The "Nephilim" have arrived!!

[oldsailor29]

It is only tradition that says Moses is the author of Genesis. Tradition is not exegesis. the exegetical view is that Genesis was authored by more than one. Moses may have been one of the authors. The two different stories of creation were written by two different authors. And the two different stories of the flood were written by two different authors. So don't even imagine that anyone can get away with saying Genesis was written by Moses. It just ain't so.

[BobRyan]

The book of Genesis does not "claim" to be written by two or three different writers. It is not exegesis to insert that idea -- it is eisegesis.

Furthermore - the Bible is affirmed to start with the writings of Moses by NT authors Luke 24:27 - so it is not actually too difficult to accept the fact.

in Christ,

Bob

[oldsailor29]

grammatical studies have proven the books of the pentateuch came from several different sources. Moses may have been one of those sources. Yahwehism was possibly introduced by Moses. Nepilim are offspring of "fallen ones."

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Sounds like an interesting book. I always thought the Nephilim were the result of fallen angels mating with human females....they could do that.

______________

I think that is correct Pam, and the reason for the flood. And they will do it again.

Oldsailor

________________

"For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair." The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain's descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." "The children of Seth went in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy." Patriarchs and Prophets, p.81.

sky

*Did not Jesus say that the redeemed will be like the angels in Heaven? When He said that it was in response to whether there would be marriages in Heaven. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in Heaven." Matt.22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35.

[jasd]

QR frame:

/ The casting down of a third of the angels of heaven is an unwarranted extrapolation. We simply do not know. We must assume that Satan’s Rebellion occurred in ages past; whereas, a third of the stars of heaven are ‘cast down to the earth’ (or, the dust thereof) within the framework of the catastrophic thirds in the Apocalypse. Therefor, the ‘locative’ of linguistics assigns the ‘casting down of the third of the stars of heaven’ to a yet to occur event.

Given the parameters, one harmonizes the metaphoric third of the stars of the Apocalypse – with the COI first encountered in Writ through Joseph’s dream... It is difficult to interpret it as other than the COI losing their preeminence in world affairs; falling by the force of not the head of an adversarial and signified Dragon – but by no more than its tail.

/ It seems probable that the angels (watchers) left their estate (Jude) tempted by reasons other than the ordinary things of man. It is conceivable that they had become obsessed with the obvious delights of man and woman as expressed in their passionate responses when engaged in their particular intimacies.

Curiosity, as well desire and covetousness – killed the cat..., or felled the ‘Watchers’.

[jasd]

QR frame:

/ Writ informs that Jesus Christ responded with specificity to a very specific question:

Matt 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Given, that Jesus Christ utilized exactness of phraseology when answering the question posed to Him – one is provided the predicating repetition “in the resurrection” and parses the text with like exactitude. One hardly imagines a ‘matter of judgement (or law) being settled in the arms of angels “in the resurrection” – as venue. One is constrained to extrapolate the rest of verse 30 with like care; that is, with specific utility. The denouement of verse 30 may then be – angels who dwell “in heaven” do not marry.

What of angels who dwell elsewhere?

/ The human ovum is protected by a protein barrier, which, by itself, usually prohibits fertilization by another species; however, enzymes will corrupt that protein barrier – fruit enzymes, for instance. And we know, do we not?—that the human constitution was so much stronger then as now, permitting even marriage between brothers and sisters resulting in progeny. Or do we?

The above being so, the strength of angels with a commensurate constitution in first men and women – why duck soup! Otherwise, ‘fallen’ angels might resort to genetic modification permitting the coital act...

Anyway, we know that man’s bloodline had become so corrupted that by the time of Noah – Gd had to destroy man that the Saviour/Redeemer might be born through woman without the corruption of a violence against nature – or, more importantly, with the corruption of fallen angels in man’s bloodline.

Whew!—wouldn’t Satan have loved that; but whoa, maybe, he even planned it – an impossibly spotted and blemished Saviour/Redeemer? Not!

[BobRyan]

QR frame:

/ Writ informs that Jesus Christ responded with specificity to a very specific question:

Matt 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Given, that Jesus Christ utilized exactness of phraseology when answering the question posed to Him – one is provided the predicating repetition “in the resurrection” and parses the text with like exactitude. One hardly imagines a ‘matter of judgement (or law) being settled in the arms of angels “in the resurrection” – as venue. One is constrained to extrapolate the rest of verse 30 with like care; that is, with specific utility. The denouement of verse 30 may then be – angels who dwell “in heaven” do not marry.

What of angels who dwell elsewhere?

Jesus did not say "only good angels are not given in marriage".

Jesus's argument was about the very nature of Angels - how they were created. They do not form family relationships with each OTHER - (much less engage in procreation with each other). How then do people engage in wild speculation about them being CREATED in a fashion that enables them to procreate and form families NOT ONLY with each other but also "with other species"!!!?

How very catholic - to imagine that God would make them designed for procreation then tell them "not to do it".

How very unlike Christ to use an argument that is of the form "Angels can procreate by design but God who designed them - does not allow them to do it".

How very "odd" that the speculation that inserts demons into man's bloodline - would in fact make Christ the descendant of demons.

Fortunately that is not one of our 28FB.

This is one denomination that did not fall down that rabbit hole.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

QR frame:

/ The casting down of a third of the angels of heaven is an unwarranted extrapolation.

This from someone who speculates for ways to insert evolutionism into the text of scripture and make Christ the descendant of demons??

I am frankly surprised that there is any extrapolation that exceeds your fair-play boundaries. Or are you saying that only the ideas that fit with our actual beliefs are "too much to imagine"??

Anyway I think we get your general idea.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

I have enjoyed reading all of the replies on this thread. Being able to resist adding my bits worth here has finally gotten the best of me.

This is MY opinion: When God gave us the Ten Commandments there were other living gods on this earth and they were also called the giants or the sons of Anak or the Nephilim. It is interesting that these 'gods' were on this earth before the flood and afterwords too. They therefore escaped the flood in some way other than the ark.

After my reading of many books on this subject, it is my opinion that God sent angels as watchers of the humans He created many thousands of years ago. Lucifer was the head watcher of all of these watchers and it was their job(s) to teach the humans about their Creator. However, Lucifer rejected this job and had all of the humans believing that he was their god, and all of the other angels/watchers were part of these 'sons of God'. It got so bad, that everyone became evil, (practicing lies) so God the Creator needed a human to testify to what was the truth in order for the world be become righteous.

Therefore, Adam was made and placed into a special garden where there was a tree to which he could eat and keep on living--unlike the rest of the people in the world.

People on the outside would wonder who the God of Adam was and then Adam could testify and make an offer to these people that they too could become 'reborn' by the same God as Adam and therefore live as Adam.

But of course Satan got to Adam before that could ever happen. But since Adam's bloodline was the same as Eve's, it was Satan's advantage to somehow destroy them and to do that he used the power of the demons to produce high-breed offspring so they could become the gods/kings of all of the nations upon the earth.

Now, as for the question as to why one third of the angels sided with Satan--it had to be an issue so impressive that it would cause them to become deceived. Therefore, I believe it was the yin and yang, or the belief that everything had to have an equal. God was the God of Creation, so Satan had to be the god of destruction. Without one, the other would not exist. And this is why we see that the Eastern Religions all believe in this same belief.

[BobRyan]

This is MY opinion: When God gave us the Ten Commandments there were other living gods on this earth and they were also called the giants or the sons of Anak or the Nephilim. It is interesting that these 'gods' were on this earth before the flood and afterwords too. They therefore escaped the flood in some way other than the ark.

After my reading of many books on this subject, it is my opinion that God sent angels as watchers of the humans He created many thousands of years ago. Lucifer was the head watcher of all of these watchers and it was their job(s) to teach the humans about their Creator. However, Lucifer rejected this job and had all of the humans believing that he was their god, and all of the other angels/watchers were part of these 'sons of God'.

I am not sure I would have expected anything less from "every wind of doctrine".

Thanks for sharing that so we can have that as a reference point.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Bob, what is your meaning of "every wind of doctrine"? Can you please explain what happened to the Nephilim during the flood since they were not one the ark?

[Aliensanctuary]

Quote:

Therefor,[sic] the ‘locative’ of linguistics assigns the ‘casting down of the third of the stars of heaven’ to a yet to occur event.

One-third of the stars being swept or dragged from the sky and hurled or thrown violently to the Earth (Rev 12) may only indicate that points of light, which could be caused by meteors or falling/landing spacecraft or other objects, were observed streaking to the surface of our planet.

There doesn't seem to be a good connection to the idea that this event represents one-third of all of the Messengers of God being imprisoned/marooned on the Earth as a past event, especially if it supposedly occurred in the past just prior to the birth of the Messiah.

[BobRyan]

Bob, what is your meaning of "every wind of doctrine"? Can you please explain what happened to the Nephilim during the flood since they were not one the ark?

your statement above is a good example of "every wind of doctrine" - you claim that nephilim "were not on the ark" AS IF the Bible actually said such a thing. It says no such thing. But it fits your pattern of claiming wild things as if your imagination should be accepted by others as "Bible written text".

1. All of mankind (even Christ) descended from Noah - and Noah was of that generation of giants living before the flood. Thus it is no suprise that the Nephilim are on the earth AFTER the flood (Deut 2)

2. Sons of God are those who choose to be faithful to God -

Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Luke 20:36

for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Romans 8:14

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Romans 8:19

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

Galatians 3:26

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Gen. 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth IN THOSE DAYS and ALSO AFTERWARD,..." This shows that the Nephilim were before the flood and also after the flood. The Nephilim were not decedents of Noah, and neither was Jesus Christ. Where in the would did you get this idea from? Talk about "every wind of doctrine"!

The Nephilim were the gods that God wrote about in the Ten Commandments. And please note Rev. 21:17, this shows that those who keep the commandments AND the testimony (words) of Jesus will become sons and daughters of God by being born of the Holy Spirit. But they will not be called the Nephilim!

[cardw]

Have any of you considered that this whole thing is mythology. There may be some truth to the idea of giants since we have found hundreds of early humanoid skeletons of Neanderthals

Since they seemed to more adapted to the cold there have been no finds of Neanderthal skeletons anywhere Southwest of the Holy Land. And they probably were only that far south because of the colder climate present at that time.

There is no evidence of the mixture of Neanderthal DNA with modern humans indicating that they were a separate species of humanoids. They used tools, had rituals, and were considerably larger and stronger than their Homo sapiens counter parts.

There are finds all throughout the middle east including Iraq and Israel, but Homo sapiens appears to have been the only human type in the Nile River Valley which seems to be where the earliest kingdoms of men emerged. As the colder regions receded north it appears that Homo sapiens became the dominate species until Neanderthals became extinct about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

And it is possible that an oral history of these giants became part of the mythology of middle eastern tribes.

[Dr. Rich]

Yes, there has to be a good reason for the myth in mythology and perhaps it is because some of it was true. Thanks Rich

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasad

/ Writ informs that Jesus Christ responded with specificity to a very specific question:

Matt 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Given, that Jesus Christ utilized exactness of phraseology when answering the question posed to Him – one is provided the predicating repetition “in the resurrection” and parses the text with like exactitude. One hardly imagines a ‘matter of judgement (or law) being settled in the arms of angels “in the resurrection” – as venue. One is constrained to extrapolate the rest of verse 30 with like care; that is, with specific utility. The denouement of verse 30 may then be – angels who dwell “in heaven” do not marry.

What of angels who dwell elsewhere? Jesus Christ spoke only of “angels in heaven”...

>>Jesus did not say "only good angels are not given in marriage".<<

(First, you’ll notice my working text was taken from and limited to Matthew without including the parallel Gospels, which are more general in substance; that is, lacking the precision utilized by Matthew. No matter)

Who then did say...?—it was not I. Did/do all angels dwell in heaven?—and are angels dwelling elsewhere limited equally as those dwelling in heaven? for instance; those Tall (giants?) people/angels(?) inhabiting our sister planet Jupiter.... And, do angels, as mentioned in Writ, equate only to those we’ve heard referenced so often in the pulpit?—or does the term ‘angels’ signify more, inclusively?

>>Jesus's argument was about the very nature of Angels - how they were created.<<

And you know that how?—by Writ?—or by the extraBiblical? I glimpse the formulaic subjective...

Jesus’ argument addressed the question put to him with the same exactness of phraseology as it was given – specifically reiterating the phrase “in the resurrection” – prefacing what appears to be a nuanced reply. Not before, nor after the resurrection, but “IN [or during] the resurrection”; that is, whilst the OT saints (as well others) are being raised from their graves and whilst others are in the very arms of angels being carried from the ‘end of heaven’, etc.

The appropriateness of marrying and giving in marriage at such time escapes me, humbly...

>>They do not form family relationships with each OTHER - (much less engage in procreation with each other).<<

Neither you nor I know that, Bob. Advantage may be mine in that I am not wedded to this or that, as – you appear to be. Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke to

the issue of “angels of God in heaven”.

If we are not to have familial relationships in the resurrection, how is it then that Jesus Christ, the Word uses the [then, very false(?)] metaphor of bride and bridegroom in His parable – “Then shall the kingdom of heaven...” (Matt 25)?—seems, at best, He would be prevaricating. Perhaps, it is that our Gd is One Who speaks with forked tongue? I don’t think so.

Additionally, what of the child who dies at an age of a hundred during the millennial reign? That child would be - whose issue? Or would that child be one who has translated through the Parousia?

[Dr. Rich]

Spiritual beings do not die so therefore they do not need to marry and have kids. Humans are mortal and therefore have been given the right to marry and have children. When Satan and his evil angels were cast down, they knew they were going to die. Therefore, would it not be logical for them to attempt to create more of themselves by using mortal human women? Even if it was done in test tubes like they do with cloning, it seems possible that they would attempt this.

[jasd]

>>How then do people engage in wild speculation about them being CREATED in a fashion that enables them to procreate and form families NOT ONLY with each other but also "with other species"!!!?<<

It is the possibility of the impossible...

First, I’ve already mentioned that the ovum is protected and will only accept the sperm of its own kind; however, that protein barrier can be corrupted with enzyme(s) – losing its integrity – that the sperm of another kind will pass by what formerly was a barrier. From there other factors arise....

Sons of Gd are sons of Seth?—daughters of man are daughters of Cain? (Gen 6:2) Tchah! Sons of Seth were, coextensively (or bequeathed status as), sons of Gd!?—whereas, daughters are by definition: not of Gd but of man? Double Tchah! Tchah!

Is there really that great a Biblical divide between men and women?—or does orthodoxy err in their hermeneutics? It is the latter.

Jude 6 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.

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.

How ought “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner” to be viewed?—as parenthetical comparative phrases? I think so, but then I’m the kind of guy who breaks a sentence into paragraphs... :-o

>>How very catholic<<

What do you find so ‘universal’?—Oh Oh Oh Ko, my my, there it is!—that caustic breath precipitating leprous landscapes.

“We cannot go back and make a new start, but we can start now to make a new ending.”

>>...to imagine that God would make them designed for procreation then tell them "not to do it".<<

Are you referencing the angels mentioned by St Jude?—those who left their estate that they might engage in lasciviousness – going after strange flesh?

Note the explanatory amplifications employed by St Jude...

>>How very unlike Christ to use an argument that is of the form "Angels can procreate by design but God who designed them - does not allow them to do it".<<

I think St Jude informs about keeping “their first estate” leaving their "habitation" or place of dwelling. Might that be somewhat like ‘the first principle” of Star Trek? My, how wise of the Federation!

>>How very "odd" that the speculation that inserts demons into man's bloodline - would in fact make Christ the descendant of demons.<<

How extraordinary!—how did you parse, as to arrive at the fact that my exegesis of Genesis “would in fact make Christ a descendant of demons”?

>>Fortunately that is not one of our 28FB.<<

“Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes made of ticky-tacky,

Little boxes, little boxes,

Little boxes, all the same.

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky-tacky

And they all look just the same.”

“Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.”

>>This is one denomination that did not fall down that rabbit hole.<<

Ah, sweetness and light!—you might, instead, have reflectively posted: “...scurrying down the sides of the pit to gnaw upon bones as dry as the hills of Gilboa!”

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

/ The casting down of a third of the angels of heaven is an unwarranted extrapolation.

>>This from someone who speculates for ways to insert evolutionism into the text of scripture...<<

It derives

/ from the implicit ages between the first and second, second and third, third and fourth, fourth and firth, fifth and sixth days of creation –as suggested from the latent indefinite articles attending those time periods. / From the fact that evolution is occurring presently through the mechanism of man’s (as natural force) intervention,

/ from the Biblical ‘heads up’ of “there is no new [thing] under the sun”,

/ etc...

Eccl 19 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.

Eccl 1:10 Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

From the fact that Noah was “perfect in his generations” (Gen 6:9) whilst “...all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Gen 6:12), etc.

How had all flesh aside from that of Noah been corrupted?—by sin?—or by ways more egregious? Whether devolved or evolved, Writ informs that all flesh was changed...

Today, ethicists and moralists are working with physical scientists to disseminate DNA throughout space – believing it unethical and immoral that earth’s species are contained only in the one planetary system, so to speak...

Panspermia, in fact, as it were!

Yet, we, as a civilization not evolved even to the First Order, consider the ethical and moral matter of disseminating our DNA... What of civilizations having attained such as the Fourth or Fifth Order?

>>...and make Christ the descendant of demons??<<

I suggest a reread – lest the above appears as more hysteria than attentive.

>>I am frankly surprised that there is any extrapolation that exceeds your fair-play boundaries.<<

I usually post adversarially; that said, what could be fairer than my diminutive minority against the 3000+ members of this forum?

>>Or are you saying that only the ideas that fit with our actual beliefs are "too much to imagine"??<<

Speaking of which, you tell me: do you hold with EGW’s flying feathered reptile?

>>Anyway I think we get your general idea.<<

Not even...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Therefor,[sic] the ‘locative’ of linguistics assigns the ‘casting down of the third of the stars of heaven’ to a yet to occur event.

“sic” – indeed!—the significance of a dropped vowel! However, per a exercise: should a person indulging in a penchant for the use of cachets such as – an occasional obscure, disused, or otherwise archaic form of a word

be unforgivably amiss? ”Mea culpa.”

Actually, I thought I was more exposed with the awkward – ‘locative’ of linguistics...

>>One-third of the stars being swept or dragged from the sky and hurled or thrown violently to the Earth (Rev 12) may only indicate that points of light, which could be caused by meteors or falling/landing spacecraft or other objects, were observed streaking to the surface of our planet.<<

I agree in part – especially as regards “spacecraft or ...” Re (Isaiah 66:15)

>>There doesn't seem to be a good connection to the idea that this event represents one-third of all of the Messengers of God being imprisoned/marooned on the Earth as a past event, especially if it supposedly occurred in the past just prior to the birth of the Messiah.<<

I think that Revelation 12:4 rightly ought to be interpreted as belonging to the eschatological events occurring just prior to the Second Coming. (Satan and his angels are not cast out of heaven until Revelation 12:9 following the event of verse7) It would be exegetically incorrect to excise it from the middle of the Apocalypse and represent it as belonging to distant ages past with the altogether

peculiar incorporation of Satan and his angels.

[jasd]

>>Spiritual beings do not die so therefore they do not need to marry and have kids. Humans are mortal and therefore have been given the right to marry and have children.<<

You seem to have constructed the point upon the word “need”. Does not Gd state that He wishes all good things for His children? [/paraphrased] That being so, several thoughts arise: is not marriage good?—and, are not children good?

>>When Satan and his evil angels were cast down, they knew they were going to die.<<

I don’t think Writ sustains the concept that Satan and his angels “were cast down”; that is yet to occur per the book of the Apocalypse (notwithstanding the words of Jesus Christ, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven...”). In fact, Writ advises us that Satan presently stands before the throne of Gd accusing the brethren day and night.

>>Therefore, would it not be logical for them to attempt to create more of themselves by using mortal human women? Even if it was done in test tubes like they do with cloning, it seems possible that they would attempt this.<<

Indeed. Should we, given our presently pitiful capability to genetically modify via recombinant technology – much more, one supposes, could the “Sons of Gd” have done so. Moreover, should it have been impossible for the fallen angels to have cohabited and procreated with the daughters of man – genetic modification should have remedied that difficulty within one generation.

Were those who left their first estate and habitation under the authority of Satan, it may have been that, having gained supremacy over mankind – Satan would have ensured it thenceforeward by corrupting man’s bloodline – through which it was promised that the Redeemer would take upon Himself. Good generalship.

Given the above, Gd would have been constrained to destroy the entirety of corrupted flesh – saving alive only him who was still “perfect in his generations”—after all, Gd had given His word re the seed of the woman.

[Dr. Rich]

jasd, just because Revelation 12 is in the middle of the book of Revelation does not mean the events described therein are going to happen just at the end. Come on, was not Jesus the one who was born of the Woman (Holy Spirit)? Here is the thing: When I start a bible study with someone new, I always start out with Revelation 12 because this verse is a picture of the whole history of this world, from the beginning to the end. The Woman is in heaven, therefore She can't be Mary or the Church, but has to be the Holy Spirit.

Since Michael became Jesus Christ, there was a war between Him and Lucifer (Satan) and Satan was cast down to this earth to be the ruler of this earth no matter what Paul said in Romans 13:1-3. Jesus said that Satan has nothing on Him because His Kingdom is not of this World. He also said those found in Revelation 12:17 are the brothers and sisters of Jesus since they have become born of the same Mother as Jesus was per John the Baptist's testimony.

[jasd]

Quote:

Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Luke 20:36

for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Romans 8:14

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Romans 8:19

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

Galatians 3:26

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Argues well that OT epistemology did not consider man in terms of “Sons of Gd” – but it remained for the epistemological NT ‘Good News’ to do so.

[jasd]

>>just because Revelation 12 is in the middle of the book of Revelation does not mean the events described therein are going to happen just at the end.<<

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly (#1722 #5034 en tachos) come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

(#1722 #5034 en tachos) “alternately: quickly, rapidly, or speedily”

Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly (#1722 #5034 en tachos) be done.

Revelation 22:6 provides us with the inclusion of “prophets” (in the plural); thus, speaking to things other than that written by St John in the Apocalypse. The text, imho, includes much of what “the holy prophets” prophesied in millennia past and strengthens the argument reinforcing the things written by St John in the Apocalypse as 'compressed events'.

The two texts serve as termini for both the a quo and the ad quem (similarly, as does the idea of Alpha and Omega of Revelation 22:13) identifying that which may more properly translate en tachos alternately as – quickly, rapidly, or speedily.

St John’s commission was to relate “the things which thou has seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter:” Obviously, the letters to the churches ought to be treated as separate from the events occurring post chapter four – when the delineated prophecies occur “speedily, rapidly, or quickly” – per following:

Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows ( #5604 odin).

#5604 odin

1) the pain of childbirth, travail pain, birth pangs

2) intolerable anguish, in reference to the dire calamities precede the advent of the Messiah

Revelation 6:1 begins the time analogous to the acceleration of birth pangs, the days which necessitate Gd cutting them short, the devil having but a short time per the 12th chapter of Revelation, etc...,

We don’t know the period to which St John was taken - to be "shown things which must be hereafter” - after being taken up 'thither' (Rev 4:1). It is implicit only that, for the most part, he was taken to and shown a time yet in our future – when events occurring would be within a compressed time period best described by the use of en tachos carrying the meaning “quickly, rapidly, or speedily” per Revelation 1:1 and 12:6.

The above diametrically opposes most doctrines of preterism when expositing the Apocalypse - Revelation 4, forward.