Evil

1. The Four Views of the Sons of God Having Ability to Mate with Humans Genesis Ch 6:1-8

📷 The Evil Brother 📷📷

📷n a small town, there were two brothers who, over the course of many years, cheated, swindled, robbed and generally stole from everyone that they ever did business with.       The entire town and surrounding community reviled and despised these two brothers as everyone was aware of just how disreputable and dishonest they were.       One day, one of the brothers mysteriously died.       Although they had never attended church, the one remaining brother went to the local pastor and offered vast sums of money if he would come to the funeral and say the appropriate words, AND, a large bonus, but ONLY if he would - during the course of the eulogy -refer to his brother as "a Saint."       The pastor was troubled by the request, however, it was a very poor church and the church desperately needed repairs.       The Parishioners had heard about the pastor's dilemma and were curious as to what he would do.       The Funeral began, the church was packed, and the pastor started with the usual prayers and followed the rites and traditions as required by the churches teachings. In closing, after referring to the man in the box, he paused and turned to face the remaining brother.       He began, "As you all know, the departed was an awful individual who robbed, cheated, swindled and stole from everyone he ever did business with.       However, compared to his Brother, he was - "a Saint!"

"We have met the enemy and he is us.

Pogo.

Burke once said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

A. Sons of God as Divine Beings

The sons of God may be divine beings (e.g., angels). If so, the error they committed was a transgression of the human realm by these heavenly beings. Their involvement with human women led to a widespread breakdown in morality and an increase in wickedness and corruption. The Hebrew grammar of could indicate that the offspring of these unions is the nephilim () who were considered quasi-divine and possessed unusual height (“giants”; ).

This was the dominant view among Jewish and Christian thinkers until after the fourth century AD, when church father Augustine championed an alternative. It was also the exclusive view until the mid-second century AD. It appears in early extrabiblical Jewish works that comment on the stories of Genesis (1 Enoch 6; Jubilees 5; the Damascus Document 2.17–19; Genesis Apocryphon 2.1); it also appears in the work of the writers Philo (On Giants 2:358) and Josephus (Antiquities 1.31). In addition, this was the view of the early church fathers Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.

The view is based on the fact that elsewhere in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” (benei elohim or benei ha-elohim; , ) is used exclusively for divine beings (; ; ). Similar phrases, along with overt references to plural divine beings (elohim, elim), also appear in the Old Testament (; ; ). Furthermore, all of these phrases and terms appear in Canaanite literature contemporary with the biblical world and are used to describe divine beings.

Faithlife Study Bible Genesis 6 and the Sons of God

Sons of God as Human Rulers

B.Sons of God as Human Rulers

Faithlife Study Bible Genesis 6 and the Sons of God

The sons of God could be understood as human rulers—kings. Thus, “daughters of men” may refer to the harems of these kings. In this case, the sin in question would be polygamy. The offspring would be humans born into the kingly line.

The earliest date for this viewpoint is the mid-second century AD. This view developed as a result of the belief that angels could not engage in sexual intercourse.

Evidence for this view comes from the reference to the Davidic king as the son of God in Psalm 2:7 (compare 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13). It is further supported by other ancient Near Eastern beliefs that kings were divine or semi-divine.

However, the major weakness of this view is its inability to account for the unusual offspring, who seem to be the nephilim (Gen 6:4; compare Num 13:33). Also, while ancient Near Eastern parallels refer to individual kings as sons of the Gods, there are no instances where the plural phrase (“sons of God”) refers to human royalty. Furthermore, while ancient Near Eastern cultures considered their kings to be divine or quasi-divine, no ancient Near Eastern evidence exists for an aristocratic household at large being considered divine sons.

C.Sons of God as Godly Descendants of Seth

Heiser, M. S. (2012, 2016). and the Sons of God. In Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Heiser, M. S. (2012, 2016). and the Sons of God. In Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Faithlife Study Bible Genesis 6 and the Sons of God

In the fourth century AD, Augustine argued that the sons of God are the godly male descendants of Seth. Here, the “daughters of men” represent the ungodly females of Cain’s line. The sin is the intermarriage of godly and ungodly humans, and the offspring are humans.

There are several weaknesses to this view. First, nowhere in the Old Testament are Sethites identified as the sons of God. Second, this view forces two divergent meanings on the Hebrew word ʾadam in Genesis 6:1–2: the term would have to mean “mankind” in Genesis 6:1, but a specific group of humans—the Cainites—in Genesis 6:2. Additionally, this view implies that all the women of Cain’s line were ungodly, whereas all the men of Seth’s line were godly. While this might be averted by noting that no law existed prohibiting intermarriage of any kind prior to the great flood, this would in turn undermine the entire premise of the view. Also, since only Noah and his family were considered godly in the days of the flood, we can presume that the vast majority of Seth’s descendants were far from godly; Seth had more than one descendant (Gen 5:7). Lastly, the daughters born in the previous chapter of Genesis were born to Seth’s line, not Cain’s—the precise opposite of what this explanation requires.

D. New Testament Views

Faithlife Study Bible Genesis 6 and the Sons of God

Two passages in the New Testament may allude to this tradition. In 2 Peter 2:4, God “did not spare the angels who sinned, but held them captive in Tartarus with chains of darkness and handed them over to be kept for judgment.” The next verse situates the sin and punishment at the time of the flood: God “did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a proclaimer of righteousness, and seven others.” The writer connects this illustration to “licentious ways” (2 Pet 2:2) and “defiling lust” and despising of authority (2 Pet 2:10). More specifically, he strikes an analogy with the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:6–7). Thus, the passage seems to indicates angelic sin of a sexual nature at the time of the flood.

The letter of Jude (Jude 5–7) takes the same view, using some of the same language. While Jude does not refer to Noah and the Flood as 2 Peter does (2 Pet 2:5), both passages reference the same episode. Second Peter and Jude demonstrate that the episode of Genesis 6 involved “angels,” and a decision made by those divine beings to cross a divinely ordained boundary—God’s authority or out of their proper dwelling.

MICHAEL S. HEISER

What is your viewpoint based on the evidence cited to you?

2.Evil Seeded Into Mankind

A. Death in Adam, Life in Christ

Death in Adam, Life in Christ

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

The New King James Version. (1982). (). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

The New King James Version. (1982). (). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

B. Its Not that the Devil is Getting Smarter He’s Still Doing the Same Old Things

1.Ghost busters 2 has a scene in witch the boys find a river of evil under NewYork city and it feeds off of the negativity of the people and it is growing.

2. We give harbor or refuse to evil because we harbor it and feed it. It is our nature.

3. The Coming Great Deception Will say that Aliens Planted Mankind here. The Evil has already Been Seeded.

2. We give harbor or refuse to evil because we harbor it and feed it. It is vharbor it and feed it. It is ur naturee