Nephilim -Mark 12:25

[Mallz]

1. Unfallen angels do not naturally have a sin nature.
Do you agree with that?

No. Unfallen anything (angels and humans) naturally have the potential to sin. Once that potential is actualized, you have a fallen being.

2. Angels do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God.
Do you agree with that?

Yes, exactly as I stated in the sentence above.

The point I was making was
1. All humans have a sin nature and already exist in a fallen state.
2. All angels do not naturally have a sin nature.
- Unfallen angels in service to God do not have a sin nature.
- Angels who have rebelled against God are in a fallen state do have a sin nature.

All humans die into sin once they sin. We are not born fallen. But we are born into a fallen world.
No one naturally has a sin nature. A sin nature is obtained by the being who obtains it.
I'm in agreement with your last two sentences.

Therefore if an angel has unnatural and sinful desires, then that by definition means that the angel in question already exists in a fallen state.

I disagree. If an angel has unnatural/sinful desires, it means there's an angel that's thinking about falling.

Here is the text of Job 2:1...

I packed my interlinear bible and am loosing internet in hours due to an agents mistake of cancelling it today instead of Thursday. I'd like to give this a reasonable response but don't have the tools to do so until later this week. (I just keep running into hiccups!)

Is anyone in the meantime able to respond in defense that son of God in Job refers to satan?

Unnatural and sinful desires are a function of a being that is already in a fallen state (whether those beings are human or angels).

This is incorrect. What backs up your reasoning?

We humans have sinful desires because all humans are fallen and all humans have a sin nature.

We have sinful desires because we have a will that can choose which good for ourselves to actualize. And, unfortunately, we all choose the lesser goods (which in reality is evil), and therefore we all sin.

...
But once that being (human or angel) rebels against God, then by definition that being exists in a fallen state...

I agree with this, but it contradicts what you been saying?

I disagree...
I believe the "sons of God" (ie God's covenant people) were introduced in the previous chapter (Genesis 5). And this premise is supported Scripturally by Luke 3 which specifically refers to Adam as a "son of God".
So you have two groups of people in in Genesis 6. The sons of God (God's covenant people from Genesis 5) and the daughters of men (the wicked indigenous population of the land/erets).

Not interested in the NT. DB, we don't need the NT to understand what the OT is saying. And you're wrong to draw that conclusion as Luke 3 is not quoting Genesis.

Where in Genesis 5 is the son of God defined? I'm not seeing it? What I am seeing is the line of Adam explained. And you have that term in Genesis 6, it's actually 'adam'.

*Edit: And I'd like to see why you equate the 'daughters of men' to the 'wicked indigenous population of the land/erets'. I don't see that in the text anywhere. That is totally injected.

[Philip]

At BEST, IF these were fallen angels, it's very unclear, not to mention Scripturally improbable. So I don't understand the relentless desire to prove the unprovable - and really, the irrelevant, over a murky issue that has defenders on both sides. If it takes such lengthy and somewhat complex explanations to make the case, then it's obviously not something anyone is ever going to prove with certainty - that these were angels.

Dr. Gleason Archer, one of the most recognized Hebrew scholars of the past century, says this in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:

"The reasons for understanding Genesis 6:2 as referring to members of the covenant family, descendants of the line of Seth, are quite compelling."

"The rabbinic speculation that angels are referred to in Genesis 6:2 is a curious intrusion of pagan superstition that has no basis at all in the rest of Scripture."

"What Genesis 6:1-2,4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the characteristic result of such unions: complete loss of testimony for the Lord and a total surrender of moral standards." And, of these believers marrying unbelievers, Archer says, "they allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who who were "daughters of men" - that is, of the tradition and example of Cain."

As a renowned Hebrew scholar of the stature of Gleason Archer was so highly and Scripturally skeptical over this view of angels marrying human women, then, at best, the evidences presented in this thread that these were angels marrying human women is exceptionally unclear so as to make such a point. In fact, I'd say it's just pure speculation that is very unlikely. Things that are supposedly so clear just don't take tons of speculation over such mere possibilities.

[DBowling]

...
But once that being (human or angel) rebels against God, then by definition that being exists in a fallen state...

I agree with this, but it contradicts what you been saying?

Then you obviously don't understand what I am saying...
So I'll start with the basics.

Scripture provides two examples of unfallen creatures who introduced sin into their respective worlds, Lucifer and Adam.

Neither Lucifer or Adam were fallen creatures before they fell. But they both had independent wills, and in both cases their wills led them through the same gateway to becoming fallen creatures.

That gateway to sin in both cases was "I will be my own god".
Once Lucifer decided to become his own god and place his will over the will of God then Lucifer fell and became a fallen angel.

Once Adam decided to place his will over the will of God then Adam fell and became a fallen creature.
In the case of Adam, God told him not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was nothing wicked or unnatural about Adam finding fruit from a tree desirable.
However, God had told Adam not to eat of the fruit of that tree. The sin of Adam was not eating fruit, the sin of Adam was his desire to become like God and place his own will above the will of God which he displayed by disobeying God.

Once Adam became a fallen creature then he came to know "good and evil" and became susceptible to sinful and wicked desires that he was not susceptible to before he became a fallen creature.

Which brings us back to the basic principle I have been explaining.
If an angel has wicked and unnatural desires, then those desires in and of themselves are evidence that the angel who is having those wicked and unnatural desires is already in a fallen state.

I guess we need to tie this down first because this particular topic involves:
- what it means to be an unfallen creature
- what it means to be a fallen creature

[RickD]

DBowling,

I think Mallz brings up a good point. I'd like to know if you know of any scripture that backs up your belief that humans are born with a sin nature. The question seems to be whether humans are born with a sin nature, or somehow "get" this sin nature when we actually sin.

[BavarianWheels]

DBowling,

I think Mallz brings up a good point. I'd like to know if you know of any scripture that backs up your belief that humans are born with a sin nature. The question seems to be whether humans are born with a sin nature, or somehow "get" this sin nature when we actually sin.

It seems quite logical that any direct progeny from post-Fall Adam and Eve couldn't be born in a pre-Fall state.

Romans 3:10 seems to be clear on that fact.
.
.

[DBowling]

DBowling,

I think Mallz brings up a good point. I'd like to know if you know of any scripture that backs up your belief that humans are born with a sin nature. The question seems to be whether humans are born with a sin nature, or somehow "get" this sin nature when we actually sin.

I guess I should start by defining the term "sin nature"
By "sin nature" I mean the natural inclination of fallen people to sin.

From Scripture some verses that come to mind off the top of my head are...
Romans 5:12 - tells us that sin entered the human world through the fall of Adam and passed to all mankind
Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 (among other verses) - reaffirm the very observable fact that everyone has sinned.
Psalm 51:5 - tells us that we are born in sin

So Scripture tells us that mankind's sinful condition began with Adam, that everyone sins and that our sinful condition begins at birth.

All of which is consistent with the premise that as a result of the fall, all humans have an inherent inclination to sin (what I am referring to as a "sin nature").

[RickD]

DBowling,

I think Mallz brings up a good point. I'd like to know if you know of any scripture that backs up your belief that humans are born with a sin nature. The question seems to be whether humans are born with a sin nature, or somehow "get" this sin nature when we actually sin.

It seems quite logical that any direct progeny from post-Fall Adam and Eve couldn't be born in a pre-Fall state.

Romans 3:10 seems to be clear on that fact.
.
.

Yes, that seems like a good verse showing that nobody is righteous. But, can we use this verse to show that people are born with a sin nature, or just that all sin at some point?

[RickD]

DBowling,

I think Mallz brings up a good point. I'd like to know if you know of any scripture that backs up your belief that humans are born with a sin nature. The question seems to be whether humans are born with a sin nature, or somehow "get" this sin nature when we actually sin.

I guess I should start by defining the term "sin nature"
By "sin nature" I mean the natural inclination of fallen people to sin.

From Scripture some verses that come to mind off the top of my head are...
Romans 5:12 - tells us that sin entered the human world through the fall of Adam and passed to all mankind
Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 (among other verses) - reaffirm the very observable fact that everyone has sinned.
Psalm 51:5 - tells us that we are born in sin

So Scripture tells us that mankind's sinful condition began with Adam, that everyone sins and that our sinful condition begins at birth.

All of which is consistent with the premise that as a result of the fall, all humans have an inherent inclination to sin (what I am referring to as a "sin nature").

Why would you interpret Psalms 51:5 to mean that David, therefore all, are born as sinners, instead of interpreting it as saying David was conceived in sin? It seems to be that verse is saying that David's conception was a result of sin. His mother's sin.

[Philip]

Heiser's take on sin: http://drmsh.com/romans-512/

[RickD]

Heiser's take on sin: http://drmsh.com/romans-512/

Great link Philip. It brings up some really good points. Iirc, Jac was arguing something similar to what Heiser is arguing. And I remember being persuaded when Jac was making his points too.

[DBowling]

DBowling,

I think Mallz brings up a good point. I'd like to know if you know of any scripture that backs up your belief that humans are born with a sin nature. The question seems to be whether humans are born with a sin nature, or somehow "get" this sin nature when we actually sin.

I guess I should start by defining the term "sin nature"
By "sin nature" I mean the natural inclination of fallen people to sin.

From Scripture some verses that come to mind off the top of my head are...
Romans 5:12 - tells us that sin entered the human world through the fall of Adam and passed to all mankind
Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 (among other verses) - reaffirm the very observable fact that everyone has sinned.
Psalm 51:5 - tells us that we are born in sin

So Scripture tells us that mankind's sinful condition began with Adam, that everyone sins and that our sinful condition begins at birth.

All of which is consistent with the premise that as a result of the fall, all humans have an inherent inclination to sin (what I am referring to as a "sin nature").

Why would you interpret Psalms 51:5 to mean that David, therefore all, are born as sinners, instead of interpreting it as saying David was conceived in sin? It seems to be that verse is saying that David's conception was a result of sin. His mother's sin.

I don't think David is talking about his mother's sin in Psalm 51.
In Psalm 51 David is confessing his sinful condition, and I see nothing in the text or other narratives in the OT that imply there was anything uniquely 'sinful' about the relationship between Jesse and his wife.
So again I think David is focusing on his sinful condition.

The reason I think Psalm 51:5 is referring to an inherent human condition is because David was not capable of sinning during either conception or while he was being born. So the fallen state of David during conception and birth had nothing to do with any sinful activity on David's part. And yet David still attributes sin from conception and birth to be part of his fallen sinful condition.

One more thing... please pay attention to what I assert and what I don't assert about humanity's "sin nature".
Here is how I defined my understanding of mankind's "sin nature".

By "sin nature" I mean the natural inclination of fallen people to sin.

Notice I said nothing about guilt (which is Heiser's issue). My focus was on the inherent inclination of fallen mankind towards sinful behavior.

And Romans 5:12, Romans 3:23, and 1 John 1:9 all speak to the inherent inclination of fallen man to sin, so I'm on solid Scriptural ground there. And Psalm 51 is consistent with the premise of the other three verses that fallen mankind, beginning at conception, inherently has a natural inclination towards sin.

And Adam and Lucifer show us that the path from the unfallen state to the fallen state passes directly through an act of the will "I will be as God" (ie I will place God's will in subjection to my will). Once Lucifer and Adam passed through the "I will be as God" doorway, then they move to the fallen state and manifest a "sin nature".

[neo-x]

It seems to me that Neo likes to interpret all of the Genesis texts as literalisms - makes some of them much easier to dismiss scientifically. Case in point, a global flood doesn't seem possible, scientifically. But is that what is meant? There's plenty of evidences to suggest it's a regional flood. And what of Psalm 104?

It astounds me that you are claiming this. I see the Genesis text and see if they have merit to be an allegory. If there is none then Yes, you have to take it literally. And that is what brings consistency to your understanding of it as well.

How do you see when something is a literalism and when it's not?

If I talk about Adam, you cry "literal" but when it comes to the flood, it is not? You don't take Genesis 1 literal, but you take Jesus birth and Ressurection as literal. I ask why?
You said, the flood isn't scientifically possible, well Jesus' Ressurection isn't scientifically possible either.

Why can't you simply accept that 6-day creation is possible or a global flood is possible? I know you are not saying that God can't do this, and constantly declare that Jesus confirmed the O.T.

So which interpretation did Jesus confirm, that creation happened in six days or did it take 4 billion years?
You are telling me that Jesus affirmed a 4 billion earth with guided evolution or day age? or that God made everything according to his plan in 6 days of creation?

Which is it and why?

[RickD]

Neo,

You have already claimed that I don't take Genesis as literal. And now you claim Philip doesn't take Genesis as literal.

Why do you keep erroneously making this claim?

Regarding the 6 days, we both take the text as literal.

[neo-x]

Neo,

You have already claimed that I don't take Genesis as literal. And now you claim Philip doesn't take Genesis as literal.

Why do you keep erroneously making this claim?

Regarding the 6 days, we both take the text as literal.

So do I.

It seems to me that Neo likes to interpret all of the Genesis texts as literalisms

What is the "literalisms" that Philp keeps referring to?

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑ Neo,

You have already claimed that I don't take Genesis as literal. And now you claim Philip doesn't take Genesis as literal.

Why do you keep erroneously making this claim?

Regarding the 6 days, we both take the text as literal.

Neo wrote:
So do I.

I know you do. I just wasn't sure that you understood that my progressive creation interpretation is a literal interpretation.

Neo wrote:
What is the "literalisms" that Philp keeps referring to?

Not sure. But if I had to guess, that he means you interpret Genesis literally and concretely, like some YECs.