The "Flood" in Noah's day--why wasn't that Armageddon enough? (page 6)

return of parakeet

Myelaine/Michelle, please keep in mind that Cold Steel is a Mormon, and any answers to your questions will be based on Mormon beliefs.

cantleave

I love it when people argue that their interpretation of an myth is better than someone elses, it's why I love Star Trek conventions.

myelaine

thank you return of parakeet...

I know. Cold Steel and I have had previous "pm" discussions.

Our Christmas card exchange encouraged further discussion as well.

love michelle

Cold Steel

Who were the sons of God in this scripture, job 38:4-7?
...please keep in mind that Cold Steel is a Mormon, and any answers to your questions will be based on Mormon beliefs.

Well, I'm guilty of being a Mormon, but there are many eschatologies out there that are in full agreement with the LDS views.

The Book of Enoch, though significant in many ways, is not considered part of any modern Christians' canon, and for good reason. Too much of it is suspect. So to buy into the story of the Watchers, one must buy into accepting the Book of Enoch.

Why reject the story of the angels? Yes, it's true that part of the LDS eschatology rejects the notion that angels can become human. Why? Because angels are not men while in the spirit. When born into mortality, angels are then, and only then, human. Thus it is that they cannot materialize bodies. Remember when Jesus appeared after the resurrection?

Luke states:

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24)

Jesus here tells us that spirits don’t have flesh and bones, and if not, how could they marry? Second, marriage is ordained of God and implies commitment. Why didn’t the angels simply have their way with these daughters of men and return once their lusts had been slated?

Third, angels are simply men in another stage of their development. John, on Patmos, saw the glory of the angel he was with and sought to fall on his face and worship it. And the angel bade him not to do so, explaining, “I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren the prophets.” In short, this glorified angel standing beside him had once lived as a prophet. Some criticize the Mormons because Moroni, an ancient prophet who lived in the Western Hemisphere, appeared to Joseph Smith centuries later as an angel. Yet John’s angel announced himself as “of thy brethren the prophets.”

Marriage is honorable among even heathen nations. How could spirit beings without bodies of flesh and bones “marry” flesh and blood humans? Was God not watching? Did they sin before He could stop them?

Scriptural exegesis should be limited to people who can interpret scripture by inspiration. That’s why it’s not a matter of any personal interpretation. But who has the Spirit today, and who can speak intelligently, authoritatively and decisively about this verse? According to scripture, the only time the angels “sinned” was in the beginning, when Satan and his angels rebelled and were cast down to the earth. Here they can influence us, seduce us and cause us to stumble, but nowhere do we read that there were two rebellions.

One commentary reads:

Joseph Hong believes that Genesis 6:1-4 has gone through drastic abridgment by either the original writer or later editors. Nahum M. Sarna believes that the text defies certain interpretation, based on difficulties with the text's themes, extreme terseness, vocabulary and syntax. Sarna postulates that such a passage cannot be other than a fragment, or bare outline, from a well-known fuller story.

So who’s to say? From a logical stance, I see no difference between the angels in Heaven and man. “Angels” simply means “sent ones” as does “apostles.” Angels can thus appear as spirits before they live mortal lives or they can appear as physical beings after their resurrection. But they are incapable of sinning once they begin representing God.

Jesus said that angels were not capable of marrying or giving in marriage (Matthew 22:30).

Theologian R.C. Sproul, Jr., in one commentary, puts it this way:

There are several competing theories on this admittedly peculiar text, a few of them fantastic, at least one of them rather pedestrian, ordinary. Some suggest, for instance, that what is happening here is that angels, typically fallen angels or demons, are intermarrying with human women. My position is the far more pedestrian one, but one that carries with it an important lesson.
First, why I reject this more fantastic view. Angels, whether fallen or not, and though I am happy to concede they can appear in human form, are spirit beings. They have no bodies. Most of the time most of us remember this, though here some seem to forget. Because angels are spirit beings they are not equipped to consummate a marriage and to sire offspring. Demons can do all sorts of shocking and even frightening things. This, however, is not one of them. They can’t bring forth giants because they simply can’t bring forth.

Thus, the texts that seem to support the fallen angel point of view really doesn’t when one considers that these “Sons of God” are people of the Covenant, bound to God, sinning and being enticed and led astray by the “Daughters of Men.”

With so many possibilities, scriptures like this must be interpreted by men of God, called and ordained by such.

cofty

With so many possibilities, scriptures like this must be interpreted by men of God, called and ordained by such.

How VERY cultish.

Heaven

LOL @ cantleave.

I guess to answer the original question, due to our inability to be perfect and sin-free, sky-daddy has to clean house periodically. He does love to kill so I don't think you can expect anything else from him.

Exodus 15:3: The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name! - New Living Translation

Exodus 15:3: Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name. - American Standard Version

Exodus 15:3: Jehovah is a man of war; Jehovah, his name. - Darby Bible Translation

Exodus 15:3: Yahweh is a man of war. Yahweh is his name. - World English Bible

Exodus 15:3: Jehovah is a man of battle; Jehovah is His name. - Young's Literal Translation

Terry

Cold Steel says: The Book of Enoch, though significant in many ways, is not considered part of any modern Christians' canon, and for good reason. Too much of it is suspect. So to buy into the story of the Watchers, one must buy into accepting the Book of Enoch.

Why do I find it amusingly ironic for you to say that as a Mormon? Would that apply to the Book of Mormon too?

AndDontCallMeShirley

Perhaps ColdSteel has magic spectacles that help him see the Book of Enoch in a way the rest of us mere mortals do not.

Every religion views its unique writings as beyond question and accurate- god's word.

Everything else is doubtful.

"Too much of it is suspect"

That kind of describes a certain book who's revelation is credited to and angel named "Moroni". Or was he simply just a man we could describe as a "son of god" and not a real angel?

Terry

We all have blinders.

What we see as "true" is--of course: TRUE.

But, that other guy? What is he thinking! How silly!

Confirmation bias in spades.

Having to exercise faith is having to admit to no proof.

Making a large assertion that a highly unlikely occurance took place requires a large amount of evidence.

Otherwise, we are angels and we are dancing on each other's pin heads :)

The "Flood" in Noah's day--why wasn't that Armageddon enough?

Share this