Page 1 of 2

A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:43 pm
by DRDS
Hey everyone, for the past few weeks I've been studying heavily on the web about Noah's flood. Specifically I've been studying about what took place in Genesis chapter 6 where it says " that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose."

The view that many believers as well as pastors and scholars take is the sethite theory or the view that these "sons of God" were merely common men from the line of Seth. But another view that has gained ground in the past few decades and from after studying this myself I'm very fascinated and somewhat convinced as of now of it and that is the "fallen angels" view.

In which the Gen. 6:2 refers the "Sons of God" are actually the fallen angels who are now a part of satan's gang if you will, and they came in and had sexual relations with common women and the children they produced were known as the Nephilim. Many of the nephilim were the giants that the Bible talks about many times in the old testament like Goliath and his brothers.

Those and from what I've also have seen, some of these other nephilim offspring could have been somewhat normal sized beings but their heads were longer than average human heads and are almost cone shaped. I'll get to that again later.

Before I go further the stuff I"m studying from is by a guy by the name of Lynn Marzulli or L.A. Marzulli. At the bottom of this post I'll include some links to some of his podcasts and videos of this material.

But anyway, he believes that right after the fall of mankind in the garden, God tells satan that Eve's seed will crush his head so in response to that, satan and his fallen angels try to pollute the gene pool by mixing their genetics with the genetics of humans and producing nephilim and by out breeding mankind and even killing off mankind (hence the earth during the days of Noah was filled with violence) if satan was able to do so would have prevented God from sending Christ in to redeem mankind since there would have been no mankind to redeem.

So when satan was at the cusp of fulfilling that in the days of Noah God sent the flood to wipe out the nephilim and to preserve the only genetically pure individuals which were Noah and his family.
Then after the flood satan tries to do the same thing in places like Soddom and Gormorrah and in the promised land and as Marzulli notes, each and every time you are dealing with the Nephilim there is no grace and mercy with God.

Because of these odd offspring who according to Marzulli probably have no possible interest in salvation or changing their ways because by nature they are in a fixed state and from what I can see may not even have freewill or souls for that matter, God either through His supernatural power or through the ancient Israelite soldiers wipe these people out including women and children.

This is the thing I like most about this view and that it gives the best answer I have seen to the atheist objection of God being a "moral monster" especially in the Old Testament where this apparent loving, kind and merciful God decides to wipe whole tribes of people off the face of the earth without a second thought.

To show even further that this view is very accurate, take the story of Jonah for instance, where he goes to Nineveh, according to what I've learned, the people of Nineveh were probably some of the most sadistic and barbarian groups of people ever recorded. When you would enter their gates you would be greeted by a line of stakes in the groud with the heads of intruders and other victims nesting on top of the stakes. They would skin people alive and tack their skin to the walls to show it off.

But unlike in the flood (which by the way there is no clear indication in the OT that Noah preached to crowds of people prior to the flood) and unlike in Sodom and Gomorrah and in the promised land, there is grace and mercy with people of Nineveh and people repented and changed their ways.

To most people especially atheists, this would not make much sense, even to many Christians like myself this apsect about God in the Old testament didn't make much sense. But once you factor in the nephilim, then things begin to make more sense. Because again, these beings were at the very least not fully human and at the very most they were almost like impersonal satanic robots that were hellbent on the destruction of the human race in an attempt to thwart God's plan of human redemption.

So when this is taken into account, it seems very clear that the God of the Old Testament as well as the God of the New Testament are indeed one and the same, God doesn't have anger problems, He doesn't have mood swings. He is very loving and merciful and the only time ever that He commits any form of so called genocide is when it is against not human beings, but by the Nephilim who are again, in a fixed impersonal state of evil, they are basically satan's robots if you will who are not interested in repentance or salvation in any way.

In conclusion, this stuff also ties in with end times events as well. I may start another thread that deals with that here fairly soon. But as for now I'll leave you with some links to L. A. Marzulli's radio interviews and presentations. The first link is the presentation video where he shows some of the long skulls from what I think is the "brainy" forms of Nephilim and shows the megalithic structures that were built by the "brawny giant" forms of the Nephilim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukndZwjoAA

And here are some links to some of his radio interviews where he does talk some about how this thing clears up this deal that atheists and others bring up about the Old Testament God being evil or two faced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uc7CZz2T54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ULNDILFRY

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:16 am
by PaulSacramento
IMO, the Sons of God were indeed angels.
That whole part from Genesis just doesn't make much sense of they were just decedents of Seth.
Some have suggested that the many legends we have of "demi-gods" and so forth are based on these "half-breeds" of Angels, others have even suggested that the myths and stores of "vampires" and such are based on them as well.

Look at all of Genesis 6:
6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Not much of that makes sense if we are talking about the human decedents of Seth.
Now, IF the sons of Adham (man) were indeed very different than the rest of mankind then in THAT regard, we have a different story.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:20 am
by Kurieuo
When I looked into it many years ago I believed Scripture presents them as fallen angels. To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of that. As reluctant as I am to embrace such a position, that's where Scripture seems to lead.

Interestingly, I had considered perhaps some sort of interbreeding with neanderthals but not seriously so... but, I've just found out that some actually seriously consider this.

This is simply a puzzle for me that I currently defer on.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:30 am
by PaulSacramento
Kurieuo wrote:When I looked into it many years ago I believed Scripture presents them as fallen angels. To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of that. As reluctant as I am to embrace such a position, that's where Scripture seems to lead.

Interestingly, I had considered perhaps some sort of interbreeding with neanderthals but not seriously so... but, I've just found out that some actually seriously consider this.

This is simply a puzzle for me that I currently defer on.
Angels have free will and that some choose to do "not so good" things with it is very clear in the bible.
1Enoch gives a interesting account of such matters.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:42 pm
by bippy123
PaulSacramento wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:When I looked into it many years ago I believed Scripture presents them as fallen angels. To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of that. As reluctant as I am to embrace such a position, that's where Scripture seems to lead.

Interestingly, I had considered perhaps some sort of interbreeding with neanderthals but not seriously so... but, I've just found out that some actually seriously consider this.

This is simply a puzzle for me that I currently defer on.
Angels have free will and that some choose to do "not so good" things with it is very clear in the bible.
1Enoch gives a interesting account of such matters.
True Paul about the free will Part. I never really paid much attention to this part of the old testament but now DRDS has peaked my curiosity and the bible does seem to point to them being fallen angels, and since they do have free will and some may have done some bad things I dont see why they couldnt have tried to mix with certain populations. The archeological part is something that really has got me to put my private eye hat on.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:53 pm
by Kurieuo
The only issue, is why do they not have the same freedom today.

It just seems to go a step too far that God would allow fallen angels to physically mess with us in such a straight-forward way.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:58 pm
by ryanbouma
Kurieuo,

Hugh Ross briefly described his reason for that in a recent "I Didn't Know That" podcast. Something about the pit the fallen angels can't escape. So now, fallen angels don't dare interbreed with sons of men because God would lock them up forever. I can't remember exactly, but he had a scriptural reference for it.

Personally, all this seems a little wild to me. I don't discount it. And it's certainly a nice way to spruce up God's old testament image. But it does all seem a little odd to me. No way I can see to deny it though.

Check out Hugh Ross' explanation. It's quite brief but actually makes a lot of sense.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:47 pm
by RickD
ryanbouma wrote:Kurieuo,

Hugh Ross briefly described his reason for that in a recent "I Didn't Know That" podcast. Something about the pit the fallen angels can't escape. So now, fallen angels don't dare interbreed with sons of men because God would lock them up forever. I can't remember exactly, but he had a scriptural reference for it.

Personally, all this seems a little wild to me. I don't discount it. And it's certainly a nice way to spruce up God's old testament image. But it does all seem a little odd to me. No way I can see to deny it though.

Check out Hugh Ross' explanation. It's quite brief but actually makes a lot of sense.
I just listened to that portion of the podcast. Ross says he dedicated a chapter to this subject in his new book, coming out early next year.

I got a laugh out of something Ross said in the podcast. He was talking about Goliath, and then started talking about very tall humans. Then he mentioned the tallest living man who was 8ft 11in tall. Joe Aguirre asked Hugh how long that tallest man lived. Ross said he lived to not quite 40. Well, the tallest man was Robert Wadlow. Wadlow died at the age of 22. So I guess 22 is not quite 40. :pound:

Overall, it's an interesting subject. I guess in order for me to believe the giants were offspring of women and fallen angels, someone would have to show me where scripture says angels have the ability to reproduce with humans. And if the nephilim died in the flood, then were around again after the flood, as was suggested in the podcast, then why aren't they around anymore?

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:52 pm
by ryanbouma
RickD wrote:
ryanbouma wrote: I guess in order for me to believe the giants were offspring of women and fallen angels, someone would have to show me where scripture says angels have the ability to reproduce with humans. And if the nephilim died in the flood, then were around again after the flood, as was suggested in the podcast, then why aren't they around anymore?
The idea is God used the Israelites to wipe them out. They apparently succeeded, and now fallen angels are not willing to attempt that again.

Seems far fetched, but really, it's hard to say it doesn't work. It's just somewhat unconceivable. I guess, does "Sons of God" really mean angel? If it does then that is how the scripture reads. Just really odd.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:54 pm
by ManofGod
I don't mean to berate anyones efforts to share their beliefs here, but this concept of Nephilim and "sons of God" is an extreme misinterpretation both in the doctrinal and literary sense. First, if demons had actually filled the earth with people half demon half human, it seems only reasonable that God would have inspired Moses to include that detail concerning man's history. There is no account in the bible that that even hints toward a demon or angel taking on a fleshly form. If there were, that would be an example of ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing which can only be achieved by God, and God would not have done that for a demon to do that and then let it impregnate women. If God saw fit to destroy mankind excluding Noah and family because of what the demons had done, He would have never allowed it to happen since He has complete authority over Satan and his demons. Secondly, "sons of God" in the original language is ben elohim, meaning sons of God. The term does not in any way connotate any reference to evil spirits. Throughout the Bible, sons of God refers to humans, just as Paul said in the sermon on Mars Hill, "are we not all God's children?' As far as cone headed people and giants, these are obviously genetic events that have nothing to do with demonic activity. The most important thing I must point out is that this doctrinal error should not be used to justify God's killing of large groups of people because that's not why He did it. God killed or ordered to kill nations because of their supassingly evil ways. He is a just God, and killing "real'' humans for their abominations does not make Him any less just no matter what critics say. Overall, I think this entire idea should be vehemently refuted as it is yet another potential gateway for false teachers to distort God's word.
Again, I mean to offend nobody. I am just using sound doctrine and logic to preserve the truth of God's word as the Holy Spirit inspires me to.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:09 pm
by DRDS
Interesting, say, I take it that you hold to the "line of Seth" view? And from the way it looks, you hold to it with great relish. Now I'm saying you are like this, but I know that nearly all seminaries teach the line of Seth view and many of these pastors that start up churches take that view, present the God of the OT as hateful, overly angry, two faced, ready to zap someone who makes the slightest mistake and then in the next breath claims that the God of the NT is a God of love, and then in the next breath claim the God of the OT is the same as the one in the NT.

In addition, many of these pastors also love to use this to preach doom, hate and you guessed it, a ambiguous and confusing salvation doctrine of faith plus works. And then they love to tell their congregation to get their lives morally perfect or they will go to hell. And they know that when most of their congregation hear this they will get scared and doubt their salvation. They will then think, wow, how can I get my life in order as quickly as I can and as easily as I can since after all, I have to balance this with a full time job, help raise a family and so on.

Oh I know, I just give more MONEY to the church. Which then in turn the pastor takes that money, and instead of donating it to foreign missions or to apologetics organizations that help win people to Christ who never step foot in a church, they decide to pocket it for themselves. Because you see, to many pastors these days it's not really about winning the lost, it's about the cold hard CA$H. Because after all, those deluxe white Cadillacs with plush red interiors do NOT pay for themselves. $$$....

And this epic song makes a great back drop for the rant you just read: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E9IMgdQ5fc

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:52 pm
by ManofGod
DRDS, I'm a bit let down by your response to my post :crying: All I was trying to do was point out what I thought was wrong with the whole concept for the sake of biblical accuracy. I understand we differ in our viewpoints, but I think the rant about doomsaying pastors and giving money to false preachers was not at all helpful in conveying your point to me. As far as your evaluation of me, I am just a young man, not quite college age, who lives with his bible believing parents, and who loves God and loves His word. I don't even go to church as my family has not currently found one that we want to go to, so we do have a high biblical standard of who we are willing to be under as members of a church. I do not believe in a malicious God, and I do not believe He is malicious for killing the people He did in the OT as they were absolutely evil, even to the point of child sacrifice. I believe God is the same throughout the Bible and for all eternity. Now that I have established that, I just hope maybe we can reason about the matters at hand and be friendly about it and keep the unity of the Holy Spirit. I'd be more than willing to establish a pleasant correspondence between us, so if you want to continue the conversation peacefully and casually feel free to respond. I'll be checking the forum. :)
God Bless :amen:

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:06 pm
by DRDS
Ah sorry about that, I thought you were someone different. I thought you were a older guy who went though seminary that wanted to hold to the traditional line of seth view to scare your congregation into giving more. I only said that because that is a common tactic among pastors in my area. Just like you, I don't go to church regularly, because just like you I haven't found a place where I felt like I belong.

They all like to talk more politics in my area then about theology. And they love to preach hate, fear and anger. Not only do I think the ones in my area do that to scare people into giving them more money but they also do that for the power high I believe. And it's a really good way to take out your anger and frustration out on people. For instance, during my high school years I attended a private local Christian school. It was great for the most part, if anything but not going to a public school it helped keep me from getting SHOT AT. ; P

But the owner/principal was a real hot head. She had a striking resembelence to Aerosmith's Stephen Tyler and her school also enforced corporal punishment especially on the lower grade levels (at this school we actually had kindergarten all the way to seniors in high school, pretty wild huh) and she LOVED to use the paddle on her kids! One year we were starting school at a new location and the place was needing work done on it so the principal wanted many of the student's parents to help with the work, but because of everyone's busy schedules not many could do it.

So in anger and frustration she called them into the building's chapel area and basically yelled and screamed at them for not making time to help out on the building. And she basically preached a hell fire and brimstone type message to them! My parents who witnessed this rant got so mad they stood up and walked out!

And I wouldn't doubt a bit that she holds to the line of Seth view, because if the God of the OT at least on a subconscious level appears to be short fused and unpredictable as far as His emotions go, well then, why can't they be too?

And I apologize for being so passionate about the "fallen angel or nephilim" view but since it shows a more consistent and consistently loving God of both the Old and New Testaments and less of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality that many small town preachers like to promote. For me personally, the view where God is more consistently loving and I assume it's this way for many others, is it makes me and more people fall in love with God,and thus even accomplishes what most hell fire and brimestone pastors say they want to accomplish and that's more people "gettin saved" and more people "a livin right" aka "a sinnin a less". I'm talking like Phil Robinson here lol or I guess that's how he talks.

Now if this view turns out not to be right and we are stuck with the line of Seth view emotionally speaking at least for me, I have a bit of problem. But from an apologetics perspective, you still have great answers, quite notably from the work of Paul Copan who I think you know about. There is also this article that answers the objection of a genocidal OT God from more of a traditional "line of seth" view seen here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html

But since you are young, I would encourage you to study closely both views and see which one is closer to reality. Which I think if you study the fallen angel view more in depth, I feel that you would agree that it fits the data better. Especially since when many people who have been to seminary study it, they are usually angry, not at the one that taught them the view but at their seminaries for not teaching this view along with the traditional line of Seth view.

So in closing as of now, I hold to the fallen angel view as the best way to answer to objections to the character of the God of the OT and have Paul Copan's views and other similar views like the one held in that Got questions dot org article as a good back up plan. And as far as I can see, it's a very good plan to adopt. And if anything, this is a debatable "non essential" topic, it doesn't even touch the essential doctrines of the Trinity, of Christ's human and God nature, or His death burial and resurrection nor does it affect any major doctrine or doctrines on salvation. I should have mentioned that earlier, but it's good for me to go ahead and get that out there.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:54 pm
by ManofGod
I'm really glad i decided to keep the conversation going. At first I was a little disconcerted with the nature of the reply, but now that I know you thought I was just some crazy preacher you once knew, I am glad to see your much more personable. I also despise the abuse of Gods sacred word for sordid gain or as some emotional outlet. It's been said that the message of hell should be preached with tears, and I agree. As for the man who you know that scares people for more money, just pray that God will soften his heart to preach the word properly, with love.
As far as the nephilim discussion goes, I have studied and given it thought, but I'll have to stick with my original statement. You mentioned Paul Copans book when mentioning the post I made. I havent read the book yet(though I mean to in the future), and the defense I put forth was of my own deductions, but if you have it could tell if he says anything about the flood that could contribute to our discussion?
Though it seems we will have to agree to disagree, the most important thing to remember is that Christ died to save man because he loves us. I'm glad we got to know each other better and I hope to hear from you again in future posts. God bless.

Re: A good response to atheist's OT "evil" God objection

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:43 pm
by DRDS
Say, if you all want to study more in depth on this and on the work of L.A. Marzulli, here are some links to some of his documentaries he has done. If more come available I'll post the links here also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XyKzvlM88A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBR8GOwGac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il_7KZQbtmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87o_JdSU8wA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evPggkU19WM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7VdF0clPaQ