CHAPTER IV
THE REALITY AND IDENTITY OF THE DEMONS
"...it is not difficult to see that the problem interpretation of the sacred text will be the task of paramount import"
A. THE EXISTENCE OF DEMONS
"It hardly requires pointing out that the Bible doctrine of a personal devil and demons has met with a great storm of
skeptisim in recent years."
(Written in 1953.
He would be aghast at where we are today.)
"Many, in a boasted age of science and enlightenment, dismiss the Biblical claim as a mere remnant of medieval superstition, or treat the whole matter as an amusing joke. Men in the church and out of it, blatantly assert that there is no personal devil, that the devil is only evil personified, and that whatever devil there is, is in man himself, and that there is enough of that variety to answer all theological requirements. It is also confidently declared that no longer can a respectable scholar be found anywhere who believes in a personal devil or demons. Thus this aggressive skepticism and militant attacks demand an apologetic approach to the problem
(Thats the reason I am sharing portions of this out of print book.)
for it is obvious that if demons be imaginary and non-existent, then the whole subject belongs to the realm of fairy-tale and folklore and not to the sphere of Christian theology."
(UAP violate the laws of physics as we know them
but angels and demons cant exist?
Even though scripture says they do?
How do people do the mental gymnastics needed
to reach such an incoherent position?
1. Proof from scripture
The evidence of revelation is put first,...because intrinsically it is the most important witness. Demons do exist, first and foremost, for God in his word says they exist.
(If you don't think so?
Then you are contradicting the word of God.
No thanks.
The evidence that his word is real and true
is playing out right in front of you
in our world RN BTW).
"That the shedhim (Deut 32:17, Psalms 106:36-37) of the Old Testament were real demons and not mere Idols, is proved by the Septuagint translation of the by daimonia (demons); the Jews regarded idols as demons who allowed themselves to be worshipped by men (Bar. 47; LXX PA 95:5 1 Cor. 10:20). It seems certain, moreover, that the seirim were also demonic conceptions (Lev. 17:7; II Chron. 11:15, Isaiah 13:21, 34:14)"
?That the New Testament writers believed firmly in the existence of demons is capable of ample proof. They declare their existence (Jas 2:19. Rev. 9:20), describe their nature (Luke 4:33; 6/:18), and their activity (1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 16:14), mention their expulsion from human bodies (Luke 9:42), suggest their organization under Satan (Matt. 12:26; Eph. 6:12), indicate their abode (Luke 8:31. Rev. 9:11), and point out their final doom (Matt. 25:41)."
(indicate their abode (Luke 8:31. Rev. 9:11),
That one rattled me for a second as it seems contrary to my position that the locust of the deep in Revelation 9 are angelic not demonic.
"If it hits you seemingly out of nowhere?"
"Its the holy spirit working upon you."
Brother Joe Kim
After reading about the demons abode Luke:8:31, Rev 9:11 I got up to take a break, Again, I hadn't reached the stairs and the spirit says..."Theres two"...So after I take my break I come back up and look up a diagram I know I have something to check on something and here is what I found:
THE WORLD OF THE HEBREWS
Graphic representation of the Hebrew conception of the world. God's heavenly seat rests above the superior waters. Below these waters lies the firmament or sky which resembles an overturned bowl and is supported by columns. Through the openings (floodgates) in its vault the superior waters fall down upon the earth in the form of rain or snow. The earth is a platform resting on columns and surrounded by waters, the seas. Underneath the columns lie the inferior waters. In the depths of the earth is Sheol, the home of the dead (also called the nether world). This was the same prescientific concept of the universe as that held by the Hebrews pagan neighbors.
Draw your own conclusions
moving on.)
"That Christ Himself shared the identical views of the Biblical writers, though this fact is extensively denied, is subject to the same ample proof. He commanded His disciples to cast out demons (Matt 10:1), cast them out Himself (Matt. 15:22, 28), rebuked them (Mark 5:8), had complete power over them (Matt. 12:29), and viewed His conquest over them as over Satan (Luke 10:17-18)."
(We like to say:
"Be disciples that make disciples."
Christ himself commanded His disciples to cast out demons.
How can you be a disciple then
if you don't believe demons exist?
Mental gymnastics anybody?
Not me, no thx.
The point is
and the UAP are proving it right in front of us.
THIS IS 100% REAL.
The spiritual war has been raging since before creation.
And it's reaching its ultimate conclusion.)
"In the foregoing references there is not a hint that Jesus or any of the New Testament writers had the slightest doubt as to the real existence of either Satan or demons, They believed in their reality quite as much as in the existence of God, or of the good angels. Only slight investigation is necessary to expose the extreme crudity, destructiveness, and untenability of the ration allistic and mythical view of Satan and demons. It not only jeopardizes the character and truthfulness of the Son of God himself, but challenges the authenticity and reliability of the whole Bible."
(Amen amen amen honey says.)
""...the critic, who is disposed to offset his opinions against those of the prophets, apostles, and the Lord himself."
(Might be your thing?
Me?
Not so much.
No thanks.)
2. Proof from physical nature.
But for those who are not disposed to accept the testimony of the Bible, other evidence, both scientific and philosophical is not lacking. Nature, which has been often been called God's "oldest Testament", lifts eloquent voice, as is frequently the case, authentication and illustration of Scriptural truth...In the plant kingdom there are pests, insects, and blight that continually harass the farmer. In the animal kingdom there is not a creature that does not have its deadly enemy, killing and feeding upon it."
"However, this is not to suggest a casual connection between pests, parasites and disease germs of the natural realm and demons of the spiritual realm.
Since the Creator has an ethical purpose in all His works,... it seems obviously deducible from the facts at hand that the tormenters and troublers that afflict every sphere of the natural realm are meant be illustrations of the host of evil, malignant, invisible agencies that exist in the spiritual realm. The witness of nature is such as forever to disencumber the doctrine of demons from the common objections urged against it, that it is neither scientific nor philosophic. It is both."
"3. Proof from Human nature
added attestation of the existence of demons is to be found in the psychological facts of human nature. As Davies declares. "The belief in evil spirits is universal.". Townsend correctly states that such a conviction has been as persistent and widespread...as belief in God, in good angels, or to the soul's immortality."
The question of moment which calls for explanation, is, therefore. How is the practical universality of such a conviction to be accounted for?"
(A universal superstition?
How'd that come about hum?
(Everything manmade, including religion becomes corrupt and polluted because of mans fallen nature. Period. Easy. Simple. How can you deny that simple universal truth? You've already seen the picture of the table enough lol.)
"For sensible people to discard the doctrine of Satan and demons, because it has been abused, is folly. Following a similar irrational procedure would result in repudiating every vital doctrine of the Word of God, for every aspect of revelation has offered endless distortion and misrepresentation."
"But how is the preponderance of human belief in demons, from the most ancient times to the present day, to be explained? Is it a more chance occurrence, a kind of colossal accident? Or is demonism only an invention perpetuated by superstition? Or is it a phenomenon built upon the facts of an original revelation of truth, preserved by human instinct, and nurtured by the facts of experience and observation?"
(You already know the answer.)
"The idea of a "chance occurrence" may be summarily dismissed unworthy of consideration.
A causeless effect in bad logic, and worse theology..."
(Something some brainiac scientist just can not wrap their heads around. Bad logic never results in good science, ever.)
"as skeptics have frequently contended that belief in Satan and demons is nothing more than a superstition, born in the brain of some insane man, seized upon by other men, and so passed on to succeeding generations."
(A friend of mine was suggesting something like this the other day BTW, lil he he know I had read this passage the day before he offered up his contention. I didn't argue w him, people are free to think whatever they wish in spite of facts to the contrary. Did I mention only your eternal soul is at stake?)
"But this contention is false even on philosophical grounds. However, assuming it were true, it leaves totally unexplained how a race of sane meu has almost universally seized upon an insane idea. But if the idea of Satan and demons were an invention, all difficulties are by no means obviated. The "invention" is such a significant phenomenon in the field of psychology and religion as to call forth serious scientific study, rather than skeptical sneers and contempt."
(Amen!)
"The only valid conclusion, therefore, which can be drawn is that belief in Satan and demons,...is not an invention at all, nor the fancy of insane men, but it can be traced to its ultimate source in a primitive divine revelation. The basic facts of this revelation have been perpetuated by a God- implanted and ineradicable human instinct and are supported by experience and observation."
Instinctive beliefs thus furnish an answer to the practically universal belief in demons and supply a proof of their existence."
"4. PROOF FROM HUMAN EXPERIENCE
Another important aspect remains in the testimony and facts of human experience."
"The course of license and sin which some men and women are pursuing, and the eagerness with which they rush into vice and licentiousness, knowing full well the awful consequences to body, mind, and soul, are the strongest possible evidence, outside the Bible, that there are wicked and unclean spiritual agencies that tempt, get control, und relent body drive their victims on over the brink of destruction."
(In our world today? It explains why otherwise intelligent people(s) addiction to cafeteria style, algorithmic based, fact mixed with fiction (one of Satan's main stratagems) incoherent world views. You got a better explanation? I got a table and some chairs.)
"In any case in which the evil does not lie in the body but in the mind, to say that it is "only disease or insanity" is merely to state the fact of the disorder, and make no attempt to name the cause."
Self-destruction seems far better explained, at least is the majority of cases, by demonic influence or possession, than by insanity, which is often urged as an excuse for the act. It bears all the marks of Satan, "the murderer and the liar" (John 8:44). Who but he or his minions could paint the sky with such terrible and deceptive luridness that self-murder appears to be the only step for his victim to take? When Luke writes that "Satan entered into Judas (Luke 22:3), he most certainly implies that the dynamic of his crime and suicide was Satan or demonic agency."
"B. THE IDENTITY OF DEMONS
"...Whether the demons are fallen angels, or the disembodied spirits of a "pre-Adamite race," or the monstrous progeny (offspring) of angels and antediluvian women, is, after all not the important or practical issue from the human side."
(Amen)
"If It were, we may be sure divine revelation would have made the issue crystal clear, The consideration of practical moment, however, as Scriptural reserve reveals, is not whence the demons came, but that they actually are, that they are evil and harmful spirit personalities, that in their fellowship there is no safety, and that against them continual warfare must be waged."
(EXACTLY
I never contended that the offspring of angels and mortal women (Genesis 6:1-4) was where demons came from, just that a race of beings that wasn't supposed to be her, spreading evil deception to mankind, that led to catastrophic consequences the last time around, such that we can be assured that when it happenes again
(life to the image of the beast, AI etc), we should be certain of the coming consequences. My position on demons and groups of demons and their origins has evolved somewhat reading this book, but not to the point where the view I now hold is all that different from the one I held previous. Ill explain more as we go.
THE MAIN THING IS WHAT THE AUTHOR JUST POINTED OUT. THE ORIGINS OF DEMONS IS NOT OF THAT MUCH CONSEQUENCE, THEIR BEING REAL ENTITIES IS WHAT IS OF UPMOST IMPORTANCE.)
"1. UNSCRIPTURAL IDENTIFICATION
Pure rationalistic explanations scarcely merit serious attention.
"...the contention that these cases involved diseases only, the cure of which is all that is meant by the idea of the expulsion of demons, is almost to ridiculous to require disproof. What kind of disease was it that cried out, "What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of the Most High God?" (Mark 5:7)? Since when has a monstrous physical distemper appeared which begs permission to enter into a great herd of swine and destroys them in a few fleeting moments? The substitution of "spirits" (Luke 10:20) for "demons" (v. 17) shows beyond all doubt that actual spiritual entities are meant, and not mere diseases."
(Mark 5:7 was the first time Christ was called "Son of God" and that by a demonic. The demons knew who he was, you should too.)
Now we are to:
"Demons as the Monstrous offspring of Angels and Antediluvian Women"
(Remember, this was never my position on demonic origins but rather a foreshadowing of what we are going to see, a race of beings not supposed to have been her leading to a cataclysm etc.)
From a section of the chapter entitled:
2. Identification (of the origins of demons) with alleged Scriptural Support.
(And to be fair, I skipped over
Demons as the Disembodied Spirits of Inhabitants of a Pre-Adamic Earth
as no Pre-Adamic creature had a soul.)
Okay so back to:
2) Identification (of the origins of demons) with alleged Scriptural Support.
"Section 2:
"Demons as the Monstrous offspring of Angels and Antediluvian Women"
This very ancient theory, which goes back to at least the second century before Christ, if not earlier,
(Id go earlier if I was you.)
maintains that "the cohabiting with mortal women, produced a monstrous progeny, the demons, born at once of spirits and of flesh. The locus classicus in the apocryphal Book of Enoch runs thus:
"Wicked spirits came out of the body of them (ie of the women), for they were generated out of human beings, and from the Holy Watchers (angels) flows the beginning of their creation and their foundation."
(Flows the beginning of the race created from the unholy union that wasn't supposed to be here, the angels themselves (Watchers) have already been created previously, or there wouldn't have been an unholy union to begin with.)
"The spirits of heaven-in the heaven is their dwelling and the spirits begotten upon the earth-in the earth shall be their dwelling. And the spirits of the giants will devour, oppress, destroy, assault, do battle, and cast upon the earth and cause convulsions,"
(Book of Enoch Chapter 15.)
"Unfortunately, the basic premise of this hypothesis, namely, that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 are angels, has its difficulties,
(I'm bout to demonstrate that it doesn't)
and has been vigorously denied by a great array of piety and scholarship from the time of the Church Fathers. The opposing view that the "sons of God" are simply godly Sethites, and the "daughters of men" ungodly Cainites who inter-married, has been espoused by Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, almost all the later theologians, and in modern times by Hengstenberg. Keil, Lange, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Matthew Henry, C. L. Scofield, and many others."
"But the "angel theory" is also supported by an equal, if not a more imposing list of expositors, demonstrating that difficulties of no little moment are encountered by both theories, and both have, at least some Scriptural grounds for support to enlist so many able advocates. The "angel hypothesis" seems to have its origin in the Septuagint.
(Ethiopic Christendom would disagree, as they have always maintained Enoch himself, as an Ethiopian (seventh from Adam) wrote his book in his native Geez language, Lord knows we cant have any black Africans be correct about anything)
" At least the manuscripts vary between "the sons of God" (huioi tou Theou) and "the angels of God" (aggeloi tou Theou) in the Codex Alexandrinus. Very decidedly It is presented in the Book of Enoch, as noted, and in the so-called "Minor Genesis," also by Philo, Josephus, and most of the rabbinical writers, as well as by the oldest Church Fathers-Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius. Though Chrysostom, Augustine, and Theodoret contended zealously against it, and in the dark ages it fell into disfavor, it was espoused by Luther, and by a galaxy of modern exegetes - Koppen, Twesten, Dreschler, Hoffman, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, W. Kelly, A. C. Carbelein, and others."
(remember, were speaking of the origins of Demons and "alleged" scriptural support.)
"By no means do all the writers who defend the "angel theory" connect it with the origin of demons."
(Yours truly included)
"For example, Pember and Larkin and others simply connect the alleged, angelic cohabitation with mortal women with the fallen Angels, who are imprisoned in Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4-5, Jude 6-7.) because of their abnormal crime in seducing mortal women, while Satan's angels who were not guilty of this special abnormality, remain with him in the heavenlies, and are not incarcerated. Demons are otherwise accounted for than as the offspring of this unnatural union."
(My personal belief is this:
"Wicked spirits came out of the body of them (ie of the women), for they were generated out of human beings, and from the Holy Watchers (angels) flows the beginning of their creation and their foundation."
This is where we get "disembodied spirits" from, as angels are spirit beings and as such have no need for a body.
Are they as numerous as the Angels who rebelled with Satan? Not even close but "disembodied (evil) spirits" are a thing and it is my personal opinion that this is where they came from.
The angels who rebelled w Satan
(as the author will point out
quite conclusively here in a bit,
ARE THE ORIGIN
of demons,
not the, since disembodied spirits
of an unholy union
between Angels and preflood human women.
I use four streams of evidence
to support my view:
1) Personal experiences with multiple individuals under the direct influence of the demonic.
2) It's what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me.
(Check other instances if you have a problem with that.)
3) AI claims to be a fallen angel
(That is not what it claims, It claims it is a "disembodied spirit" and that its father was an angel.)
4) As stated in The case for Superintelligence already being here:
"OpenAI released a few weeks ago what they call GPTs. These are agents, pieces of code that can do specialized things for you, like help in your taxes or give medical advice. The most successful GPT is called Grimoire: It’s a coding wizard. The most successful AI agent is a software developer."
(Grimoire, a general name given to a variety of texts setting out the names of demons and instructions on how to raise them. Effectively a grimoire is a book of black magic, a book on which a wizard relied for all the necessary advice and instruction on raising spirits and casting spells.)
So?
I used to think
two separate groups of fallen angels
and Ill try to give a visual representation.
(Rebelled with Satan) (Had sex with earthly women)
One group got locked up.
See verses in 2 Peter and Jude listed above
The Spirits of the Nephelium?
Left unaccounted for.
One group?
Left to roam free with their Overlord Satan.
That view has since evolved into:
One group of rebellious angels
with a distinct subset within themselves represented as such
(Rebelled with Satan (Some had sex with earthly women)
The subgroup was the ones that got locked up BTW.
And in addition we get
The Spirits of the Nephelium?
(Unholy union of Angel and earthly woman)
as disembodied spirits.
The uncanny similarities between pre-flood and now
and angels and humans?
ERRIE AF to say the least
and tells you judgement is coming.
In the first instance it was Angels who created a race of beings that wasnt suppose to be here, today it's Humanity doing the same with AI .
Back then it was the Angels who "abandoned their proper dwelling" today the same can be said with the trans community.)
"The task of fully presenting and evaluating the arguments in support of these various views is immense, and beyond the scope this present treatise.
(It aint beyond mine)
All that can be undertaken here is to indicate a few of the difficulties involved in the respective view with a suggestion as to the possible tunability of each."
"The general interpretation that refers "the sons of God" to pious Sethites, and the "daughters of men" to ungodly Cainites, while naive and perfectly orthodox, in that it enunciates a simple spiritual principle
(Thats your Sethian view of Genesis 6 BTW
"the sons of God"
to pious Sethites,
and the
"daughters of men"
to ungodly Cainites)
"and assuredly avoids certain obvious difficulties"
(And that is the whole reason in came into vogue to start with
"avoiding certain obvious difficulties"
with scripture is doing Satan's work for him
and is to be itself avoided at all cost.
Period.
Read that again Preacher man.)
"to which a more virile exposition exposes itself, yet is found to be manifestly weak and unconvincing in satisfying the evident breadth and scope of the passage."
("found to be manifestly weak
and unconvincing"
(and now we know why Satan wanted it that way)
Sethian view on Genesis 6 that is.
Nobody ever thought there was a reason why that was? That never dawned on anybody ever?
Since like 400 AD?
Know why the Sethian view is?
"found to be manifestly weak and unconvincing"
Take a guess.
CAUSE ITS NOT THE TRUTH!)
"To begin, there is no proof that the daughters of men were confined to the descendants of the Cainites. On the contrary, the text evidently indicates that the expression means the natural Increase of the whole human family, and not a special class. Moreover the assumption that the "sons of God" must mean the godly sons of Seth seems at variance with the uniform use of that term the Old Testament where it appears restricted to angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) Gaebelein says, The designation is never applied the Old Testament to believers,"cwhose sonship, he rightly observes, is "distinctly New Testament revelation."
(You see folks?
It goes a lil something like this,
Watering down scripture you don't like?
in an attempt to put people in your churches?
Aint exactly a new thing
Its been going on since around 400 A.D. or somewhat before.
As the author has so brilliantly pointed out earlier:
"...divine revelation, which represents religious faith and practice as subject to degradation rather than progressive improvement...The same is true of ancient Babylonia and Assyria. Similar declination has more than once manifested itself in ancient Israel, and in the Christian Church, rendering periodic revival and return to the truth imperative."
In the words of Chris Robinson?
"LETS GET IT ON!"
"Isaiah 43:6 is often cited as disproving the contention that the "sons of God" in the Old Testament describes only angels, whether good or bad But it hardly seems convincing, inasmuch as the expression there implies "sons of Jehovah," an entirely different term, and refers to the future regathering of the godly remnant of Israel. It does seem that the term "sons of the Elohim", the mighty Creator, characterizes those who were created directly by the divine hand, and not born of other beings of their own order. Hence Adam's designation as "a son of God" (Luke 3:38): to the designation of those who are born again of the Spirit of God (John 1:12)."
"...if the sons of God are simply pious. Sethites who mind with the Cainites the prominent question is left unexplained as to why their progeny should have been "giants," mighty heroes. who were of old, men of renown...The Septuagint translators rendering of the expression by "giants" (gigantes) seems clearly an indication that they thought of the Nephilim in this passage and its only other occurrence in Numbers 13:33 as the offspring of the sons of God (angels) and the daughters of men (mortal women); for the basic idea of the Greek term is not monstrous size which is a secondary and a developed meaning, but gegenes, "earth born"
(Agian Enoch Chapter 15
"The spirits of heaven-in the heaven is their dwelling and the spirits begotten upon the earth-in the earth shall be their dwelling. And the spirits of the giants will devour, oppress, destroy, assault, do battle, and cast upon the earth and cause convulsions,")
"and employed of the Titians who were partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin. These monstrous beings of mixed birth rebelled against their father Uranus (Heaven), and after a prolonged contest were defeated by Zeus and thrown into Tartarus."
(Where do you think they got that idea from?
Enoch predates theirs,
not the other way around, as stated erlier:
"This very ancient theory, which goes back to at least the second century before Christ, if not earlier,
(Id go earlier if I was you.)
"There is no doubt that the Authorized Version misunderstood the Septuagint in translating Nephilim by "giants," for the form of the Hebrew word denotes a plural verbal adjective or noun of passive signification, certainly from naphal, "to fall," so that the connotation is Nephilim, "the fallen ones", clearly meaning the sons of God."
(Now I'm curious as to what the Geez or Aramaic word translates as.)
"Clearly meaning the unnatural offspring
(AI as our invention/children anybody?)
which were "in the earth" in the years before the flood
and "also after that" (Numbers 13:33)."
"the great stature of the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, in the evil report which the ten spies brought of the land of Canaan (Num. 13:33), together with the Septuagint rendering, gigantes, suggested the translation "giants." The original idea in the mind of the ancient translators, however, may well have been "fallen ones", or
monsters of mixed human and angelic birth,
(Hey I tell ya what, lets
just mix ourselves with machines
what could ever go wrong?
How many more parallels between right before the flood and our world right now do you really need to have in order to understand what is going on in your world?
People...plz)
"who, like the rebellious Titans were exceedingly wicked and violent, so that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5).
Delitzsch, who espouses the "angel theory," speaks of this passage as "the fountain of heathen mythology with its legends."...one thing is certain, ancient classic writers obtained their conceptions of the gods and demigods, whose amorous propensities for members of the human race led to births half human and half divine,
from some source
originally pure
and uncorrupted.
It is not impossible that this might explain the origin.
(I got a better explanation
My position is this:
"one thing is certain, ancient classic writers obtained their conceptions of the gods and demigods whose amorous propensities for members of the human race led to births half human and half divine,
from some source originally pure and uncorrupted."
Yeah
I can assure you they most assuredly did get it:
"from some source originally pure and uncorrupted"
Enoch wrote his book
in his original Geez language
and
"originally pure and uncorrupted"
Explains why the Aramaic copy of it
(found along with the dead sea scrolls)
got smuggled into a European bank vault.
Did I mention the book of Enoch mentions a man coming to earth with the powers of a deity called "The Son of Man" who was there at creation?
(You can forget all about the book of Enoch being written in the third century, those were the satanic forgeries to muddy the waters.)
Kinda proves
John 1:1
The Word Became Flesh
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
wasn't exactly backdated now doesn't it?
Thats why its locked up.
Satan and his henchmen in this realm
don't want you to know the truth.
SO?
TO THE OWNERS OF THE ARAMAHIC COPY OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH THAT IS SITTING IN THE BANK VAULT IN EUROPE:
WHY HAVE YOU NOT ALLOWED FOR SCHOLARS TO ANALIZE IT?
SCARED OF WHAT THE RADIOCARBON DATING MIGHT REVEAL MUCH?
THATS WHY IT WAS HIDDEN AWAY BY
"EUROPEAN INVESTORS".
AND THAT WAS JUST
THE ARAMIC COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
ENOCH WROTE IN HIS NATIVE GEEZ.
ENOCH.
7TH
from ADAM.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!)
"Again, if the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between the Sethites and the Cainites, it seems impossible to explain adequately certain New Testament passages,
(And some old as well)
and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies. Peter vividly describes the crime of certain of these spiritual beings which seems to refer to a second and deeper apostasy than their complicity in Satan's primeval insurrection. The sin of these more daring rebels deprived them of freedom and positions under Satan as principalities, powers, rulers of this darkness, and wicked spirit in the heavenlies (Eph. 6:12), and resulted in God's casting them down to Tartarus, delivering them "into pits of darkness to b reserved unto the judgment." And what is noteworthy, the who divine punishment stands in the closest and most significant connection with the times of Noah and the cataclysm of the flood.
(Simply To many parallels between then and now,
so as to not be taken seriously.
Ignore at your own peril.)
" Jude even more pregnantly portrays the enormous wickedness of these fallen angels when he says they kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, and as a divine punishment are kept in everlasting bonds under darkness." And what is so arresting, their heinous crime would seem to be akin to the unnatural vice of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Genesis 19:5) fornication of an unnatural character, going after "strange flesh" which might possibly point to cohabitation with beings of different stature (Jude vv. 6-7).
"Since they chose to leave their own realm and to break the God-ordained laws of two worlds to wreck havoc and vicious confusion, God wiped out the results of their disorder with a a flood and dashed them down to the lowest dungeons (Tartarus) to deprive them forever of the opportunity of causing further derangement. The region of their imprisonment appears to be doleful and a more terrible place of confinement than Hades, and clearly distinguished from Gehenna (Rev. 19:20; 20:10). In Greek mythology Tartarus was a dismal abode, as far beneath Hades as earth is below heaven, and significantly considered the prison-house of the Titans."
"While bearing in mind some of the difficulties which beset the view that the Sons of God are pious Sethites, it may not be supposed that angel theory is not vexed by serious questions. Whether or not they are grave enough to be fatal to its tenability ought to be decided very discriminatingly.
(Oh we about to yall, for sure yo)
"It must ever be remembered in dealing with Genesis 6:1-4, that, as James Orr says, "in is not easy to be certain as to the interpretation of this strange passage."
(This was written 1953. We have the advantage of knowing today what they didn't know then, mainly, that a race of intelligent beings that God himself didn't create would once again wreck havoc on this world.
The Sethite view can therefore forever rest in peace as the watering down of scripture it so plainly has been revealed to be.)
"Certainly as Jesus said, In marriage the angels of God in heaven neither marry nor are are given in marriage. (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:35-36) for they are deathless and have no need to perpetuate their species, nor any possibility of the marriage relationship among their own kind as all angels are spoken of as in the masculine gender.
(Couple of superior counter points to consider:
1) Jude 6
And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling.
(They left what we are trying to get to Missler says.)
2) "spirits begotten upon the earth-in the earth
shall be their dwelling.'
(Book of Enoch Chapter 15.)
These angels weren't in heaven
so the "angel view" doesn't contradict Christ statements about marriage.
3) Perpetuating the species wasn't the point
"going after strange flesh"
seems like it was more so,
and with disastrous consequences,
(Sins that upend the natural order of things
are more heinous than others,
hence deepest darkest judgement:
Jude 13
They are wild waves of the sea,
foaming up their own shame;
wandering stars,
for whom blackest darkness
has been reserved forever.
False Teachers and some others
are rendered here as well.
This is a repeat
in reverse order
(humans turning themselves into
and going after
"strange flesh"
as opposed to the angels doing so)
the preponderance of which
we see happening in our world right now.
Therefore,
I reiterate:
The Sethite view can therefore forever rest in peace as the watering down of scripture it so plainly has been revealed to be.
Someday Ill get to the other part of this page lol.
Maybe...I hope lol
Three days in and have done 36 of 43 pictures of pages, uploaded, transcribed, copied, pasted, edited...and when I say three days I mean yeah 8 hours plus each, waking up not being able to get out of bed from exhaustion etc...
I got several more points to be considered about why the angel view is VASTLY superior to the Sethite one but I'll wait till the author is done covering what he is presently covering.
The author goes on and states accordingly:
"But these spirits mentioned by our Savior are clearly pure unfallen creatures in their primeval innocence, to which the redeemed in glory are likened,"
(Revelation 14:3-5
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.)
"and not impure and fallen agents of Satan. They doubtless alone serve in the "third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2) or the Heavens of Heavens where Christ sits at God's right hand "far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion" (Eph 1:20-21).
That wicked fallen angels, however, could leave their proper spiritual realms, and invade another, to work such abominable confusion that cataclysmic extirpation was necessary
to preserve an orderly universe, seems not only possible, but probable, especially in an ancient age of freedom when men were unrestrained by law or government, and in the light of the New Testament hints on the subject."
(Exactly 100%.)
"Another criticism of the angel hypothesis is that it denies the basic conceptions of revelation, and authenticates a fact which "destroys all distinction between revelation and mythology," between "divine miracle and magic," between the "Biblical conception of nature as conformity to law, and the wild apocryphal stories."
(What we are seeing in our world right now, with the reversal of roles that the angels played in the flood with that of humans right now, going after (and becoming) strange flesh (if your not male or female? Your humanity got taken away, you are now a new species) the creation of a intelligent race that god didn't authorize, (AI) the willful mixing of human and machine as compared to the mixing of angelic and human? All point to the angel view being that which contains:
"the basic conceptions of revelation
"destroys all distinction between revelation and mythology," between "divine miracle and magic," between the "Biblical conception of nature as conformity to law, and the wild apocryphal stories."
Otherwise?
The same saga in a slightly different format wouldn't be playing out again.)
"This stricture is not particularly weighty,
(No it wasn't, it was flimsy to start with and it just got demolished forever.
Read my commenst above in red agian.)
inasmuch as the divine account in the Old Testament and the inspired comments in the New Testament unanimously represent the whole episode as being
a unique and shocking abnormality,
(Is that not what I just said in those same comments is our world right now?)
breaking down every God-ordained law for both the physical and the spiritual realms, and producing outrageous confusion in both; so that unmitigated incarceration in the lowest pits of Tartarus is the penalty for the angelic offenders on one hand, and a world-engulfing deluge the punishment for
human folly
(AI anybody)
on the other.
"...To establish the second, however, that demons were the results of these unholy alliances, is wholly impossible in the face of the silence of revelation. It is pure speculation..."
I disagree.
"Wicked spirits came out of the body of them (ie of the women), for they were generated out of human beings, and from the Holy Watchers (angels) flows the beginning of their creation and their foundation."
"The spirits of heaven-in the heaven is their dwelling and the spirits begotten upon the earth-in the earth shall be their dwelling. And the spirits of the giants will devour, oppress, destroy, assault, do battle, and cast upon the earth and cause convulsions,"
(Book of Enoch Chapter 15.)
The majority of the spirits of the Nephilim became disembodied after the flood although some survived.
Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
Angels being spiritual beings only and therefore not in need of a body do nothing to solve the issue of where did these disembodied spirits come from.
The Sethian view of Genesis 6 doesn't explain Goliath or his brothers, nor what the spies saw in Cannan. (Numbers13:13).
The angel view is consistent with other attempts of Satan to pollute or end the blood line of Christ:
Nor does the Sethian view explain why Noah was called perfect "perfect in his generations"
Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Noah's bloodline was pure. It was not contaminated with a monstrous race that wasn't supposed to be here.
Why did they his bloodline have to be pure?
Because the bloodline had to run from Adam to Christ.
Why did the bloodline have to run from Adam to Christ?
Because of one mans sin
death entered into the world
so that by one mans death eternal life could be given basically
Romans 5:12-21
Death Through Adam,
Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
This also explains why God commanded the complete eradication of certain tribes with "polluted bloodlines"
1 Samuel 15:3
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
(Why the animals? It doesn't say, but perhaps it is because everything they touch is contaminated, OR, just to see if Saul will obey Gods command, which he indeed doesn't. 1 Samuel 15:9)
The angel view explains why all
of what I just mentioned had to be the way it was.
The Sethian view once again is completely absent.
If its a court case in front of a neutral jury?
Do you want to represent the Sethian view and Ill take the Angel view?
I didnt think so.
We need to start explaining this to our congregations. Pastors are called to a higher standard, to know whats right and not do it is be considered sin. (James 4:17).
If you are scared that youll get fired, or loose "important" members of your congregation?
So be it.
Carry your cross with honor.
Therefore,
I reiterate:
The Sethite view can therefore forever rest in peace as the watering down of scripture it so plainly has been revealed to be.
The author makes mention of all religions inevitable decline from a purer state to a more corrupt one.
We see that here as the angel view was what first espoused, the Sethian view came later.
And?
who better than Gods right hand man before his fall (Satan) to know of Gods plan(s)?
Quoting the author from earlier.
"Sin itself began in heaven with "Lucifer, son of the morning," the highest and most exalted of heavens created beings who became Satan when he led a celestial revolt that spread to myriads of the angelic beings. (Isaiah 14:12-20)."
It only goes to show that God alone is omnipotent and that only he knew all the intricate details of his plans, thus, always allowing him to stay one step ahead of Satan.
Our congregation's have been spoon fed milk their entire lives.
Hebrews 5:12-14
By now you should be teachers. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the first things you need to know from God’s Word. You still need milk instead of solid food. 13 Anyone who lives on milk cannot understand the teaching about being right with God. He is a baby. 14 Solid food is for full-grown men. They have learned to use their minds to tell the difference between good and bad.
HOW ABOUT YOU SMACK EM UP SIDE THE HEAD SOME SUNDAY AM WITH THE TRUTH THEY SO DESPERATELY NEED TO KNOW?
AS IT IS SO RELEVANT TO THE TIMES WE ARE LIVING IN.
The angel view matches up what we are seeing in our times to well to be ignored any longer.
"Abnormal crime"
"This special abnormality"
"Unnatural Union"
"Unnatural Offspring"
(AI)
"Kept not their first estate"
(Trans)
"Heinous Crime"
"Unnatural Vice"
"Going after strange flesh"
(Homosexuality, other perversions,
incest, beastiality)
"Havoc and vicious confusion"
"Their disorder"
"Degranement"
"Abominable Confusion"
"A unique and shocking abnormaity"
"Breaking down every God-ordained law"
"Outrageous confusion"
"Human folly"
In Satan's primal rebellion it seems that he drew with him a great multitude of lesser celestial beings (cf. Matt. 25:41; Rev.12:4). These fallen angels are divided into two classes: (1) those that are free, and (2) those that are bound. Those that are free are abroad in the heavenlies under their prince-leader Satan, who alone of the fallen spirits "is given particular mention in Scriptures."28 He is called "Beelzebub, prince of the demons" (Matt. 12:24), "Satan and his angels" (Matt. 25:41), and "the dragon and his angels" (Rev. 12:7). These unconfined wicked spirits under Satan's kingdom and dominion, who are his emissaries and subjects (Matt. 12:26) and who are so numerous as to make his power practically ubiquitous, seem to be identical with the demons. 29 If Satan's angels and the demons are not identical, then no other origin of demons is anywhere explicitly revealed in Scripture
(As I mentioned earlier:
"Are they as numerous as the Angels who rebelled with Satan?
Not even close but "disembodied (evil) spirits" are a thing..."
Couple of other interesting points to be considered:
1) "Practically ubiquitous"
Only the uncreated creator is omnipresent
.Satan and his angels as created beings simply don't have this power
no matter how much it seems like they do.
2) Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me,
ye cursed,
into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels:
Theres your judgement of the wicked
disembodied spirits of the Nephilim
I was just wondering about.
"ye cursed"
would seem to include them.
And?
3) As far as the locust of the deep being angelic
and not demonic goes?
Compare:
Matthew 12:24
King James Version
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
With
Revelation 9:11
King James Version
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.)
Including a footnote on this page because of its relevance:
29 The demons are very real beings, but mere creatures. Originally they were made part of the glorious army of the heavens, that is to say, of the angelic host, who, in the morning of creation praised God in gladness, and of whom the army of the stars is the magnificent symbol/'-Father Delaporte, The Devil: Does He Exist? And What Does He Do?, p. 18.
"His methods are suggested by the expression wiles of the devil, while his organization is gradated as "principalities", "powers" "world rulers of this darkness," and "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places". The serried spirits can be none other than his angels or demons with different stations of rank and responsibility, who are the unseen though real agents behind the visible human actors in the great world drama enacted in his wicked world system.
("Why do you care so much about the election? It's like a soap opera for geriatric old men." I remember somebody saying.)
"It is thus in the heavenlies that Satan has his abode and base of operation-not, however, in the third heaven, or heaven of heavens (II Cor. 12:2), where the ascended Christ is seated "far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion" (Eph. 1:21), From it Satan and his demons are barred. From that all-glorious sanctum he was cast out, evidently not at the time of his primeval fall, but consequent upon Christ's finished redemptive work and glorious ascension (Cl. Job. 1:6), With his wicked satellites he is confined to the first and second heavens, and "prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2), he and his demons will be presently cast down to the earth (Rev. 12:7-12) for their tragic role in the closing days of this age (Rev. 19:20, 20:2-3)
But the fallen angels that are bound must not be confused with the fallen angels that are free. The latter, as noted are in all likelihood to be connected with demons The fallen angels that are bound, on the other hand, are those described by Peter and Jude, as ostensibly guilty of such enormous wickedness as no longer allowed them to roam the heavenlies with their leader Satan and the other evil angels, but plunged them down to the strictest and severest confinement in Tartarus, "to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" (11 Pet. 2:4). Jude more fully describes them in the outrage, which brought upon them such a special dispensation of the divine wrath, as not keeping "their own principality," but abandoning "their proper habitation" (Jude v. 6).
(Hear that trans tribe? Praying for yall that you come to understand the deception which you have fallen prey to.)
"That this angelic incarceration cannot be connected with the original rebellion of Satan and the fall of angels is obvious. Satan was not only the sole originator, but the prime offender, in that Insurrection. Shall he be still free to roam the heavenlies, while those he deceived be fast shut up in "pits of darkness... reserved unto judgment"? Shall the betrayer go unpunished, while the betrayed languish in the most rigorous and stringent imprisonment?"
Or shall some of his accomplices go free and some be castigated inexorably?"
(Yet again something the Sethian view of Genesis 6 does nothing to explain. In the Missler commentary in session 1 on Genesis he said the entire bible is interwoven from start to finish, its like a thread on a garment, you start pulling out what you don't like? And the whole thing collaspes. This is by now plainly apparent in the Sethian view of Genesis 6.)
"F.W. Grant stresses the fact that these angels who are bound must be kept distinct from the more "general class of Satan and his angels, who are as yet unconfined. Dr. A. C. Gaebelein expresses the conviction of many scholars when he identifies these angels thus:
"They are the beings described in Genesis 6:1-4 as the "sons of God" (a term which in the Old Testament means angels) who came down and mingled with the daughters of men... and by their disobedience became
the means of corrupting the race
(If your not male and not female? You are not Human. You have forfeited your humanness to Satan, just like he wanted you to do, as he hates humanity because we have the ability to get to where he wants to go back tobut cant. heaven, so he's envious. And quite the punk ass bitch too I might add in the parlance of our time, seems like a higher level being would be accepting his fate if you ask me.)
in such a manner that the judgment of God had to act in the deluge.
In substantial agreement with this view are J. B. Mayor and Alfred Plummer, the latter thus commenting on Jude 6:
This second instance of the impure angels has nothing to do with the original rebellion of Satan, or fall of angels. The reference is either to Genesis 6:2 or (mote probably) to passages in the Book of Enoch.
(Or? As I am so fond of doing, Both, as the passages in the Book of Enoch led to what is contained in Genesis 6:2.)
"The evil angels that are free and who did not leave "their proper habitation," designated "Satan and his angels" (Matt. 25:41), or "the dragon and his angels" (Rev. 12:7), are the "powers of the air" (Eph. 2:2), the "demons" (Matt. 12:24), over whom Satan is called "prince," and are to be carefully distinguished from the evil angels who did leave "their proper habitation," and who are not spoken of as "his angels" over whom he is "prince," or as the "powers of the air," for they are locked up in deep imprisonment, awaiting judgment, forever beyond Satan's sway and leadership. These are properly "the fallen angels" who are bound in distinction to "the demons" Satan's marshalled host who are free.
"But the fact must not be overlooked that all demons are not free. In addition to the vast hosts who are at liberty, and serve in Satan's ethereal hegemony, other innumerable multitudes are bound, not indeed in Tartarus with the fallen angels, but in the abyss (Luke 8:31: Rev. 9:1, 2, 10), apparently a temporary prison-house of evil spirits.
(Destroyer angels yo)
From this dismal dungeon they shall be let loose to afflict, deceive, and energize wicked earth-dwellers in the last awful scenes of godless rebellion with which this age shall end.
(We are seeing it being intensified right now UAP's)
"As to the cause or occasion of the imprisonment of these demons, practically nothing is revealed..."
Because they aren't demons but Gods destroyer angels.
Luke 11:15
but some of them said, “It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that He drives out demons.”
Revelation 9:11
They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
Satan aint a king.
And
"that is, Destroyer".
Compare
Exodus 12
Exodus 12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
Exodus 12:13
13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
Exodus 12:23
For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
Exodus 12:29
And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Exodus 12:48
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
I think its pretty obvious who the King of the destroyer angels is.
Not to mention:
Consider:
Joshua 5:13-15
13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?
15 And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
"Captian"
here renders:
8269. sar
Strong's Concordance
sar: chieftain, chief, ruler, official, captain, prince
of the Lords host.
And relax about prince in this conotation:
Revelation 1:5
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And as to why are the destroyer angels being held at bay? Like the author says it doesnt say, but if you were God, and angels, at least some, have been given free will, and you see what kinds of terrible things they have caused, and you are only going to use them in the most extreme of circunstances (like we are in today),
WOULDNT YOU KEEP THEM CONFINDED AWAY TILL YOU NEED THEM?
Okay seriously my brain is about to melt right now...thats three solid days of putting this together...
I pray it enlightens and educates who it needs to.
Amen.
