Chuck Missler The Days Of Noah & Return Of The Nephilim

• And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. — Jude 6,7
  –
• “…in like manner, [ie. in the same way as the fallen angels] giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, ” Comments mine.
  –
• Genesis 6 “Sons of God” – Mischievous Angels or Sethites? 
  by Chuck Missler, http://www.khouse.org/
  Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord’s predictions regarding His Second Coming.¹ 
  –
  The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the “Nephilim.” So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.
  –
  However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the “faithful” lines of Seth separate from the “worldly” line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The “Sons of God” are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the “daughters of men” is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the “Nephilim” remains without any clear explanation.)
  –
  Since Jesus prophesied, “As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,”² it becomes essential to understand what these days included.
  –
  Origin of the Sethite View
  It was in the 5th century a.d. that the “angel” interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The “angel” view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
  –
  Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional “angel” belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox “angel” position with the “line of Seth” interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal “angel” view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
  –
  Problems with the Sethite View
  Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the “Days of Noah.”³ Some of the many problems with the “Sethite View” include the following:
  –
  1. The Text Itself
  Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the “Sethite” view. (In data analysis, it is often said that “if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.”)
  –
  The term translated “the Sons of God” is, in the Hebrew, B’nai HaElohim, “Sons of Elohim,” which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,⁴ and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to “godly leadership” is without Scriptural foundation.⁵
  –
  The “Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain” interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the “angels” and the women of the Earth.
  –
  If the text was intended to contrast the “sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain,” why didn’t it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the “sons of Cain” and the “daughters of Seth?” There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam’s descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
  –
  read more.

end