Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
PaulSacramento wrote:If Satan fell before/during his temptation of Adam and Eve, then he would be a fallen angel coming into God's assembly in Job.
Yes?
Correct... and this is exactly what we see in both Job and Genesis.
In Genesis we see Satan on earth tempting Adam and Eve to sin. This demonstrates that Satan was already fallen and rebelling against God prior to Adam and Eve sinning and being cast out of the Garden.
This is also consistent with what we see in the story of Job.
The behavior of Satan throughout the book of Job is also consistent with a tempter who is harming God's people and trying to turn them away from God.
The behavior of Job and his friends also demonstrates that the story of Job takes place after the fall of mankind through the sin of Adam and Eve.
Also... I will point out again that Satan is in the the presence of God "in addition to" (ie 'also') and not as part of the "sons of God" according to Job 1:6... which makes sense since at the time of Job 1:6 the fallen Satan was no longer part of the angelic beings who were serving God.
So Genesis and Job are both consistent that Satan had already fallen and was in open rebellion against God prior to the temptation of Job and also prior to the temptation of Adam and Eve.
PaulSacramento wrote:If Satan fell before/during his temptation of Adam and Eve, then he would be a fallen angel coming into God's assembly in Job.
Yes?
Correct... and this is exactly what we see in both Job and Genesis.
In Genesis we see Satan on earth tempting Adam and Eve to sin. This demonstrates that Satan was already fallen and rebelling against God prior to Adam and Eve sinning and being cast out of the Garden.
This is also consistent with what we see in the story of Job.
The behavior of Satan throughout the book of Job is also consistent with a tempter who is harming God's people and trying to turn them away from God.
The behavior of Job and his friends also demonstrates that the story of Job takes place after the fall of mankind through the sin of Adam and Eve.
Also... I will point out again that Satan is in the the presence of God "in addition to" (ie 'also') and not as part of the "sons of God" according to Job 1:6... which makes sense since at the time of Job 1:6 the fallen Satan was no longer part of the angelic beings who were serving God.
So Genesis and Job are both consistent that Satan had already fallen and was in open rebellion against God prior to the temptation of Job and also prior to the temptation of Adam and Eve.
So we can take from that, even though Satan had fallen, he had already been cursed, he was still received and allowed to join the Sons of God in the heavenly assembly.
God even had a very civil discussion with him and allowed him to test Job, even knowing all that Satan had done already and even though Satan had been cursed.
Also... I will point out again that Satan is in the the presence of God "in addition to" (ie 'also') and not as part of the "sons of God" according to Job 1:6...
I would argue, on the grounds I mentioned before, that MAY be the case but doesn't HAVE to be the case since the term does not explicitly state "separation" from something.
Also... I will point out again that Satan is in the the presence of God "in addition to" (ie 'also') and not as part of the "sons of God" according to Job 1:6...
I would argue, on the grounds I mentioned before, that MAY be the case but doesn't HAVE to be the case since the term does not explicitly state "separation" from something.
Job 1:6 in and of itself may not not provide 'certainty' regarding the function of the word "also", but I think Jesus provides the definitive statement regarding whether or not Satan is a son/child of God in John 8:37-47.
From my perspective, Jesus removes any possible ambiguity regarding whether or not the fallen Satan can be regarded as a son/child of God in any way shape or form.
Disclaimer, intense sarcasm in the first few paragraphs below:
For anyone who claims and shares that Genesis 6:1-14 does not refer to fallen angels but rather sons of Seth, or space aliens, I suggest that you take your bibles and tear out these verses from the Bible as they go counter against your views.
2 Peter 2:4,5, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly…” NASB
Jude 1:6, “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day…” NASB
You have two verses directly linked to Gen 6:1 and Parts quoted form other sources such as Enoch who reveals 200 were assigned to hell.
Therefore...
...Please consider that these teach error and thus the bible is absolutely-untrustworthy because modern scholars know far better than what the writers themselves meant. Only they can speak for, and decide what the NT writers really mean and only they can teach you. We are mere dumb sheep and are not permitted to think for ourselves and never on any terms allow ourselves to learn from the Holy Spirit sent, who is promised to teach us himself, under no conditions can that be allow because the Holy Spirit only speaks through approved scholars and teachers who are above all error. NOT!!!
Of course, I am being extremely sarcastic here to make a valid point and in no-way want you to rip pages out of your bible by any stretch.
The bible does unequivocally does verify that the sons of god mentioned in Gen 6:1-14 indeed refer to fallen angels.
Yet, we are being sold a bill of goods with lots of words that actually tell us that the writers of these verses can’t be trusted because they do not agree with modern scholars who know better than what the writers themselves meant, is well, just an example of pride.
So, let me state this:
My intent is to help folks find Jesus Christ and exalt Jesus Christ in their lives by having people come into a realization that as Christian people, you and I, have more in common with Jesus Christ than the ways of the world, ways of the Flesh, and the ways of the devil.
If you live your life with that as your daily goal to guide you, how would your life be? ...and how would your personal battles with sin be conquered in due time?
Next, I desire that people to be like the Berean’s mentioned in Acts 17:10,11. I like to see people searching the scriptures and learn for themselves how to be taught by the Holy Spirit as John 14:26 tells us. Sadly, I find this lacking in much of the church world today.
Why?
In my opinion for whatever that is worth, we rely on experts and constantly cite these to prove some point. In doing so we can actually-weaken our ability to search the bible for ourselves out of fear of being ridiculed and shamed as being wild, stupid, crazies types. The Holy Spirit will not make you crazy, why people cannot trust God is a question I have no answer for unless I look at myself first as I can only answer for me. In answering this way, I shed my lack of faith and am changed. Often after periods of loving chastisement from the Lord. It is effective. Suggest trying it yourself to find the answer.
I can only suggest looking-into the things I wrote and simply draw your own conclusions. I do not dictate that you must believe as I do. Just become aware that many PHD’s experts can unwittingly and innocently dictate what you must believe as they do, and there are those who knowingly dictate what you must believe for the mere pleasure of winning acclaim from their peers. Suggest readers keep this in mind, that is all.
Now let us get back to the Book of Job and show that Satan is ‘actually’ the devil himself, a fallen angel, who sinned…as many of the former experts have taught in bible commentaries for centuries. Why are these expert’s summaries, commentaries, and word studies are no longer considered valid in many quarters of intellectual higher learning?
So what brought about a such change concerning the word 'Satan' used in the book of Job?
Nothing really … Pride is still pride no matter how noble the attire one is dressed in…or impressive the school credentials are.
In the book of Job, I am hearing lately that it is being said that 'Satan' does not mean the Devil because the word Satan means an simply an adversary, that anyone can be an adversary, and that is correct because the word does mean that.
However, there is now a new spin to its basic meaning used as the means of linguistic judo so that folks will not let the context and continuity of bible text to speak for itself to uncover what is meant by the word of God.
For example, God himself tells us directly who Satan really is mentioned in chapter one and two at the end of the book of Job. Yes, the same book of Job, in the same story, God himself tells who and what the adversary is.
Now let’s get back to the book of Job and the subject of who Satan is mentioned in that book.
In the book of Job, God answers Job out of the whirlwind revealing to Job that the adversary had something which to consider about Job. Look up the what word ‘consider’ means in Job 1:8 which is derived from about three words. It denotes to consider as to charge, what is in the heart, that is against something, in this case something Job had in his heart he was blind too.
Job had an adversary, and God names him in Job 41:1 as the Leviathan who God calls in Job 41:34 as what? How can he be a literal king if but a mere big animal?
Look it up for yourself. Only God can deal with this adversary, the King of the sons of pride.
What does Isaiah 27:1 reveal about who the Leviathan is? Think for yourself on this, seek the Lord to teach you. Stick with what the bible says, Bible interprets bible...
Psalms 74:13,14 mentions he has several heads so is there any scriptures that define the devil likewise? Find out for yourself.
Revelation 12:9 calls him the great Serpent, the Devil and Satan and Rev 12:10 mention him as the accuser does it not? who came and considered / accused Job?
In Isaiah 14:12,13,14 does Lucifer have pride? Why, why not? Is he fallen? Why or why not?
He is known as the dragon, the serpent in the Garden? Is he also known as our adversary who accuses us, known as the devil and Satan -- that is what the bible says, not me, the bible. Take it or leave, that is your choice.
Next
One lesson out of many in the book of Job concerns that when we get into various forms of pride, Satan, the devil, the head guy, considers us has something to accuse us with we are usually blind too. We open the door wide open for his rule. Results of this are that good friendship fracture, people get huffy, pride builds, divisiveness increases as does every twisting wrapped evil work.
God himself identifies that the Adversary, Satan, in Job 1:8 and 2:1 as the same Leviathan mentioned in Job 41:34. In fact what does the bible say to you on this matter. The evidence has been shown and presented: you decide.
YHWH answered Job in Job 40:1,2. Notice Job’s response in Job 40:3-5. Look at Job 40:6,7,8,9,10,11-14.
What do you see that Job had in common with the adversary that he considered Job?
Go back and look at Job and his three friend’s comments during the up-coming weeks and see what Job and his friends were saying: they were all very smart men, like some of the PhD Types and scholars in our day.
God was not Job’s adversary, nor was some decent angel like Gabriel, or even a man. Job forgot who his real adversary really is – pride. And with it, Leviathan, the Devil and Satan, had something to consider, charge Job with.
Job forgot it is God alone, that by His word alone, and his grace alone that made him righteous. Not his great intellect, not religious works, nor his self-pity, nor his self decrees of self-justifications made him righteous. God alone called him Righteous, that is it, period.
Does the bible teach us we are also called righteous due to what Jesus done on that cross? God calls us righteous. Not our great intellect, not our works, not our self-pity, not our self-justification makes us right in God’s sight. God alone does, by grace. So why do we seek to establishes our own then? Pride maybe?
In the first two chapters of Job, did not God himself declare Job righteous? What did God mean? He foreknew what the devil, Satan, that fallen angel, considered Job for... but he declared Job righteous, battle on...
Again, go look at what Job and friends say in chapters 3-38, take you time, note these, and what do you find? Do we sound like them?
In the book of Job we discover a truth
Only God can rebuke Satan, that old serpent, that covering Cherub, the first one created Job 40:19, Ezk 28:11-19. This is not some sea monster, or crocodile, or big whale or dinosaur, sorry this one is revealed as the king over the sons of Pride. What does Isaiah 27:1 and Revelation 12:9,10 tell you what about who this is.
Jude 1:9 reveals how to deal with the head honcho himself. We have direct authority over all his minions but only God has authority over him. Have you considered that?
How does the bible interpret who the adversary really is? What do you actually see when you read the verse declaring who Leviathan really is? Don’t take my word for it – what does the bible speak to you on this matter, how does it fit like a glove in other verses?
I suggest that if folks want to discuss the book of Job further then feel free to start another thread on it to converse further if the word Satan actually-denotes the devil or so some godly angel like Gabriel. Fir me, the bible tells me plainly, a person is free to accept what the bible says or not
I simple presented the word to you and the Readers themselves can make their own decisions.
However at least ask yourself: Is the Devil considering you?
-
-
-
On to Part Two Below...
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Topic drifted off into when the book of Job was written and when the rebellion in heaven happen:
In my opinion, the book of Job had to be written after the flood as sited by way too many bible experts to bother to quote. However long after the flood, no one is certain, so no big deal… haggle over it on another thread please.
Likewise, when the Devil fell is also perfectly debatable too as it is not essential to one’s faith.
Some say the Devil rebelled on day two of creation, others say day 4. Other chose other creation days. Gen 1:31 and the phrase God speaks denoting that all creation - was very good, (functionally good, balanced, harmonious) by the 6th day of creation for some reason is missed or simply discounted.
If consider though, this could indicate that the time it took God to create is not based on the earth bound 24-hour day but rather suggests a much longer period of indefinite time based on how long a day in heaven really is rather than earth time for the timed needed for the rebellion to happen.
This could show the earth older and possibly that the gap theory has some truth to it so people will fight tooth a nail over this for no reason other than pride. So, in that way, people haggle over when the rebellion in heaven occurred. But I suggest considering this, that during however long a day is in heaven, God’s time, not ours, that on his 6th or 7th eon day of creation, is when Satan and his minions fell because creation was seen by God as VERY GOOD before that...
Gen 2:7,8 specially indicates that Eden was fashioned on the 6th day and Gen chapter 3 places Satan there, whoops forgot, satan is not satan, but rather the serpent of old, that devil, the head of rebellion and ruler of the sons of pride was there. So again, it appears that sometime on either the 6th or 7 creation eon is when the rebellion occurred. (being sarcastic here again to make a point left over from Part One above)
Again, this is not really important at all to know the precise day the fallen angles become fallen because they rebelled and fell and were cast to earth anyways, so again who cares, unless one wants to pit the believers against each other by strife and invite in every evil work into a discussion. Have fun that if that is you.
As for me, I do not care about pin-pointing the precise day and time of the fall. Just get into the bible yourself and let the Holy Spirit guide your common sense on matters like these and avoid pride is all I can suggest so the devil has nothing on you.
As for me, I simply would like to get back to this thread’s original question:
Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
I have been trying to provide some background info so I can share my hypothesis and opinion on this but instead find myself being sidelined like playing ping pong without end.
Game over for me. Waste of time...
So, I suggest if one is predisposed to disprove who God himself reveals about who satan is in the Book of Job or the time the rebellion happened, or when the book of Job was written. Have fun. But please start another thread on this and be respectful.
Thank you.
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)
Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Disclaimer, intense sarcasm in the first few paragraphs below:
For anyone who claims and shares that Genesis 6:1-14 does not refer to fallen angels but rather sons of Seth, or space aliens, I suggest that you take your bibles and tear out these verses from the Bible as they go counter against your views.
This is known as building up and then attacking a straw man.
Who in this thread has supported either the Sethite or space aliens view?
2 Peter 2:4,5, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly…” NASB
The 'sin' of the angels that is actually found in Scripture has nothing to do with Genesis 6.
Jude 1:6, “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day…” NASB
The 'sin' of the angels that is actually found in Scripture has nothing to do with Genesis 6.
You have two verses directly linked to Gen 6:1
No... we have two verses in Scripture that you assert are linked to Genesis 6:1
There is a huge difference between what people assert about Scripture and what Scripture asserts about Scripture.
and Parts quoted form other sources such as Enoch who reveals 200 were assigned to hell.
This is the real source of the A-H hybrid theory.
The source of the A-H hybrid theory is tradition, not Scripture.
And the A-H tradition developed during the intertestamental period which is thousands of years after the events of Genesis 6 actually took place.
...Please consider that these teach error and thus the bible is absolutely-untrustworthy because modern scholars know far better than what the writers themselves meant.
Please consider that extrascriptural man made traditions that were created thousands of years after the actual historical events of Genesis 6 took place have a low probability of actually representing historical truth.
Elevating the authority of man made traditions with the authority of Scripture can lead to all kinds of error.
The bible does unequivocally does verify that the sons of god mentioned in Gen 6:1-14 indeed refer to fallen angels.
Of course it doesn't...
A more accurate statement would be
Scripture never refers to fallen angels as "sons of God"
My intent is to help folks find Jesus Christ and exalt Jesus Christ in their lives by having people come into a realization that as Christian people, you and I, have more in common with Jesus Christ than the ways of the world, ways of the Flesh, and the ways of the devil.
Amen!
Next, I desire that people to be like the Berean’s mentioned in Acts 17:10,11. I like to see people searching the scriptures and learn for themselves how to be taught by the Holy Spirit as John 14:26 tells us.
And again I say...
Amen!
Now let us get back to the Book of Job and show that Satan is ‘actually’ the devil himself, a fallen angel, who sinned…as many of the former experts have taught in bible commentaries for centuries.
B. W. wrote:
Therefore, it still stands, sons of god, indeed can refer to fallen angels as Rev 12:7 clearly points outs: Michael and his angels and Satan his angels...period.
I was going to respond to this, saying that Revelation 12:7 doesn't actually use the term, "sons of God" to refer to fallen angels, and all you are doing is asserting something, without actually proving the assertion.
But then I noticed that you wrote, "period" at the end of the sentence, so I guess you must be correct. Nobody writes, "clearly", and "period", unless they just want to make assertions without actually proving those assertions.*
*Disclaimer-Of course, I am being extremely mildly sarcastic...
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Reasonable people who hold a high view of Scripture CAN reasonably disagree on this issue. But what I want to know, what does it change for us if we don't know the truth of how things went down in the days of Noah? If we don't personally know or have it right about the Nephilim, what would be different for us if we DID have it right? I think this is one silly issue to get cranked up over - this all went down before our time, and God responded. And now, we're here. This is not like a salvation issue, or such.
Philip wrote:Reasonable people who hold a high view of Scripture CAN reasonably disagree on this issue. But what I want to know, what does it change for us if we don't know the truth of how things went down in the days of Noah? If we don't personally know or have it right about the Nephilim, what would be different for us if we DID have it right? I think this is one silly issue to get cranked up over - this all went down before our time, and God responded. And now, we're here. This is not like a salvation issue, or such.
I think different people have different 'hot buttons' here.
I have no doubt that there are those who disagree with my position who love God and love Scripture. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Here is why I have stayed engaged on this issue...
The issue for me is not perfect historical knowledge about the Nephilim. The issue for me is what some of the presumptions being made in this thread say about what it means to be a child of God.
If an intertestamental tradition requires us to twist and distort the Scriptural definition of "sons of God" to include demons and even Satan himself, then I think that is a serious problem with that tradition.
Read John 8:37-47
Then ask yourself
- Does Jesus consider Satan to be a son of God?
Also... I will point out again that Satan is in the the presence of God "in addition to" (ie 'also') and not as part of the "sons of God" according to Job 1:6...
I would argue, on the grounds I mentioned before, that MAY be the case but doesn't HAVE to be the case since the term does not explicitly state "separation" from something.
Job 1:6 in and of itself may not not provide 'certainty' regarding the function of the word "also", but I think Jesus provides the definitive statement regarding whether or not Satan is a son/child of God in John 8:37-47.
From my perspective, Jesus removes any possible ambiguity regarding whether or not the fallen Satan can be regarded as a son/child of God in any way shape or form.
So, to play a familiar theme on t his thread, where does Jesus say that Satan is NOT a son of God.
What we have here:
You Are of Your Father the Devil
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
Is a statement against Jesus' accusers.
He is stating that they are of the devil and that he is their "father" as a counter claim to their statement that God is their Father.
I think you are confusing/mixing that Sons of God from the OT perspective ( The ones that God gave the 70 nations too at the fall of Babel) with the sons of God in the NT, which are all those that believe Jesus is Lord and Saviour.
I don't think we can read that back into the OT since, in the OT, Jesus and the HS had not come to Israel yet and Israel.
While at times Israel and select people, like David, were called Sons of God, this was a polemic title showing that they followed the true God and were his true children, as opposed to those that were Sons of God by creation BUT turned on God ( his fallen angels) and are no longer true sons of God.
Philip wrote:Reasonable people who hold a high view of Scripture CAN reasonably disagree on this issue. But what I want to know, what does it change for us if we don't know the truth of how things went down in the days of Noah? If we don't personally know or have it right about the Nephilim, what would be different for us if we DID have it right? I think this is one silly issue to get cranked up over - this all went down before our time, and God responded. And now, we're here. This is not like a salvation issue, or such.
No, it isn't and while these are fascinating views that have been around for over 2000 years, I don't know if we will ever know the truth in THIS life.
A few things that I do know:
Satan is real and those fallen ones that follow him are real.
Demons are real, even if we don't know for sure where they came from.
There is a spiritual war going on against humans and we know to NOT deny that it exists.
DBowling wrote:
Job 1:6 in and of itself may not not provide 'certainty' regarding the function of the word "also", but I think Jesus provides the definitive statement regarding whether or not Satan is a son/child of God in John 8:37-47.
From my perspective, Jesus removes any possible ambiguity regarding whether or not the fallen Satan can be regarded as a son/child of God in any way shape or form.
So, to play a familiar theme on t his thread, where does Jesus say that Satan is NOT a son of God.
I think you summarized my position very nicely and concisely
"Is a statement against Jesus' accusers.
He is stating that they are of the devil and that he is their "father" as a counter claim to their statement that God is their Father."
I think you are confusing/mixing that Sons of God from the OT perspective
As we've already discussed at length, the OT never refers to Satan and the demons as "sons of God" either.
I think you do a good job of explaining the typical usage of "sons of God" in the OT here
"While at times Israel and select people, like David, were called Sons of God, this was a polemic title showing that they followed the true God and were his true children"
Then we have Job, where angels who are serving God are also referred to as the "sons of God"
And then finally we have Genesis 6 which uses the phrase "sons of God" but says nothing about angels or demons.
So even in the the OT there is not a single place where "sons of God" refers to Satan or demons.
You are correct that I do see continuity, not discontinuity, in how the term "sons of God" is used throughout both the Old and New Testaments.
As Luke 3 points out, the first "son of God" mentioned in Scripture was Adam. When we put our faith in Jesus Christ we become "sons of God" and we are grafted into the rich family tree that extends through the NT and OT all the way back to that first "son of God", Adam.
And when we humans become part of the family of God through faith in Jesus Christ, we join those other "sons of God", the angels, in service to the one true God.
PaulSacramento wrote:DB,
Would you agree that BEFORE their fall, Satan and his allies were "sons of God"?
Yes... prior to the fall of Satan and his followers, I would consider them to have been "sons of God" in the Job sense... angels in service to the one true God.
Sorry... evidently no "eternal security" for angels
