The sons of God, demons and evil spirits

[Paleouss]

Greetings to all my brothers and sisters who read this post.

Long story short, I believe God led me to study a particular subject that I was not initially interested in (long story). And the product of that study was 3 essays that I offer to anyone confronted with the desire to explore these topics in a little more depth.

As a spoiler, these essays support the contention that evils spirits and demons are fallen angels, that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are humans, and why the Book of Enoch should not be considered inspired or a text for formulating foundational doctrine.

You may need to sign up for the free Academia.edu account (if you don't have one).

In order of my recommendation.
Demons & Evil Spirits On Earth: A Biblical Account Of Satan And Demonology

Evil Spirits And Demons: An In Depth Look At Why The Book Of Enoch Should Be Questioned

An Exegesis of Genesis 6:1-2 Within Context: The Lineage of “Thy Seed” and “Her seed”

As for here in this post, I will present a logical argument from biblical reasoning that contends that evils spirits and demons could not be a product of fallen angels.

Argument From Reason - God Created All Things Good Concept
(1) God created all things (John 1:3, Rev 4:11, Col 1:16)
(2) Everything that God created was/is first good (Gen 1:31), for God does not have “pleasure in
wickedness” (Psa 5:4).
(3) God created some beings with moral agency (humans and angels).
(4) There is evil in the world.
(5) Therefore, everything that was created was created by God, was first created good, and then
became evil/fallen due to moral agency.
(6) Evil spirits are said to be the offspring of evil, a new species, neither angel nor human that is
created by evil to do evil.
(7) For (6) to be true, either (1b) God did not create all things or (2b) God created evil, to do evil,
and therefore is not all good.
(C) Neither (1b) nor (2b) can be true due to (1) and (2) which are necessarily true.
(C) Therefore, (6) is false.


Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

 

[kyredneck]

that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are humans, and why the Book of Enoch should not be considered inspired or a text for formulating foundational doctrine.

Who were the 'sons of God' here? Humans? I think not::

Job Chapter 1

6​	Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Job Chapter 2

1​	Again it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan came also among them to present himself before Jehovah.

Couldn't possibly be these?:

Jude Chapter 1

6​	And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings kyredneck. I have not interacted with you before, I don't think. I hope you are well and God's blessings abound in your life.

Who were the 'sons of God' here? Humans? I think not::

Job Chapter 1

6​	Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Job Chapter 2

1​	Again it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan came also among them to present himself before Jehovah.

Couldn't possibly be these?:

Regarding your quotes of Job, these uses of the phrase "sons of God" (bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm) is clearly in reference to angels. They are not humans.

However, the Hebrew phrase bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm does not translate to "angels" but to "sons of God". I point this out to demonstrate that the phrase of "sons of God" is a moniker (of sorts). That is, it is a moniker that denotes imagery for 'whose you are'.

Within the rest of the Bible, the imagery of "sons of..." denotes a membership, ethical standard, and favor of God; it denotes ‘whose you are’.
This consistent imagery that sons of God, children of God, daughters of God are reserved for those in the favor and respect of God and his blessings seems to be supported by the fact that no other reference within the Bible gives imagery or a moniker of favor to a fallen angel (or man). But, in fact, fallen angels are depicted within context of “cursed” (Matt 25:41) “leading the world astray” (Rev 12:9), being in Hell and chained (2Pet 2:4), kept in chains under darkness.

On the other hand, angels in the favor and respect of God are called “angels of God” (Gen 28:12, Gen 32:1, Matt 22:30, Luke 12:8, Luke 12:9, Luke 15:10, John 1:51, Hebrews 1:6), “sons of the mighty” (Psalm 89:6), “holy ones” (Psalm 89:5) “holy watchers” (Daniel 4:13)... and … most likely if we are consistent with biblical imagery... “sons of God” (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7).

Satan is described as masquerading as an angel of light (2Cor 11:14), leading the whole world astray (Revelation 12:9). He is a thief (John 10:10), a murderer, and the father of lies (John 8:44). It would appear to stick out as inconsistent within Scripture if the author, with the Spirit inspiring, would give reference to a fallen angel as anything other than evil, sinful, cursed, or fallen. Which is what the angel advocate is saying, that is, that an imagery phrase that is consistent within the biblical text as denoting 'whose you are' as being 'of God' and in His favor is a fallen evil angel in Genesis 6:1-4.

I'll restrict myself to one more point so I don't write an essay here.

(1) Interestingly, Job refers to angels in two other instances within the book of Job using a different Hebrew form of the word angel (Job 4:18, Job 33:23). In both those verses Job uses the Hebrew word mal-awk' (Job 33:23) or its derivative mal·’ā·ḵāw (Job 4:18). These are very common uses of "angel" within the entire Bible. In fact, this Hebrew word mal-awk' is used for “angel” 64x in the Bible. Further, it is also used as a common word for ‘angel’ in the book of Genesis, 8x (Gen 16:7,9,10,11; 21:17; 22:11; 22:15; 31:11).

So a question starts to materialize. Why doesn't Job, and the author of Genesis, use the more common form of 'angel' in these other passages instead of using a phrase of possession in Job 1:6, 2:7, 38:7? The answer is, God wanted those that read it to understand who these people belong to, or in whose favor these people were, i.e., God's. Both uses of "sons of God" in Genesis and Job are denoting that whatever being is being referenced is in membership and favor of God. As is constant with the rest of scripture.

Couldn't possibly be these?:

Jude Chapter 1

6​	And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

I could go on a lot about this also, but I'll keep it short. I hold to just what Jude attest too. That is, that some angels left their "proper domain" (NKJV) and of some of those angels that left that proper domain, some of those also left their "own abode" (NKJV). The latter meaning they came in physical form...and God then chained them.

The procreation of angels with human women...not a thing.

I presented a biblical argument in the previous post that disputed this concept of cross procreation. Here is another biblical logical argument.

Argument from Reason - After Their Own Kind Concept
We are instructed in 1 Corinthians 15:39-40 that “all flesh is not the same flesh”. The two verses go on to tell us that there is “one kind of flesh of men” (1Cor 15:39) and also there are “celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies” (1Cor 15:40). In other words, the flesh of one, men, cannot intermingle with the flesh of another "celestial" because “all flesh is not the same flesh” (1Cor 15:39).

An interesting fact that relates to our inquiry is that God created the species here on earth“ according to their "kind” (Gen 1:24-25) so as not to be able to procreate, intermingle DNA, with other species. Although deviant sexual behaviors can be practiced, humans cannot procreate with bears, horses, cows, nor dogs. Additionally, bears cannot procreate with horses, nor dogs with cows. It is clear that God has created boundaries and limits to what species mankind can procreate with. It would be reasonable to think these boundaries pertained to all species outside of the human race, including angels. Especially if God tells us within His word that there is a "flesh of men" (1Cor 15:39) and a flesh of “celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies” and that they are not the same.

thank you for the conversation
Peace to you brother

 

[kyredneck]

Excellent post, Paleouss.