Violin,

I have written several items on this theme under "spen."  It is my belief and understanding that the Nephilim (from the Hebrew naphal, to fall) are either the fallen angels themselves or their progeny.  I believe that they are the result of sxual intercourse between spiritual beings and women.  I believe that this is a severe sin against "each according to their kinds" and an attempt to destroy the original seed promise given to Eve.  If the genetic "seed" of the woman could be corrupted, then the promise could not be fulfilled.

I believe that this "sin of the sons of God" was what brought about God's direct judgment on the world, only excepting Noah who was pure in his generations.  God's solution for this terrible corrupting sin that afflicted the race of man was, I believe, contained in Gen 6:3 where God says that His Spirit will not always rule over man but his days shall be 120 years.  It is my understanding that this passage refers to a genetic degradation that God set in motion with Noah which found every successive generation living shorter lifespans with the last person recorded with a direct father-to-son lineage of ancestors living 120 years or longer being Moses who lived exactly 120 years.  In Moses' time we see God establishing a rule over His people that was not simply subjective/spiritual experiences but founded on the written words that Moses recorded and the Law that God Himself gave to the people from the smoking mountain with His audible voice.  God's self-revelation had occured and been documented.   In this document, the Torah, Moses looks forward predicting the coming prophet who we are told to listen to - Jesus.  God Himself spoke to men on the mountain confirming this prophecy when He said, "This is my beloved Son.  Listen to HIm."  We find that the New Testament claims that Jesus is indeed the prophet that Moses spoke about as Peter claims in Acts 3, “Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed  (Deut 18:18) to everything He says to you. ‘And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

To me, if the above exigesis is correct, the ability of spiritual beings like fallen angels to tangibly interact with humanity was limited after Moses and his death.  After this we find the descendents of the Nephilim, but after they are killed, we don't find new ones being created.  Prior to Moses we find angels wrestling with men - Jacob.  Angels eating with men - Abraham.  Angels grabbing men by their arms - Lot.  And we find the Nephilim as the product of physical intercourse.  After this time the interactions with spiritual beings becomes visions, sounds and dreams or interaction through physical events like fire consuming offerings.  The two "exceptions" that I have found are angels touching Elijah and setting Peter free from prison.  In both cases, however, the "touch" of the angel occurs while they are sleeping - they aren't exceptions.  Thus, I believe that there is a different economy operating for spirit being/physical being interaction now than pre-Moses.  I believe that Abraham was not a mystic but, because of his lifespan and genetic capabilities that were somehow linked to it, he really did see and hear the promises of God given to him in ways that we no longer are capable of.  He saw God as a tangible being to whom he gave food.  If this concept is true, there will be no more patriarchs.  Men no longer have the genetic capacity that Abraham did.

At the incarnation we find that God bridged this spirit/human gap that was created at the time of Moses in a unique way - He became man Himself to give us the very words of God.  He was born of a virgin, not as the result of some corrupted intercourse.  He actually was God/man.  God became man and again physically interacted with man.  His disciples heard the very words of the Father with real physical ears and beheld God.  Thus, we have a revelation that is sure and certain.  They were not mystics with neew revelations but fishermen who saw, spoke and lived with God Himself.

When Jesus ascended He gave us men to teach us His words.  He chose them Himself in front of human witnesses.  These men witnessed Jesus in His resurrected body and were appointed directly by Jesus in from of witnesses to teach us His words.  John was the last of these men who Jesus directly appointed.  He wrote the last book of the authoritative revelation of God.  When John died the canon was closed.  Now, though we continue to have interactions with the spiritual, we must test our impressions and revelations with the certain Word of the Spirit found in scriptures.  The impressions/revelations that we see/feel/experience that are confirmed in the scriptures are the only ones that we can say with certainty are the Holy Spirit.  All other experiences and revelations are uncertain.

Thus, I disbelieve the book of Mormon and the revelation of the angel Moroni.  I don't disbelieve it because I don't believe that supernatural things may happen.  I disbelieve because the revelation is not confirmed by the sure revelation that we have been given and, on closer scrutiny, it attacks the revelation of the true Christ who came in the flesh and our precious gospel.

Post Edited (Reader) : 3/13/2005 3:30:48 PM (GMT-6)

Hello VFG, in the following you will find the traditional view:

The evil angels

The distinction of good and bad angels constantly appears in the Bible, but it is instructive to note that there is no sign of any dualism or conflict between two equal principles, one good and the other evil. The conflict depicted is rather that waged on earth between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Evil One, but the latter's inferiority is always supposed. The existence, then, of this inferior, and therefore created, spirit, has to be explained.

The gradual development of Hebrew consciousness on this point is very clearly marked in the inspired writings. The account of the fall of our First Parents (Gen., iii) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race. The statement (Gen., vi, 1) that the "sons of God" married the daughters of men is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices, D, E F, and A of the Septuagint read frequently, for "sons of God", oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately, codices B and C are defective in Ge., vi, but it is probably that they, too, read oi aggeloi in this passage, for they constantly so render the expression "sons of God"; cf. Job, i, 6; ii, 1; xxxviii, 7; but on the other hand, see Ps., ii, 1; lxxxviii, & (Septuagint). Philo, in commenting on the passage in his treatise "Quod Deus sit immutabilis", i, follows the Septuagint. For Philo's doctrine of Angels, cf. "De Vita Mosis", iii, 2, "De Somniis", VI: "De Incorrupta Manna", i; "De Sacrificis", ii; "De Lege Allegorica", I, 12; III, 73; and for the view of Gen., vi, 1, cf. St. Justin, Apol., ii 5. It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew word nephilim rendered gigantes, in 6:4, may mean "fallen ones". The Fathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock. In I K., xix, 9, an evil spirit is said to possess Saul, though this is probably a metaphorical expression; more explicit is III B., xxii, 19-23, where a spirit is depicted as appearing in the midst of the heavenly army and offering, at the Lord's invitation, to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Achab's false prophets. We might, with Scholastics, explain this is malum poenae, which is actually caused by God owing to man's fault. A truer exegesis would, however, dwell on the purely imaginative tone of the whole episode; it is not so much the mould in which the message is cast as the actual tenor of that message which is meant to occupy our attention.

The picture afforded us in Job, i and ii, is equally imaginative; but Satan, perhaps the earliest individualization of the fallen Angel, is presented as an intruder who is jealous of Job. He is clearly an inferior being to the Deity and can only touch Job with God's permission. How theologic thought advanced as the sum of revelation grew appears from a comparison of II K, xxiv, 1, with I Paral., xxi, 1. Whereas in the former passage David's sin was said to be due to "the wrath of the Lord" which "stirred up David", in the latter we read that "Satan moved David to number Israel". In Job. iv, 18, we seem to find a definite declaration of the fall: "In His angels He found wickedness." The Septuagint of Job contains some instructive passages regarding avenging angels in whom we are perhaps to see fallen spirits, thus xxxiii, 23: "If a thousand death-dealing angels should be (against him) not one of them shall wound him"; and xxxvi, 14: "If their souls should perish in their youth (through rashness) yet their life shall be wounded by the angels"; and xxi, 15: "The riches unjustly accumulated shall be vomited up, an angel shall drag him out of his house;" cf. Prov., xvii, 11; Ps., xxxiv, 5, 6; lxxvii, 49, and especially, Ecclesiasticus, xxxix, 33, a text which, as far as can be gathered from the present state of the manuscript, was in the Hebrew original. In some of these passages, it is true, the angels may be regarded as avengers of God's justice without therefore being evil spirits. In Zach., iii, 1-3, Satan is called the adversary who pleads before the Lord against Jesus the High Priest. Isaias, xiv, and Ezech., xxviii, are for the Fathers the loci classici regarding the fall of Satan (cf. Tertull., adv. Marc., II, x); and Our Lord Himself has given colour to this view by using the imagery of the latter passage when saying to His Apostles: "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven" (Luke, x, 18). In New Testament times the idea of the two spiritual kingdoms is clearly established. The devil is a fallen angel who in his fall has drawn multitudes of the heavenly host in his train. Our Lord terms him "the Prince of this world" (John xiv, 30); he is the tempter of the human race and tries to involve them in his fall (Matthew, xxv, 41; II Peter, ii, 4: Ephes., vi, 12: II Cor., xi, 14; xii, 7). Christian imagery of the devil as the dragon is mainly derived from the Apocalypse (ix, 11-15; xii, 7-9), where he is termed "the angel of the bottomless pit", "the dragon", "the old serpent", etc., and is represented as having actually been in combat with Archangel Michael. The similarity between scenes such as these and the early Babylonian accounts of the struggle between Merodach and the dragon Tiamat is very striking. Whether we are to trace its origin to vague reminiscences of the mighty saurians which once people the earth is a moot question, but the curious reader may consult Bousett, "The Anti-Christ Legend" (tr. by Keane, London, 1896). The translator has prefixed to it an interesting discussion on the origin of the Babylonian Dragon-Myth.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/14/2005 3:21:20 PM (GMT-6)