Exactly DW Some are, Some are not. Mike > [Original Message] > From: David Warner <dwarner@...> > To: <pastorsforum@...> > Date: 9/13/2006 1:17:49 PM > Subject: RE: [PastorsForum] question > > > All fallen angels aren't bound but some are. You do believe some are, > don't you Mike? > DW > > > Derrick, > > > > This reminds me of a night in a church service, Bible study and > > open discussion. A lady made the statement that all fallen > > angels were bound in hell. > > > > I asked her if she knew one called Lucifer, or satan. > > > > If all fallen angels were bound, the satan himself would > > not be a problem for us today. > > > > Mike > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Derick Dickens > > To: pastorsforum@... > > Sent: 9/13/2006 12:54:13 AM > > Subject: RE: [PastorsForum] question > > > > > > There is no proof of this linking your text to the issue at hand. None. > > There is only a presuppositional thought to support the angel view but > > there is not evidence. > > > > Derick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig Ledbetter [mailto:craigled@...] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:52 PM > > To: pastorsforum@... > > Subject: RE: [PastorsForum] question > > > > Hey Steve, > > You said, �I also find it curious (according to the angel view) that if > > the great sin here was angels taking advantage of human woman then why > > was it that Man and flesh were judged and not the angels?� We already > > covered this � the angels WERE judged � they are now in chains reserved > > in darkness until judgment. > > > > Craig Ledbetter > > Ireland > > www.biblebc.com > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Steven G. Rockhill [mailto:revrock@...] > > Sent: 12 September 2006 19:26 > > To: pastorsforum@... > > Subject: Re: [PastorsForum] question > > > > I just had another thought (how many am I allowed to have in one day - > > hope I haven't reached my limit yet :-D ) - if Charlie's wife was > > confused about all this before, I imagine she might be banging her head > > against a padded wall about now. ;-) Actually, Charlie you can tell > > your wife that this is perhaps the most difficult OT passage to > > understand. So finding the true meaning may be a little elusive though > > we can certainly bat it about and sharpen ourselves in at least maybe > > gaining some further insight into the Word or finding possible > > interpretations that may be more or less likely. > > > > Peace, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven G. Rockhill wrote: > > Wow Derick thanks for saving me some time - I was about to write some of > > the things that you just wrote. I am studying this passage this week as > > I will be preaching on it Sunday - so by then I will have all the > > answers ;-) hahahahaha. I was surprised to learn that AW Pink held > > to the angels view - though he is also a Gap theorist so maybe it is not > > all that surprising afterall. > > One thing I found interesting at the end of vs. 4 is that "ish" is > > used instead of "adam" which is used throughout. The nephilim were > > males only. Also - there is no clear consensus on the meaning of > > the term Nephilim - the idea of giants comes from the LXX. Though > > in Num. 13:33 it seems as though giants would fit in there. Some > > derive Nephilim from naphal which means to fall - and some believe > > they were bandits or rebel rousers. Also with vs. 4 - the Nephilim > > are mentioned as being on the earth at the same time as the sons of > > God coming to the daughters of men. It is a time reference not one > > of origin. Some translations (e.g. KJV, ESV and NLT) all give the > > impression that the men of renown are the product of these > > relationships, but this is not necessarily the case. It appears > > that Moses mentions the Nephilim as an aside of sorts, basically > > saying not only was there marriage and giving in marriege without > > regard to God but there were also these notorious giants roaming > > about and wreaking havoc. What do you think is meant by > > "afterwards" in this verse as well - does this mean after the flood? > > Num. 13:33 uses Nephilim to describe the Sons of Anak. > > > > I also find it curious (according to the angel view) that if the > > great sin here was angels taking advantage of human woman then why > > was it that Man and flesh were judged and not the angels? Also - > > there was more than sexual relations going on here - as "taking > > wives for themselves" (vs. 2) is used in the OT of marriage (e.g. > > Gen. 11:29, Judg.21:23)- so it was not just a matter of having > > relations and being done but there was a level of committment on > > some level. So if they were angels - they must have given up their > > angelic properties all together (cf. Mt. 22:30). And as Derick > > notes both they and their offspring then died as men. > > And what about Jesus words: > > Luke 17:26-27 26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it > > shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they > > were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, > > until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and > > destroyed them all. If Gen. 6 is speaking of Angels are we to > > understand then that angels will in the last days come again and have > > sexual relations with humans? For you would certainly have to argue > > this in order to be consistent in your view. but I see no evidence of > > this idea anywhere in Scripture. > > > > Finally, I will say that I lean toward the godly line and the ungodly > > line view. Since Gen. 3:15 there has been an unfolding of the "seed of > > the serpent" and the "seed of the woman" as emphasized by the > > genealogies of Cain and Seth in Ch. 4 & 5. This is not to say that > > every individual in the godly line is truly godly - later developments > > in the line will prove this point - but there is more of an awareness of > > the presence of God and a keen sense of morality as opposed to the > > ungodly line (Cain). There are some problems with this view but they > > seem less dramatic than with the other views. > > The morality issue though does come out in ch. 6 when in vs. 2 > > states that they took wives "whomever they chose" - there seems to > > be no discretion between choosing a godly spouse - driven by lust > > (the mention of outward beauty) they neglected to consider the > > inward beauty of godliness. So even if it is not a distinct godly > > line defiling itself with an ungodly line there seems to be marrying > > and giving in marriage without regard to God (this would tie in > > Jesus words in Luke 17 as well). Intermarrying with unbelievers was > > later forbidden in Israel and there were dire consequences and > > judgments for doing so (Deut. 7:1-4 and Judges 3). Also considering > > "sons of God" and "daughters of men" does not have to be gender > > specific as the prohibition in Israel: "some of his daughters for > > your sons" (Deut. 7:3) would not only forbid sons from marrying > > foreign daughters but would also surely forbid daughters marrying > > foreign sons. The male-female relationship in Gen. 6 could be > > mentioned to speak for both male-female and female-male - so as > > basically to say that godly children marrying ungodly children or > > being unequally yoked was a violation of what God desired and yet > > this was rampant practice before the flood. And I believe this will > > certainly increase and even has increased in these last days (i.e. > > no thought for God in considering whom a person marries). > > > > Okay, maybe one more point (I guess Derick didn't save me much time > > afterall) : there is at least one reference to the sons of God being a > > holy people and referring strictly to a group of humans (both male and > > female): > > > > Deuteronomy 14:1-2 "You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall > > not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead. 2 > > "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; and the LORD has chosen > > you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are > > on the face of the earth > > > > Back to studying but this sure has been timely for me to help sort some > > things out. > > > > Peace, > > Steve > > > > Derick Dickens wrote: > > Again, I have read all the posts and still there has not been one shred > > of evidence to support these are angels. The Genesis text indicates > > they were merely men. Granted, Genesis does sometimes respond to angels > > being "men". Yet, we must look at the context. Later in Genesis we > > clearly see "men" being that of angels. Here, we clearly see the text > > referring to them as men. Again, let's look at the context instead of > > trying to put a meaning into the account. We discover the following > > from the Genesis account: > > > > 1. They are Men of renown. Which does seem to support that they were > > "rulers". We do have a difficult time explaining "renown" if these were > > angels. 2. Notice that God, in commenting on the sin, makes note that > > these are men with flesh. Flesh is most often used to describe the > > depravity of man, which does fit the entire context of Genesis. 3. > > Notice the curse on "man" is that their days will be 120. This is most > > often referred to a lifespan of the people by most commentators. Could > > we say that the lifespan of the "angels" is not 120 (or much more > > limited)? 4. Notice, these "mighty men" were "of old". In other words, > > they no longer exist. If they were angels, could we say God annihilated > > them? No, they no longer exist in the sense that these men were > > destroyed on the earth. 5. Part of the punishment is that they were > > drowned (noahic flood.) Let us note that angels would not be destroyed > > by water nor are they killed like man. 6. The Lord was sorry that he > > made man. Why? Because of the depravity of man. Granted, theology > > teaches us that man is totally depraved but somehow there is an idea > > that angels are worse than man and thus this type of corruption must > > come from angels. While I believe in common grace, left to himself man > > is as corrupt as any angel could be. 7. Having discussed man here, > > there does seem to be a clear point in that "man" is used consistently > > to refer to man, not angelic beings. > > > > Thus, to conclude they were angels, again is stretching the point. > > There is too much in the text that brings questions and no evidence in > > the text to suggest they are angels. > > > > Again, the evidence shown by the other side rests solely upon Job. That > > is all the evidence that is advanced. Job, though, we do have a clear > > context to affirm. > > > > Derick > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > To subscribe, > > > > send any message to:pastorsforum-join@... > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, > > > > send any message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > > > Eph.4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but > > that which > > > > is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the > > hearers. > > > > > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ > > Pastor Steven G. Rockhill > > Lisbon Reformed Presbyterian Church > > PO Box 88 > > Lisbon, NY 13658 > > 315-393-9041 > > revrock@... > > http://lisbonrpc.port5.com > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + > > > > > > To subscribe, > > send any message to:pastorsforum-join@... > > > > To unsubscribe, > > send any message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > > > Eph.4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but > > that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace > > unto the hearers. > > > > > > > > To subscribe, > > send any message to:pastorsforum-join@... > > > > To unsu > > bscribe, > > send any message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > > > Eph.4 > > :29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that > > which > > > > is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the > > hearers . > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, > > send any message to:pastorsforum-join@... > > > > To unsubscribe, > > send any message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > > > Eph.4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but > > that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace > > unto the hearers. To subscribe, > > send any message to:pastorsforum-join@... > > > > To unsubscribe, > > send any message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > > > Eph.4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but > > that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace > > unto the hearers. > > To subscribe, > send any message to:pastorsforum-join@... > > To unsubscribe, > send any message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > Eph.4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which > is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.