don't believe me, then check it out for yourself as a good Berean! Furthermore, if only one point is true and biblically based, even that in itself would dismantle the fable single handily that ANGELS CANNOT MINGLE THEIR SEED PHYSICALLY WITH MANKIND:
Are angels children of the resurrection? No!
Are they the seed of Abraham? No!
Do they inherit his promises? No!
Can mere humans travel between earth and heaven? No!
Are they the same level or below angels? No!
Are they God's messengers? No!
Are they ministers of a flaming fire? No!
Can humans miraculously intervene when someone jumps off a cliff? No!
Do humans "excel in strength" (supernaturally)? No!
Can humans gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other? No!
Were angels created to procreate? No!
Were angels created to replenish the earth? No!
Can angels produce sperm? No!
Can man suddenly appear then disappear supernaturally? No!
Is man "greater in power and might"? No!
Can man call down fire from heaven by himself? No!
Can man spiritually pass over a city and bring death? No!
Can man supernaturally bring judgement? No!
Can man fly through the midst of heaven? No!
Can man fly without physical aid? No!
Does he travel on the clouds? No!
Can man fight against the Dragon and his fallen hosts? No!
Does man fantasize and become vain in his imaginations? Errr! Yes! (sorry - added later)
And did Jesus take on the nature of angels or the seed of Abraham? There is a big difference according to scripture? Certainly not two of a kind!! ~~~~~~~~~
Extraterrestrials are not scriptural but an invention of man, inspired by devils (basically, mythology with a "hi-tech" facade), as all life is created by the Creator.
Any creature that is wicked and grotesque is only because it has been caricatured and marred by sin.
Aliens are not from the sky (outer space) but from the inner earth, who masquerade as any creature, or being, or likeness, in order to deceive.
Angels (God's messengers) were created in mass not from two single angel parents of different genders, engaging in sex to mix a seed and procreate. Nowhere does scripture say angels grew from babies into children (sons and daughters of God), then into adult angels (whose feeling a bit cupid now?).
Scripture is clear that angels are created different from mankind, with a different purpose and function, in a different realm.
Scripture is clear that angels were not created to have dominion on earth, but man.
Scripture is clear that once angels rebel they cannot be redeemed, unlike man.
Scripture is clear angels are genderless, cannot reproduce, cannot produce sperm, nor can you get a different kind by mixing two of a different kind. Scripture is clear that only two of a kind can reproduce.
No let's go forth and multiply, making fishermen of men!
Here's more (from a Brother in the States):
I agree. Can't be done. God made a law of creation forbidding angels from reproducing and men from cross breeding with them or any other mammal.
Gen. 1:11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen. 1:12. And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen. 1:21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen. 1:24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen. 1:25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen. 6:20. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.
Gen. 7:14. They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
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.
(Matthew 22:29-30, KJV).
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
(1 Corinthians 15:42-50, KJV).
There is a great gulf fixed in more ways than one. Our book, "The New Exodus" deals extensively with the two spiritual lineages among men. Sons of men and sons of God. These two family trees have existed down through time from Able and Cain, to the end of Revelation, the Bride and the Whore. One is of our Father in heaven and the other is of their father the devil, each being spiritually fathered and each manifesting what spirit they are of.
"In Search of a City"