Is Satan still creating a dark army through impregnating the human race?

Ok so the biblical story goes...

The angels who were cast out of heaven are now wandering the earth as the father of demons and after their fall started to sleep with human women and even impregnated them.

The offspring from this union was a half cast flesh/spirit being which the bible alludes to in several places as much more powerful than a normal man.

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, as well as later, when the sons of God slept with the daughters of other humans and had children by them. These children were famous long ago.

Did this ever stop? or were the following generations of offspring able to blend without any sign of corruption that would expose their true self?

Ephesians 6:12: For our struggle is not against human opponents, but against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers in the darkness around us, and evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm.

Now days....

The world is a violent place, full of crime and corruption. Slowly this world is getting worse as time passes and will continue to to do so until its destruction.

Ephesians 2:2 describes a spirit who works within "the children of disobedience."
John 13:2 describes how Satan "put into" Judas Isariot's mind the decision to betray Jesus.
Acts 5:3 describes how Satan filled Ananias' heart with the decision to lie to the Holy Ghost about the proceeds of a real estate sale.


Demons are still giving birth to demons!

Their flesh may be human, but within themselves whether they know it or not, their soul may have been possessed by an un-natural and dark force since before their birth.

Satan is creating an army by the dirty act of seeding humans through the hybridization of un-clean spirit into flesh - by flesh.

Another words, a man who is possessed by a demon and impregnates a women may also be sowing the seeds of evil by producing a baby possessed before birth.


Leaving you with a wonderful story of a demon being evicted from its flesh temple..


Jesus Heals a Demon-Possessed Boy

14When they returned to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd surrounding them, and some teachers of religious law were arguing with them. 15When the crowd saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with awe, and they ran to greet him.

16“What is all this arguing about?” Jesus asked.

17One of the men in the crowd spoke up and said, “Teacher, I brought my son so you could heal him. He is possessed by an evil spirit that won’t let him talk. 18And whenever this spirit seizes him, it throws him violently to the ground. Then he foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid.d So I asked your disciples to cast out the evil spirit, but they couldn’t do it.”

19Jesus said to them,e “You faithless people! How long must I be with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.”

20So they brought the boy. But when the evil spirit saw Jesus, it threw the child into a violent convulsion, and he fell to the ground, writhing and foaming at the mouth.

21“How long has this been happening?” Jesus asked the boy’s father.

He replied, “ Since he was a little boy 22The spirit often throws him into the fire or into water, trying to kill him. Have mercy on us and help us, if you can.”

23“What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. “Anything is possible if a person believes.”

24The father instantly cried out, “I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief!”

25When Jesus saw that the crowd of onlookers was growing, he rebuked the evil spirit. “Listen, you spirit that makes this boy unable to hear and speak,” he said. “I command you to come out of this child and never enter him again!”

26Then the spirit screamed and threw the boy into another violent convulsion and left him. The boy appeared to be dead. A murmur ran through the crowd as people said, “He’s dead.” 27But Jesus took him by the hand and helped him to his feet, and he stood up.

28Afterward, when Jesus was alone in the house with his disciples, they asked him, “Why couldn’t we cast out that evil spirit?”

29Jesus replied, “This kind can be cast out only by prayer.”

No.

There is no satan.
No nephilim.
No forces acting upon us.
Only cruel, selfish evil men.
Any excuse, but responsibility.

If demons are impregnating women, wouldn't it show up in DNA?

It seems to me that the legend goes, God created a flood and saved Noah and his family because they were pure. I think that means DNA pure. Everybody else was extinguished.

I think the legend puts an end to the "cross breeding" idea, at least until we do it ourselves in labratories.

reply to post by FoxfilesMulder


Short answer, in fact the only answer: no.
Look you can live your life free of this Bronze Age fantasy. Christianity is pretty much fear based and gives nothing of any worth. Shed it and grow, be free of it, I did and I'm a happier human being for it, I and many who came before me and many who may live afterwards. Shed this rubbish and be free.

Nephilium were only men. Not much more to say after that. However if you want to miss interpret the ENTIRE bible you're in good company............

The Bible is a fun little story and a decent history book. If it's anything beyond that it's is being made such by your mind.

reply to post by tonyJ


I shed the church I was brought up in, which was a cult.

I shed most of the doctrine they taught!

I have also shed taking the all the bible as literal fact.

But I will never shed Jesus as my king.

And I think the bibles stories etc needs to be read and interpreted between the lines to find a deeper truth.

reply to post by FoxfilesMulder
I'll have to say no.

First off, these weren't fallen angels or those cast out of heaven in the fall. This was a troop of 200 angels, a special class called the Watchers (or Grigori). The Book of Enoch elaborates on this event.

The Watchers were appointed by God to oversee the development and lives of men on earth, but then lusted for the daughters of men and impregnated them, also teaching mankind the secrets of heaven (educating them in the arts of war, weaponmaking, the sciences, self-beautification, and a good many other things man has abused throughout the years), in part contributing to the increase of violence upon the earth, as well as their hybrid and giagantic offspring who had a lust for blood and power - this led to the increasing wickedness that resulted in the flood.

The remnant of these Watchers were bound and imprisoned under the earth in Tartarus (as discussed in the books of Jude and Peter, I believe), and await the day of judgement. I've never HEARD of any other instances of any angels impregnating humans or bearing hybrid offspring, so in my opinion this was likely isolated to the time and may likely be the origin of so many stories of demigods and the like on earth, and related fantastical tales.

Then again, I'm still unsure about the supposed fall of Satan and if is literal or figurative, or even when is supposed to take place (if hasn't already). In Job, Satan is still attending the heavenly board meetings, the bible recounts him arguing with Michael over the body of Moses, and by all accounts he seems to still be playing his role as heavenly prosecuting attorney and tempter of man until we get into the book of Revelation...which we might possibly be mistaking?

So much iffyness...I tend not to worry about the devil - man has more than enough wickedness of his own to worry about dealing with, I don't think Satan, one way or the other, really has to worry about making evil offspring when he can just continue to get us to damn and harm ourselves as per his original job description.

reply to post by Praetorius


Thanks for the reply.

Heres something that may be linked with what you say.

Judges 9:23: "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem..."
1 Kings 22:23: "...behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets..."
1 Samuel 16:14: "But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him." (KJV)
1 Sam 18:10: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..."
1 Sam 19:9: "And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul..."

reply to post by FoxfilesMulder
Maybe, maybe not. I've never really cared for most of the 'spirit' references in the old testament since I think we might be giving it false weight. All of these are references to hebrew word ruach, which doesn't necessarily refer to an actual spiritual entity, but in a good many cases can refer to breath, wind, moods, desires, and so forth.

If referring to an actual spiritual being, I would assume they'd use one of the words usually translated angel, devil/demon, and so on. Ruach, I think, is subject to too much interpretation.

As far as those actual spiritual beings go, I'm also somewhat unsure on - are they fallen angels? Are they they spirits of the dead giants/Watchers' offspring (as I think Enoch discusses)? I've heard quite a few suggestions.

Anyhow, thanks for the verses, but I can't give them a solid nod on this issue based on the original wording used...might be more along the lines of "negative influence" or some variation of that as compared to 'evil spirit'.

Take care.

Ruach:

07307 // xwr // ruwach // roo'-akh //

from 07306 ; TWOT - 2131a; n f

AV - Spirit or spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4,
vain 2, air 1, anger 1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6; 378

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
1a) breath
1b) wind
1b1) of heaven
1b2) quarter (of wind), side
1b3) breath of air
1b4) air, gas
1b5) vain, empty thing
1c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
1c1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
1c2) courage
1c3) temper, anger
1c4) impatience, patience
1c5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
1c6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable
impulse
1c7) prophetic spirit
1d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
1d1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at
death, disembodied being
1e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
1e1) desire
1e2) sorrow, trouble
1f) spirit
1f1) as seat or organ of mental acts
1f2) rarely of the will
1f3) as seat especially of moral character
1g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit,
coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
1g1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy
1g2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning
1g3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power
1g4) as endowing men with various gifts
1g5) as energy of life
1g6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory
1g7) never referred to as a depersonalised force

Originally posted by FoxfilesMulder
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Thanks for the reply.

Heres something that may be linked with what you say.

Judges 9:23: "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem..."
1 Kings 22:23: "...behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets..."
1 Samuel 16:14: "But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him." (KJV)
1 Sam 18:10: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..."
1 Sam 19:9: "And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul..."

edit on 23-9-2011 by FoxfilesMulder because: (no reason given)

So, it's God that's sending evil spirits out or is it Satan? This God of the Old Testament is so fickle. What about free will? Do these guys have any free will about what comes out of their mouth, or is God forcing them to lie? Did God send an evil spirit to the mouth of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush to lie to us?

What happened to "the Devil made me do it!"?

Seems like this God makes a lot of mistakes. He sent the "watchers" to watch over mankind. but they start lusting after the women? OOPS! That was AFTER he left Satan babysitting Adam and Eve in the garden. Will this guy ever learn?

reply to post by windword


Haha I definitely see your point and something everyone needs to ask themselves at some point.

But God cant be held accountable for the actions of free will, otherwise He would have made us robots.

And God is omnipresent and omnipotent, therefore everything answers to Him. If He wants to test someones faith by sending an evil spirit into someone so they can try to trick them with their forked tongue, then that it what He wills.

Chapter four of Genesis explains the descendants of Cain building cities and creating a civilization. At the end of the chapter it says Eve had another son, named Seth, and when Seth's son, Enosh, was born was the time when the worship of The Lord began.
Then the narrative skips to chapter six, while chapter five is devoted to genealogy. The beginning of six is where the concept of Sons of God and daughters of men, is introduced. The literal wording in the part in four, about the establishment of a worship, is describing a calling on the name of The Lord, so when it says the "sons of God" it just means these people who ave identified themselves with this worship which is acceptable by God.
The result of the intermarriage between the descendants of Seth, and the descendants of Cain, produced the great men of renown.

reply to post by windword
It's definitely one of those tough things to call one way or the other, and moreso to understand clearly.

First off, as to if it's god or satan, possibly both (god doing it through satan - as I mentioned above, satan at least *originally* is/was an agent of god, working as the tester of men to tempt and induce them to seek their own will or prideful elevation/rebelling against god as compared to following his will, an easy enough thing to do when you're merely blessed and have no challeges in life).

As far as free will - of course we always have free will. In my opinion, this is no more a violation of free will than it is when your friends or enemies incite you to do something wicked, either through challenge or temptation. It's still ultimately your decision to act one way or the other in response...although some things may play on our known natural inclinations.

As to "the devil made me do it" - only insofar as you gave into your own desires that he played upon. It's an out, merely passing the buck. Now, I DO believe their might be actual evil spirits that we may open ourselves to, but I don't know if we can truly attribute their like to 'the devil' (quibble quibble, I know).

As far as him making mistakes - I think this goes back to what I originally said; ultimately it's all a test of faith and adherence, and I think, as the bible says, in the end all things will have worked according to and toward the accomplishment of his will. The serpent in the garden was there to test man's reaction, as were the Watchers.

Now, to head this one off, don't take that as god tricks people into spending hell in eternity. Based on the bible itself, I can't substantiate that belief - but it is to test people to see who will persevere and remain loyal to accept the gift of eternal life (which is not extended to the unsaved - they *perish*, not having received the gift or access to the tree of life).

reply to post by jmdewey60
Hi jm.

That's one of the popular interpretations, but breaks with the understanding of those closer to the writing as per the Book of Enoch (quoted in the new testatment so known and in circulation at least by the time of Christ), as well as other appearances of the same term "sons of god" as when the angels and satan meet for council in the book of Job, and related terms also referring to the angels or divine beings in Job 38 and Psalm 29.

Given context and relates usages, I believe the sethian idea falls flat.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Chapter four of Genesis explains the descendants of Cain building cities and creating a civilization. At the end of the chapter it says Eve had another son, named Seth, and when Seth's son, Enosh, was born was the time when the worship of The Lord began.
Then the narrative skips to chapter six, while chapter five is devoted to genealogy. The beginning of six is where the concept of Sons of God and daughters of men, is introduced. The literal wording in the part in four, about the establishment of a worship, is describing a calling on the name of The Lord, so when it says the "sons of God" it just means these people who ave identified themselves with this worship which is acceptable by God.
The result of the intermarriage between the descendants of Seth, and the descendants of Cain, produced the great men of renown.

Just to clear something up pal...

Sons of God must also mean angels because of this verse:

Job 1:6
1:6 Now the day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord – and Satan also arrived among them.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Hi jm.

That's one of the popular interpretations, but breaks with the understanding of those closer to the writing as per the Book of Enoch (quoted in the new testatment so known and in circulation at least by the time of Christ), as well as other appearances of the same term "sons of god" as when the angels and satan meet for council in the book of Job, and related terms also referring to the angels or divine beings in Job 38 and Psalm 29.

Given context and relates usages, I believe the sethian idea falls flat.

The context would indicate what these "sons of God" are, such as a reference to the Elohim, which you would find in Psalms and Job.
There are fake books that use names from real people but that just indicates to me more towards their fakeness, than to their validity.
One such is the Book of Enoch, and another, that I would consider to be not from who it claims to be, which seems to be from around 150 ad, is the Letter of Jude, which repeats concepts that are also found in Enoch. So you have a sort of circular validation between two fake books, one earlier than the other.
You have no contextual argument when it comes to Genesis itself. All you have is speculation from books that are ether not in the canon or should not be in the canon.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The context would indicate what these "sons of God" are, such as a reference to the Elohim, which you would find in Psalms and Job...

...You have no contextual argument when it comes to Genesis itself. All you have is speculation from books that are ether not in the canon or should not be in the canon.

The context does indicate what the sons of god are, insofar as they are contrasted with the daughters of men and the same terminology is clearly used elsewhere to refer to heavenly beings.

As far as a contextual argument, it's more than a bit of a stretch to interpolate that it actually means "holy sons of men", and if you can provide another usage of the term from the old testament clearly referring to men, I would appreciate you posting it for review.

There are fake books that use names from real people but that just indicates to me more towards their fakeness, than to their validity.
One such is the Book of Enoch, and another, that I would consider to be not from who it claims to be, which seems to be from around 150 ad, is the Letter of Jude, which repeats concepts that are also found in Enoch. So you have a sort of circular validation between two fake books, one earlier than the other.

Possible, but it's merely your opinion. Conservative scholars tend to date Jude prior to 90 AD based on internal composition. 2nd Peter shares some of the same issues, but the early church had only a modicum of debate on both and there are accepted (although disputed, of course) reasons to argue an early writing for both.

As to the Book of Enoch, again possible, of course, but the high level a similarity with concepts and usages found elsewhere in the new testament could argue either way. And I am not one to discount an early writing of the church merely because it is not accepted as canon, just as I don't count all opinions in the epistles as scripture. All is useful for some purpose and presents a view of those in the age.

I would also like to bring up the biblical story in Sodom, when Angels of the Lord posed as men and went inside the house, only to be bailed up by a homosexual gang outside wanting to sleep with them.

Clearly angels can take complete human form and not look any different.

So, just because the fallen angels became demons, or fathers of, or whatever you believe, does not mean they grew horribly disfigured faces with fangs and death metal voices.

If they too could take complete human form, then its little imagination to assume they also slept with human women in a diabolical defiance to God.

Corrupting Gods creation through the above mentioned would surely be what they would think is a victory!

reply to post by Praetorius

The context does indicate what the sons of god are, insofar as they are contrasted with the daughters of men and the same terminology is clearly used elsewhere to refer to heavenly beings.

So then, there is no context in Genesis itself to support your position, just as I stated.

As far as a contextual argument, it's more than a bit of a stretch to interpolate that it actually means "holy sons of men", and if you can provide another usage of the term from the old testament clearly referring to men, I would appreciate you posting it for review.

Those are your interpretation of what I said, and not my actual words. And my interpolation is something that needs to be done if you are in the habit of translating from the Hebrew, because the language demands it.
I don't have to show the usage of something I did not say, and you said, as your take on it, having read my previous post. I pointed out the problem and why people don't get it, and that is: at some point, the scribes (or whoever) picked a spot to drop in a big genealogy, which makes an artificial division between the end of chapter four and the beginning of chapter six. If you read the two parts as one, then it is clear what it means, There was a sharp division between the two branches of mankind, one was of Cain, a known murderer, and other was of Seth, a known worshiper of The Lord.

reply to post by jmdewey60

So then, there is no context in Genesis itself to support your position, just as I stated.

That's your opinion, not fact.

Those are your interpretation of what I said, and not my actual words. And my interpolation is something that needs to be done if you are in the habit of translating from the Hebrew, because the language demands it.
I don't have to show the usage of something I did not say, and you said, as your take on it, having read my previous post. I pointed out the problem and why people don't get it, and that is: at some point, the scribes (or whoever) picked a spot to drop in a big genealogy, which makes an artificial division between the end of chapter four and the beginning of chapter six. If you read the two parts as one, then it is clear what it means, There was a sharp division between the two branches of mankind, one was of Cain, a known murderer, and other was of Seth, a known worshiper of The Lord.

Again, your opinion (and no harm or foul in that, but not everyone will agree)...the various divisions in Genesis are also quite well accounted for by the (disputed) Wiseman Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship.

Regardless of why Genesis is formatted the way it is, I believe it's instructive to appeal to history's interpretation of what we're discussing, and the fact there is that apparently all the oldest historical views we have on the matter lean toward the angelic view, with the offspring of Seth only beginning to be offered up as an interpretation roughly around the time of Christ (the angelic view showing up centuries prior to this), and explaining why the angelic view was already so known and popular in the pseudapigraphal writings. The wikipedia pages on "sons of god" and "nephilim" have good sources to research on this, but in short, I'm a firm believer that when researching historical claims, it's best to appeal to the understanding of those closest to the events to get the most likely correct view.

The oldest historical views on the matter cross-referenced with other usages of the actual term itself in my view lay the case to rest. I'll allow it's possible I could be wrong, but I'll need something beyond a later interpretation with what I consider less scriptural support to change my views on it.