Things New & Old

Ancient truths revealed in the Scriptures are often forgotten, disbelieved or distorted, and therefore lost in the passage of time. Such ancient truths when rediscovered and relearned are 'new' additions to the treasury of ancient truths. Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.

There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things"
2Ti 2:7.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

They saw the daughters of men that they were FAIR

It came to pass that the sons of God
saw the daughters of men that they were fair

Verse 2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

a. "That the sons of God..."
Who were they? There are two main opinions on this: the popular one, they were the godly men from the elect line, and the unpopular one, they were fallen angelic beings who have taken upon themselves real human flesh, thus indistinguishable from men.

It is my opinion that the former is not only woefully inadequate to explain the hard facts presented in Gen 6, it also involves much inconsistencies and contradictions. We will discuss these as we go along. I have alluded to some of them in the commentary on verse 1 above. []

The term "sons of God" like the term "daughters of men" simply indicates the origin of both, the former from God, the latter from men. Adam is said to be the son of God (Luke 3:38) because he came directly from God, i.e. of God, and not of men. The two terms say nothing about godliness or ungodliness. Such ideas are read into the passage, necessitated by the prior presupposition that the passage speaks of mixed-marriage. In Job, angels are called sons of God.

In Genesis 19, the two men sent by God to do His errands were angelic beings who had taken upon themselves human flesh. Did Lot know that the two men were actually sons of God?  “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” Heb 13:2.

That the angelic beings have the ability to take on human flesh, and interact as real men with men and women of Adam's race is an established fact. What could prevent some fallen angels to do the same in Gen 6, against the will of God, with the ultimate intention of corrupting the human race in order to have it destroyed, and to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the woman who will crush Satan's head?

Supposing the "sons of God" were godly men indeed as many imagined, how did they end up doing such ungodly thing, lusting after and marrying the women of the ungodly line?  Does the Scriptures ever ascribe such lofty term to designate people of such character? Some avoid this obvious difficulty by proposing the ingenious idea that "sons of God" indicated sonship only without any reference to godliness, i.e. they were God's children but manifest no godliness, which explains their lusting for and uniting with the ungodly women of the non-elect line! Do the Scriptures ever waste and squander such title on men of such character? I seriously doubt it.

b. "The daughters of men..."
Who were they? As explained before the term simply means the female offspring of men. The context clearly requires that. But the popular and common idea is that these were the ungodly women of the non-elect line. What's the basis of such idea? None, but the presupposition that the passage speaks of mixed marriage with the necessary idea that the daughters of men must be women of the ungodly line since the "sons of God" have been taken to mean men of the godly line.

This idea implies that verse 1 is describing the procreating activities of the so called ungodly line, producing ungodly female offspring. The ludicrous nature of this idea has been indicated above. Gen 6:1 is the continuation of the long account in Gen 5, making such idea more ludicrous!

c. "The daughters of men that they were fair..."

The "sons of God" saw something in the daughters of men, that they were fair. What does that mean?
The common and popular idea is that those ungodly women of the ungodly lines were beautiful and attractive and seductive, and the supposedly godly men ("sons of God") lusted for them, and took them as wives. If fairness was the only thing about those women of the ungodly line that attracted the "sons of God", it begs a question, "weren't there similarly fair women among those of the godly line? Were fair women born and raised in the ungodly line only? I speak as a fool!

Did the fairness have anything to do with the outward beauty of the daughters of men? Was it the outward beauty of the daughters of men that drew the attention of the sons of God towards them? Did that kind of thing happen in the prior 15 long centuries? May be there were no fair women among the ungodly line then, so that didn't happen. Suddenly after 15 centuries fair women were born in the ungodly line, and attracted the godly men of the godly line!

The word translated "fair" has several other distinct meaning apart from the idea of outward beauty. Take a look at this link, and take careful note of the various meaning of the word translated "fair" in Gen 6:2.

This includes the idea of goodness as in being beneficial, useful, appropriate, and valuable. In what sense were the daughters of men were beneficial, useful, appropriate and valuable to the sons of God? What about them, the FEMALE offspring of men, were seen as beneficial, useful, appropriate and valuable to the sons of God? The answer is very simple: it is the FEMALENESS of the daughters of men that is perfectly suited, useful, and valuable for the evil scheme of the sons of God to multiply themselves among men, with the specific purpose of corrupting the whole mankind, and have it destroyed by the righteous God.

When it is suggested that the sons of God are angelic beings, everyone knows enough to rightly retort, "but angels neither marry nor are given in marriage." But they fail, or refuse to acknowledge the simple biblical fact that angelic beings are capable of becoming real men, taking upon themselves human flesh, and have real interaction with sons and daughters of men. Take a look at the angels/men in Gen 19.

When elect angels took flesh and became men, they did so temporarily, and at the will of God, running divine errands. But when the fallen angels did the same, it was against God's will, and left their own habitation, and intruded into the human habitation. They SINNED for doing so. They kept not their first estate - the estate ordained for them in the spirit realm. Read 2Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6 - do they make some sense to you now?

2Pet 2:4-5
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Jude 6. 
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Peter informed us of the fact that those angels sinned; Jude disclosed the nature of the sin committed by those angels. Both spelt out the divine judgment that came upon those angels that sinned in the manner stated.

Please note also that verses 4 and 5 are mentioned in the same breath by Apostle Peter. They are related.

d. So, what is described in Gen 6:2? 
Fallen angels saw that the daughters of men were fair, i.e. they were useful and suited for executing their grand scheme. So they took upon themselves human flesh, and became real men, as real as the two angels became men. They probably became some of the most attractive dazzling men of the time, thus making themselves attractive and irresistible to the daughters of men. This is implied in the words, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." They did so with great ease, probably picking daughters of prominent and influential households to produce offspring that were described as "giants... mighty men... men of renowned." In what sense were they giants, mighty men and men of renown? Just read the effect they had upon Noah's world.

Did the people of Noah's generation know what happened? No, none of them.

Did the LORD see it? Read Gen 6:3. Nothing caught God by surprise.

Did the Jews know it? Peter and Jude knew the incident, and they took it for granted that the recipients of their epistles knew it. They stated that ANCIENT event in a matter-of-factly without further explanation. Read 2Pet 2:4-5, and Jude 6.

Do you know it? You can, and you should. The Scriptures has revealed it to us, to instruct us about the glorious grace of God. Grace triumphed AGAIN, Satan thwarted again. Grace was shown in a completely hopeless situation. 

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

"And it came to pass..." after 15 long centuries!

"And it came to pass... " after those 15 long centuries uneventful process,
something out of the normal intruded into that ancient living process.

Some recent exchanges with a few good brethren on Genesis 6 has been profitable. It is found here:

Any attempt to study the Scriptures is good for me - any traditions I have inherited and any fables I have imbibed will be dispelled, and truth will be recovered and learned. Of course, it ALSO have the adverse effect of hardening me, such that I become more entrenched in erroneous views. May the Lord save me from that! I pray the same for you too!

Let us visit Gen 6 again. Take another look if you will. Just consider the few words, "And it came to pass..."

Some facts we may wish not to overlook, and some questions we may wish not to ignore.

Gen 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them."

 "And it came to pass...": 
What had been happening in the history of men before that event came to pass? 
The procreating activities of men [אָדָם , 'adam] had been going on for a long time before the incident recorded in Gen 6:2 came to pass. The flood came in the year 1656 since the creation week [see the link here for the figure:].

We need to move back 120 years to account for the period mentioned in Gen 6:3, which seem to mark the beginning of what is described in Gen 6:2. Therefore, when "it came to pass" around the year 1536, the race of Adam had been procreating for more than 1500 years, in simple obedience to the LORD's plain command to His creature man to be fruitful and multiply. Marrying, and giving in marriage were happening for more than 15 centuries, then activity described in Gen 6:2 came to pass. Everything was usual during those 15 long centuries of human procreating. But when the "sons of God" entered into the equation, they set off a process that brought the destruction of the old world.

Sons of men and daughters of men, i.e. male and female offsrping of men, had been coming together as husbands and wives during those 1500 plus years, begetting more sons and daughters. The Scriptures give no indication whatsoever of any distinction, eg. race, colour, genealogical line, etc. involved in all those unions for 15+ centuries. This does not restrain sincere Bible students from reading all kind of fastastic ideas into those 15 centuties men's procreating activity. 

For example, many believe that men in those long centuries were distinctly divided into the godly line, and the ungodly line; that the twolines were clearly segregated and with no intermarriage between the two lines. Those of the godly line married ONLY those of the godly line, and those of the ungodly line married those of the ungodly line. That status quo was maintained for 15 long centuries. But after 15 centuries of such neat and strict segregation, the barrier began to break down because "it came to pass" that the so-called "sons of God" (i.e. the men of the godly line) began to lust after the women of the ungodly line. The union of the godly and the ungodly brought forth very special children, "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." 

Others suggest that those of the godly line kept themselves separated from the ungodly line because of their conscious knowledge of the plain commandment given to them by God, forbidding them to intermarry with those from outside the line. They also add that those of the godly line had entered into a covenant with God, vowed to marry only those of the godly line. That explains how the the so called godly line was kept pure and unadulterated for 15 plus centuries. But after 15 long centuries, that godly resolve broke down, and the men of the godly line began to lust after the women of the ungodly line, and united with them. (May be there were no more fair women of their own line!!!)

[Before moving further, let me state here that the "godly line" of the Scriptures - a biblical truth but grievously misunderstood by many - consists ONLY of those individuals who were links in the thin and narrow chain that joined the first Adam to the second Adam, Jesus Christ. There is no godly line apart from that. Even then, there was little godliness found in many of the links that formed that genealogical line. There was little godliness even in the nation of Israel. The simple truth is that God's elect were conceived and born among all the descendants of Adam, the lines represented by Cain and Seth. God's children, whether men or women, were found among them. There was a godly line only because the seed of the woman had been promised, and that line is traced carefully. 

Moreover this idea of the godly and ungodly lines necessarily assume that all those born into the respective line are godly and ungodly too, i.e. the godly beget the godly, and thus perpetuate the godly race, and the ungodly perpetuate the ungodly and continued that line, i.e. they beget their own kind! Without this ludicrous idea, how could there be two distinct lines, the godly in contrast to the ungodly. How could that even be possible? May be some would glibly retort, "nothing is impossible with God"!]

b.  "When men began to multiply" : 
Chapter 5 has shown repeatedly the plain fact that when men do multiply, they beget "sons and daughters."  This is true of all men, regardless of whether they are from the so called godly line or the ungodly line. When men procreate, sons of men and daughters of men come together and beget "sons and daughters." The male offspring are "sons of men" and the female offspring are "daughters of men." The terms "sons of men" and "daughters of men" simply refer to the male and female offspring of men respectively, without any other distinction attached to those terms. They apply equally to the offspring of both the so called godly and ungodly lines. They simply indicate their origin - of men. 

 "... when men began to multiply" - to whom does the noun "men" refer? One's answer to this simple question has serious implications. The mixed-marriage view necessarily imply that the men here refer to those of the non-elect line. This is because they insist that the "daughters of men" mentioned in Gen 6:2 are the offspring of the men mentioned in Gen 6:1, and since they insist that those "daughters of men" were ungodly women of the non-elect line, thus the necessary implication is that the men, the procreators of those "daughters of men" were of the non-elect line. The noun "men" and the pronoun "them" are co-extensive. "Men" procreated, daughters were born to those men, and the "daughters of men" were their offspring. The obvious connection cannot be denied.

Also, the fact that Gen 6:1 comes right after the long account in Gen 5 of men multiplying themselves begetting "sons and daughters" is enough to dismiss that notion.

c. ".. when men began to multiply on the face of the earth..."
"On the face of the earth" indicates the extensiveness of the spread of men over the face of the earth, and this is quite in line with the fact the procreating process had been going on for more than 1500 years, beginning with Adam, and his offspring. Adam and Eve, the first parents, started multiplying on a little spot on earth, but after 1500 of such procreating activities, men were doing it was on a much wider scale, i.e. "on the face of the earth."

d. "...and daughters were born unto them,"
I have endeavoured to show that Gen 6:1 is a general description of the procreating activity of the human race. But the focus is now shifted upon the female offspring of men, thus "daughters" were born to them. It was not because only daughters, and no sons, were born to such unions. They were daughters of men, the female offspring of men in general. They, the female offspring of men became the centre of attention because the "sons of God" saw them as "fair", and united with them. That union started the chain of events that finally led to the divine judgment by universal flood. 

What happened in Gen 6:2 is distinct from what was happening in Gen 6:1. It was NOT a procreating activities involving the sons of men and the daughters of men, the activities stated in Gen 6:1. It is the procreating activity involving the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" - that is the reason for the emphasis on the daughters in the previous statement.  The sons of men - the male offspring of men were not involved. 

All the procreating activities prior to this had gone on ordinarily during those 15 long centuries until the "sons of God" entered the picture. When the "sons of God" entered the picture, it set off a chain of events, and consequences  that eventually brought the total and universal moral corruption, and the destruction of the old world. 

Many attribute this to men of the godly line lusting and itching after the women of the ungodly line as the cause that led to the universal and total moral corruption stated in Gen 6:4. This notion also presupposes that such mixed-union did not happen before in the previous 15 centuries, as noted earlier. Or perhaps it had never happened in such a widespread manner, but in Gen 6 the vast majority of godly men became devil possessed and acted the way they did! 

.... to be continued.

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Whatever happened to the "sons of God" in Gen 6?

"Now, lawyers learn very early in practice
a cardinal rule of cross-examination:
do not ask the question
the answer to which you do not already know.
layman’s terms : DO NOT TEMBAK BUTA-BUTA
[i.e. don't ever shoot blindly].
The reason : because the unexpected answer
may end up as mud on your face."
-- Haris Ibrahim.

Whatever happened to the "sons of God" - understood by very many as GODLY MEN - in Noah's time?

Gen 6:1-2
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,  2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
What happened to ALL those "sons of God" in Noah's day?

Some say Noah preached for 120 years before the flood came. That's a long period; let's halve it - 60 years is not short. We know with certainty that NONE of those "sons of God" believed despite Noah's years of preaching.

So are you saying that despite all those long years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness, yet none of those sons of God - whom you claim are godly men - believed nor repented! All those "sons of God" - whom you claim were godly men - did they perished in the flood?

What kind of godly men have you imagined - men who bore such a grand sounding title "the sons of God" but who lusted after ungodly women because of their beauty; and that none repented nor were converted during those long years under the ministry of a faithful preacher of righteousness?

Do these questions alert you to something very unusual and sinister in Gen 6?
Do these questions cause you to wonder whether "sons of God" were indeed godly men?

There were GODLY MEN, as many imagined, yet long years of preaching by a preacher of righteousness DID NOT convert even one of them to righteousness. Instead, that whole generation of your GODLY MEN - not even one believed in those long years of preaching but perished in the flood! Is that what you believe?

You still believe that the "sons of God" are godly men, and not something else?

And here is one more matter to consider.
2Pet 2:9 ,declares "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."

Surely you would agree that these precious words apply to the godly men you find in Gen 6:2. So, if the "sons of God" were godly men indeed - as you imagined - my conclusion is: either God FAILED catastrophically in knowing how to deliver your "godly men" Gen 6, or this Scriptures is entirely untrue - because all the "godly men" you imagined perished in the flood!!!

So, which is which - God didn't know those godly men, or God could not deliver them; or is apostle Peter making a completely untrue statement?

Whatever, live with the implications of your view.

Go here to this FB page to read some interesting exchange, if you are interested on the subject: