A Voice in the

site navigation

free newsletter

August 8, 1999

[Return] to: "Q/A"

Q/A Topics:
Sons of God - demons?

I was just reading an article from your website on the Rapture of the Church. ["Meeting in the Air-I" Sep,94 articles] In one paragraph I was reading you said " There was demon worship to the extent of intermarriage between mankind and demons. The genetic structure of the human race was corrupted due to the cohabitation". Gen 6:5,11 5:29

First of all, these references you included from the paragraph go with the closing sentences of that paragraph: about "violence, corruption, and their toil." ...not about "genetics".

I don't see where this is in the scripture. I always believed the "sons of God" referred to the godly line of Seth (Deut.14:1,32:5 Psalm 73:15 Hos.1:10 ) and they intermarried with the "Daughters of Men" Woman from the ungodly family of Cain.

These references you have included say nothing about "Seth" nor "Cain"

Are you saying that "sons of god" were fallen angels (demons) ? I am looking foward to hearing from you on this subject.

Notice: "and a day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah. And Satan also came among them." (Job1:6,2:1) Who were/are these "sons of God"? These were there a few days before man was created. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ..Who has set its measurments? ..On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job38:4-7)

Once we get past the beginning and creation, the only other place where the expression "sons of God" appears is in the O.T. in relationship to Israel and in the N.T. in reference to those who are in the Faith of Christ. It does say "men began to call upon the name of the Lord." (Gen4:26) But it doesn't say "sons of God" at that point, yet. And, indeed, as we see the world's condition in ch6, mankind was certainly ungodly! So, while we may not know the details or full extent of their nature or numbers, the "sons of God" appear to be angelic beings. After all, they are a -product- ("son") of His creation when He created them. And demons are none other than fallen angels. (Rev12:4)

If you recall further down in that article, we reference the fact that Noah was "perfect in his generations". (Gen6:9) Some might speculate as to what "generations" means. But used the way it is, in plural form, it would seem to suggest that His family "gene"tics had not become corrupted. If this were the only such reference, we might question or doubt this. However, recall that Jesus said that the days prior to His return would be like the "days of Noah". The days prior to His return is also found in Daniel's prophecies and the "ten-toe" kingdom. (Dan2:41-43) The mixture of the iron and clay is explained, "they shall mix themselves with the seed of men." The word "seed" is a genetic term. "They" is something -other- than "human" because they are mixing -with- human "seed". And if a person understands that a good percentage of alien abduction accounts involve sexual/genetic things, and even "offspring"; we do have "aliens among us" today. But what we have today also occured back there, prior to the flood. And notice the description of the offspring. (Gen6:4) They seem to have been -ultra-human, somehow. Thus, these would be angels who did "not [keep] their first place, but have deserted their dwelling-place [bodies]." (Jude6)

There is certainly a lot of mystery surrounding this subject; and I could be way off base. But this would seem to be the most likely understanding of this matter.


Punk Rock in "church"

My husband and I are against the Christian rock and Christian punk music. It totally turns are stomach sour. Now we are not your older crowd, we are 40ish. Maybe that is older these days. Anyway, our church is allowing a Christian (I believe the word Christian has no part with rock or punk) punk rock concert at the church. We talked and voiced our opinion to the Pastor and he is of the opinion (like most churches I suppose) that this is only bringing in the kids that need to be saved, that is why they are doing it. He said they will also allow the "mosh" pit, but will have adults in the center of it to make sure there is no bashing.

My husband and I will have no part of it and it is an embarrassment to me that this is being allowed in our church. I don't want to be associated with this kind of function. Are we to agree to disagree on this topic and just have nothing to do with it?

It is more than -mere- "embarrassment". In a couple (few?) weeks we'll have a Portion "Competing Lawfully". There is a right way to testify to God's grace, and a wrong way. To be partying around the "golden calf" is not the right way. OK, so they didn't have a punk rock band then, but they had the golden calf, got naked and danced around like the heathen. (Ex32)

When Moses got down off the mountain, he ground up the calf into powder, dumped it in the drinking water and made them drink. And then he took a stand, "who is on the LORD's side? Come to me.." (vs26) [When people sing that song "Who is on the Lord's Side?" I wonder how many remember that the expression originally came from this incident at Sinai..?] And when the God-fearing ones joined Moses, they then took their swords and wiped out the rabble-rousers...3000 men. (vs28)

Obviously, we don't live in a theocracy, where the Godly ones gather up their rifles and machine guns and mow down the idolaters. But, if the whole "church" is of the mentality that your pastor seems to be of, it might be time for you to make a "stand" by coming out from them...? (Rev18:4) If the pastor is of that mentality, and the rest of the church agrees with him, you won't change anything by staying. And they desecrate a place they label as "God's house" when they do this.

In the O.T. they had "men of valor". (1Chr26) Obviously for war. But also "so that the unclean in any way could not go in [to the "house of the Lord"]". (2Chr23:19)

God is holy! A place dedicated to the collective worship of God is also holy. It's a shame that so many "Christians" feel they should desecrate that place by inviting the unsaved there, let alone to bring in such blaspheme as Satan's 'worship' ... rock music ... into that place. The unsaved don't even belong there...let alone, try to entice them there with satan's music. How can the unsaved possibly 'worship' a God they don't know! "But never again defile My holy name with your gifts and with your idols." (Ezek20:39b)

This whole thing of inviting the unsaved into God's holy presence I'm sure comes from the false-prophet notion of "numbers". Boasting of "how many" came to hear them preach. And then, in turn, how many of those "came forward". [Whether they really got saved or not] And so, the mentality has continued...that the unsaved have to be invited -into- the "church" ...in order to -get-them- saved. But what has happened is that God's house has been desecrated in the process, the people don't get saved, and they are then recruited to aid in worship. Who do they worship? Certainly -NOT- God Most High!!!

Just this noon (Aug5) on the local news, they told of the new Mormon Temple that has just been completed in our area. That it is open for public viewing for a limited time. Otherwise, normally it is closed to non-Mormons. And then I remembered, yea... the Mormons don't let others into their temples. And yet, those claiming to worship the True God Most High allow all sorts of satanic filth into their worship and fellowships! If we don't learn from God's Word, can we not even learn from the heathen? The heathen are more 'separated' to their beliefs, than "christians" are! As was said of Israel, "..wickedness more than the nations.." (Ezek5:6)

"Has a nation changed their gods who are yet no gods? But My people have changed their Glory for that which does not profit." (Jer2:11) "Ask now among the nations; who has heard the like of this?" (Jer18:13) "For both the prophet and priest are ungodly; yes, in My house I have found their evil, says Jehovah." (Jer23:11) Of the early Church it is reported, "and of the rest no one dared to join himself to them.." (Acts5:13)

Just as there is to be -THE- antichrist, and "even now many antichrists have risen up" (1Jn2:18); there will be -THE- "desolating abominations" (Dan9:27) and now there are also 'many abominations' in the "holy place" (Mt24:15)

Surely they will look at you as being "old" in your 40's. But the issue isn't "age" or "generational". It's "right vs wrong".

Don't be "embarrassed". Be "angry". "O Jehovah, do I not hate those who hate You? And am I not grieved with those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies." (Ps139:21-22) Furthermore, Jeremiah was told, "Do not pray for this people for good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and a grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the plague." (Jer14:11-12)

Commentary: Unbelievers in the Assembly


KJV again ... and "Lucifer"

We so enjoy your website!! Hope you don't mind another email. We read through your opinion on the Bible translations and we wanted to tell you why we stopped reading NIV, NKJV, NAS. We understand what you are saying about how they all preach the central theme of the Gospel message, yet we are concerned about the subtle changes in the translations...

I wish you had included -which- writing you got this out of, so I could go see the "context" in which it was written. Over the years I have addressed this "translation" issue a lot.

The "Gospel" -can- be found in NIV, NASB, etc... just as a person -can- hear enough in a Catholic church to be saved. The Catholic church does refer to "sin" and Jesus Christ dying on the cross for sin. If the person hears those expressions, God's Holy Spirit -can- take those words, and the person's own conscience...and the person -can- see his own sin, and come to God in repentance..IN SPITE OF all the rest of RCC's demonics.

But if you have read very much of what VW presents on this subject, you will see that the only translations endorsed and recommended to people are, in this order: MKJV, LITV, NKJV, KJV. When people write in with questions, quoting from NIV, RSV, etc. I typically 'correct' the translation as I answer the question. At the website, have you seen the "Bible Text" menu? Scroll down to the lower section on "Translation Issues"

...and the fact that some of these translations omit the word "lucifer" in Isaiah, along with words like "God," "Jesus" "Holy Spirit." We did read Gail's book and had to agree with much of what she said as we went through our Bibles and compared them to KJV. Not that KJV is the best and only translation, but it does honor our Lord's name and who He is without compromise.

Well, actually, "Lucifer" does not appear in the Hebrew. Where KJV has "Lucifer" the Hebrew is "heylel" which means "light bearer, brightness, shining"...and comes from "halal" which means "to shine" which also carries definitions of "to be boastful, make a boast"; which is what Satan was doing, "I will be like the Most High". (Is14:14)

The word "lucifer" comes from old English, which in turn comes from Latin. "Lux, luc-" meaning "light". Uh, let's see... -which- 'church' is based on Latin?

Thank you for bringing to mind another example of what I have suggested on a few occasions, that the KJV is a product of "Rome". The English "church of Rome".


[Return] to: "Q/A"