Corporal Punishment Of Children

 

          In the 1940s some psychologists and other so-called "experts" began teaching that it is harmful and abusive to use corporal punishment to discipline children and you should not teach your children about religion and morality until they are much older, and along with this the idea that children should have everything their parents did not has become popular. Reality is that corporal punishment of children as discipline helps children develop character, conscience, and self-discipline, and the religious education of children should start early. (Consider Proverbs 22:6, 15; 23:13-14; 29:15, 17; Isaiah 28:9; 2 Timothy 3:15) It should be noted that these were not parents or grandparents sharing wisdom gained through experience, they were “experts” pushing unproved theories, and as years and decades passed these theories kept gaining popularity so that we now have a large segment of the "adult" population that were undisciplined and spoiled to the point of replacing reality and critical thinking with delusions and wishful thinking and behaving like spoiled children in pursuit of utopian dreams. The Generation Gap and the youth culture of rebellion and decadence that characterized the 1960s and continue today were inevitable results of multitudes of spoiled brats coming of age and influencing other youths. For decades it has been common for folks to wonder what happened to the younger generations, but this is not a mystery. What is amazing is that so many parents never use corporal punishment to correct bad behaviour, do not teach their children social conduct and respect for elders, do not give their children responsibilities (chores), do not provide religious and moral guidance at home, and encourage their children to limit their associations to immature people, and then do not understand why the resulting teenagers act like small children in larger bodies. (Consider Proverbs 22:6; 29:15; 13:20)

The FORGOTTEN ART Of Disciplining Your Kids....( James Evans Edition ) 

My Experience With Georgia DFCS

 

          Many moons ago, in Georgia in the 1990s, I received a letter from Georgia DFCS informing me that allegations of child abuse were confirmed and I was on their list of child abusers, because I used corporal punishment to correct bad behaviour in a child as a parent should. This aroused my ire as the social worker that investigated me did not speak to me or even meet me and I was never charged, tried, or convicted of any crime. I wrote letters to legislators, congressmen, and the governor, in which I went into detail about what happened and what I did and mentioned considering a lawsuit. Later I received a letter from a legislator agreeing that children need this kind of discipline and said he would bring the subject before the General Assembly, and I received a letter from the welfare department informing me that my name no longer occurred on any list.

          Later the social worker that had investigated me came too the house about a truancy problem, and after discussing that I asked him why they kept trying to penalize good parents for doing what they are supposed to do, and while he said they are trying to protect children, have right motives, etc., he wouldn’t look me in the eye and kept looking at his feet. Later when discussing the truancy problem with the school principal I mentioned how the social worker behaved when I confronted him and the principal said they’re probably just unaccustomed to that kind of confrontation and told me that I was probably the first parent in that area to ever stand up to DFCS and tell them they are wrong.

          I still sometimes wonder why so many good parents tolerate and comply with DFCS intrusions and foolishness.

 

Oneness Pentecostalism

 

(A reply to “The United Pentecostal Church and the Evangelical Movement," by J. L. Hall)

          In his book, "The United Pentecostal Church and the Evangelical Movement," J. L. Hall made some good points about the possibility of fellowship and cooperation between the UPC and Evangelical Trinitarian organizations. It is true that Oneness Pentecostals and Evangelical Trinitarians share numerous doctrines and concerns in common. In our relationships with Christians who hold different beliefs and convictions it is often better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and we should recognize that all believers are at different levels of growth and understanding in different areas and that any knowledge that any of us has is incomplete and the Holy Bible is the final authority. (Psalm 119:130; 1 Corinthians 8:2; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 3:18)

          While Evangelical Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals do share some fundamental beliefs in common and there may be valid reasons for not identifying the UPC as a cult, cultic trends and policies in the UPC are cause for concern. It is not denying anyone’s sincerity or salvation to be wary of unscriptural doctrines and practices. In addition to the numerous points made by J. L. Hall, these should also be considered:

·        The fellowship and cooperation between the UPC and Evangelical Trinitarian organizations that is proposed would require Evangelical Trinitarians to compromise doctrines on soteriology and theology, and the history of the United Pentecostal Church in the Twentieth Century indicates that such compromise is most likely to be completely one-sided: In 1916 Pentecostals in the Assemblies of God who insisted that Acts 2:38 gives the baptismal formula left the Assemblies of God to form other groups. In 1936 the PAJC (Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ) ratified a five-point agenda with a view toward merger with the PCI (Pentecostal Church, Incorporated), and this was rejected by the PCI because of the proposal that the teaching that water baptism and tongues-talking constitute the new birth be accepted as one of the fundamental doctrines. At The Merger of the PCI and the PAJC in 1945 the wording of the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPC (United Pentecostal Church) was chosen because of the different opinions about whether water baptism and tongues-talking are causes or consequences of the new birth, and without the unity clause, that brethren "shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit" and "shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body," there would have been no merger. John 3:5=Acts 2:38 or Acts-2:38-or-Hell has never been the universal opinion of Oneness Pentecostals, and current policies of the UPC on soteriology violate the agreement of The Merger in 1945. It should also be noted that not all early Oneness Pentecostal leaders adopted the understanding of the Godhead that is being required in the UPC today, and many Oneness Pentecostals (Howard A. Goss, Frank Ewart, Andrew Urshan, etc.) taught the triunity of God. Some, such as the first General Superintendent of UPC Howard A. Goss, insisted that belief in a Trinity was acceptable and made a distinction between tritheism and Trinitarianism. The doctrinal statement of the PCI on the Godhead described God as triune, a Trinity.

·        The theory pushed by Oneness Pentecostals that a doctrine is proven to be a divine truth by a special revelation without scriptural support is a form of Gnosticism and not Christian truth. If you received a "revelation" that you cannot verify with Scripture, you should seriously wonder which "god" gave you that "revelation." God reveals himself to man through his Word and Scripture itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture, is the key to the interpretation of Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:15), and whether any of us completely understand or accept a Bible truth does not determine if it true. (Psalm 3:5-7; Isaiah 55:8-9)

·        “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Trinitarian Bible proof texts cannot be reconciled to the Oneness Pentecostalism position without ignoring contexts, grammar, and meanings of words, while Oneness Pentecostal Bible proof texts can be reconciled to Trinitarianism without contradiction or distortion.

·        Matthew 28:19 is the only baptismal command in the New Testament addressed to baptizers, and all baptismal commands in the Book of Acts are addressed to baptismal candidates. If God had wanted Acts 2:38 to convey that converts are to be baptized for the sake of Jesus Christ and as a submission to the authority of Jesus Christ ("In the name of Jesus Christ") without specifying the words to be spoken by the baptizer, how would He have changed the wording of Acts 2:38?

·        “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” (Colossians 3:17; a favourite Oneness Pentecostal proof text.) If this Bible passage requires a verbal recitation of the words “in the name of Jesus” at water baptism, it also requires Christians to say, “I now chew this food in the name of Jesus,” “I now kiss you my wife (or husband, child, etc.) in the name of Jesus,” etc.

·        It is wrong to say that all trinitarians are guilty of tritheism or of denying the complete deity of Jesus Christ (as many Oneness Pentecostals contend). It is incorrect to say that the Trinity is a pagan concept; ancient pagans did not worship any trinity, they worshipped triads, and a triad is three gods (sometimes in conflict with each other) while the Trinity is one God existing in three persons. The word Trinity is a combination of the word "trine," which means threefold or three times, and the suffix "-ity," which means state, character, or condition. In other words, God is not triplex (1+1+1), God is triune (1x1x1). There is one God, and that one God is characterized by interior personal relationships. (Genesis 1:26-27; 11:6-8; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 5:7) Since God our Creator is so much higher than us, we should not be surprised to find difficulties in understanding His nature. (Psalm 97:2)

·        Oneness Pentecostals claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was made a doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church in the Nicene Creed. Note that the complete deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ are also official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, along with other Bible doctrines. Does this mean we must deny those doctrines because they are taught by the Roman Catholic Church, or should we just accept the Holy Bible as the final authority even if the Roman Catholic Church agrees with the Bible on various points?

·        Oneness Pentecostals try to make it appear that the Trinitarians were introducing a new doctrine in the 4^th century, but it was the Unitarians that were introducing a new doctrine. Arianism was introduced early in the 4th century by Arius (256-336 AD), and this led to various churches and councils adopting creeds and statements of faith to defend and affirm Bible doctrines taught since the Apostles, such as the complete deity of Christ, the triunity of God, etc.

·        If God had wanted to convey that the Son of God is divine, how would he have changed the wording of John 5:18 and Hebrews 1:8? "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8)

·        If Jesus had wanted to convey a distinction between himself and the Father and the Holy Ghost, how would he have changed the wording of John 14:23, 24, and 26? "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:23-24) "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

·        If Jesus had wanted to convey that he and the Father have separate wills, how would he have changed the wording of Matthew 26:39? "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)

·        If God had wanted to convey that Jesus Christ was completely God and not just part God how would he have changed the wording of Colossians 1:19? "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." (Colossians 1:19)

·        If God had wanted to convey that Jesus' human nature was not separated from his divine nature how would he have changed the wording of Mark 2:5-12? "When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion." (Mark 2:5-12)

·        If God had wanted to convey that the Father and the Lamb are distinct persons how would he have changed the wording of Revelation 5:1-9? "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Revelation 5:1-9)

·        In Acts 2:38, why is the command to repent given in the second person plural while the command to be baptized is given in the third person singular? If God had wanted the baptismal command to be directed to people who have already repented and been forgiven how would he have changed the wording of Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19? "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)

·        If Mark 16:16 were changed to read "He that believeth and pays tithes (or other Christian activity) shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned," would you assume that tithing (or whatever Christian activity is inserted) is a prerequisite for salvation?

·        B-o-r-n does not spell baptized. John 3:5 was a response to the supposition that the new birth could be wrought through physical means, such as childbirth. (John 3:4) There are always cases of people assuming that they are saved because they were born and raised in a certain religion or denomination or assuming that they were saved through rituals and ceremonies, and this was true of many when Christ walked the earth. (John 1:12-13; 3:1-6) The new birth is a personal experience with Jesus Christ. (John 3:5-16; Titus 3:5-7)

·        “Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:10) Christ was teaching something Nicodemus should have already known through familiarity with Old Testament teachings about the Holy Spirit’s work of supernatural change in the lives of people in the new covenant age. (Ezekiel 11 & 36, Jeremiah 31, etc.)

·        It is noteworthy that there are substantial differences in the prophecies of Ezekiel and Jeremiah regarding the new birth (Ezekiel 11 & 36, Jeremiah 31) and Joel’s prophecy about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during the Christian era. (Joel 2:28-29; compare Acts 2:17-18; further study and research is encouraged.)

·        “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:19-20) “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:21-22) The disciples were saved, had power over devils, and received the Holy Ghost, in a different sense, before the Pentecost experience of Acts 2. Compare John 20:22-23 with Acts 1:5, and John 14:16 with Acts 2:8; the disciples already had the ministry of reconciliation, that is instrumental participation in pardon through declaring the terms of God’s forgiveness, and they had the Holy Spirit as helper, advocate, etc., and they were promised that there was more power to come.

·        Note that “baptisms” in Hebrews 6:2 is plural. Spirit baptism refers to the act (new birth) by which the Holy Ghost incorporates a repentant sinner into the body of Christ and refers to an experience after salvation in which believers receive supernatural power from God; attention to context is essential. New Testament passages used to prove baptismal regeneration, salvation by water baptism, refer to the new birth. If God had wanted Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, & Colossians 2:12 to refer to baptism into the body of Christ, which occurs when a lost and repentant sinner puts his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and can only be done by the Holy Ghost, how would he have changed the wording of these passages? “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16) "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Romans 6:3-5) "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:13) "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27) "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)

·        1 Peter 3:21 says that water baptism satisfies the demands of a good conscience and is figurative (symbolic/declarative) of salvation. How can a figure be that of which it is a figure? If God had wanted to convey that Noah's safety during the deluge was the outward confirmation of the grace he had already received years earlier (Genesis 6:8) and that, in the same way, Christian baptism is the outward confirmation of the grace a Christian had already received when he trusted Jesus Christ as Savior how would God have changed the wording of 1 Peter 2:20-21? "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

·        Faith and repentance are inseparable; saving faith is the turning to Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) for salvation, and repentance is the turning from sin to God. (Acts 20:21) The Greek words rendered "and" (Kai) and "for" (Eis) in Acts 2:38 have many possible meanings, so whether Acts 2:38 means that repentance or water baptism is the effective agent for the remission of sins depends on the immediate context and the context of New Testament teachings, which indicate that repentance is the effective agent for the remission of sins. (Consider Luke 24:47; Acts 2:21; 3:19; 17:30-31; 11:18; 26:20; 1 Corinthians 1:17; saving faith is repentant faith.)

·        Wrong conclusions are inevitable when it is assumed that every spiritual experience mentioned in the New Testament, or that every blessing of the blood atonement, is a prerequisite for salvation. It should be noted that the Bible teaches a distinction between various works and ministries of the Holy Ghost, and not all blessings of the blood atonement are prerequisites for salvation. Are all the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 expected to accompany the conversion of every Christian? Is there any solid teaching in the whole Bible that "tongues" must accompany the conversion of every Christian or is prerequisite for salvation?

·        Ananias addressed Paul (then Saul) as brother before Paul was baptized in water. (Acts 9:17-18; 22:12-16.) Note that Acts 22:16 does not say that spiritual cleansing is a result of water baptism or of the baptizer calling on the name of the Lord. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) If God had wanted to convey that the washing away of sins is the result of the convert calling on the name of the Lord how would He have changed the wording of Acts 22:16?

·        The Ephesian believers were called disciples before they spake in tongues, and Paul implied that if they had a Christian baptism they would have heard of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 19:1-6; consider the wording of Matthew 28:19)

·        If water baptism is part of salvation and not after salvation, this puts the baptizer in the position of priesthood.

·        Acts 2:38 is a truth, but Jesus is the truth. (John 14:6) Salvation is a personal experience with Jesus Christ and is through the finished work of Calvary, not the blood of Christ and additional supplements. (John 3:13-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Romans 5:1-2, 8-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7; I Peter 1:3; I John 5:20)

·        The main hindrance to fellowship and cooperation between Oneness Pentecostals and Evangelical Trinitarians is the Us-Only pride and We-Versus-They complex of Oneness Pentecostals. (Psalm 119:63; Mark 9:38-42; Philippians 1:18)

 

DOES THE BIBLE PROMOTE SEXUAL ABUSE?

 

“So you believe we get our morals from the Bible? Tell me again how forcing a woman to marry her rapist is moral.” -Richard Dawkins

 

Did the Old Testament condone sexual abuse as Bible critics claim? Some claim that the Mosaic Law condoned sexual abuse by not including a severe penalty for raping an unmarried and unengaged woman, and that the penalty for raping an unmarried and unengaged woman was marriage to the victim, according to their interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Is this correct? No, the purpose of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was to protect women and discourage sexual abuse. The wording of Deuteronomy 22:28 makes it clear that the crime referred to is consensual fornication and not rape. (Compare Exodus 22:16-17) Take another look at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, the verses preceding Deuteronomy 22:28, and note the wording of Deuteronomy 22:23, that there is no mention or implication of force or unwillingness which would indicate to witnesses that the woman needed protection. Deuteronomy 22:23 describes a meeting or encounter in a populated area for consensual fornication. (Compare Deuteronomy 22:25) The Mosaic Law required a trial for crimes (the local court was situated at the city gate), and a woman guilty of adultery might try to protect herself by claiming it was rape. (Deuteronomy 22:24; 16:18-20) It was not necessary to give an explicit penalty for rape because the wording and context of Scripture on this made it clear that the crime of rape carried the same penalty as premeditated murder. (Deuteronomy 22:26)                                                                                                                          -

 

 

 

DOES THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON THE MATTER OF INCEST?

 

          Some see accounts about first cousins marrying and assume this is a contradiction in the Bible on the matter of incest. This is confusing personal preference with Bible teaching, as the Bible never prohibits marriage between first cousins. Incidentally, the USA is the only country with restrictions against first cousin marriage, and those States that restricted it did so based on claims and data that were later disproved.

          It is important to distinguish between marriages before and after God officially forbade marriage to a close relative. (Leviticus 18:6-18)

          Where did Cain get his wife? When Cain killed Abel, both were probably adults. (Genesis 4:8) Cain being scared for his life after he killed Abel tends to indicate that Adam and Eve had many children and perhaps grandchildren at this time. (Genesis 4:14) Cain would have married a sister or niece. Incidentally, the Bible does not say whether there were descendants of Adam and Eve in the land of Nod before Cain got there, or if he was married or not before he went there. (Genesis 4:16-17) 

          What about Lot and his daughters? (Genesis 19:30-38) Genesis 2:24 does indicate that marriage and sexual relations between parents and their children was never allowed by God, but as you read the account in Genesis 19 note that nothing in the text condones or excuses anything Lot and his daughters did. The account is a warning about consequences of backsliding.

          Some claim the Mosaic law did not include any prohibition against marriage and sexual relations with a man’s own daughter. Pay attention to the wording of Leviticus 18:17 which puts daughters, stepdaughters, and granddaughters off limits, and a man claiming his daughter is not his would not excuse anything.

          The laws against incest (and other immoral acts) in Leviticus 18-20 protected the moral and social order of the family ordained by God, which would not have been an issue till the population grew, and established ethical boundaries and prevented abuse within families. Note the wording: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 18:6) Incest typically begins with immodesty in the home (familial roles and relationships are meant to be supportive and nurturing), and application of standards of modesty prevented lust that could lead to incest.

          The Bible contains passages that may appear to readers to be contradictory, but this is due to lack of understanding that is clarified through further study.

 

DID ANGELS INTERBREED WITH HUMANS?

 

The Hebrew word “Nephilim” rendered "Giants" in Genesis 6:4 is an old way of describing large people, who could be big in stature, position, fame, or notoriety. The word Nephilim means "violent" or "causing to fall;" they were ancient bullies or violent tyrants. Giants have existed throughout recorded history, even in modern times, and the Bible does not say the giants or Nephilim were the result only of the marriages mentioned in Genesis 6. The only other explicit reference to the Nephilim is Numbers 13:32-33, in which the spies were clearly exaggerating: if "all the people" were "of a great stature," what accounts for the normal size of Rahab and her family, the Gibeonites, and others that were encountered when the Israelites entered the land later? (Joshua 6:25; 9:3-15) Being as grasshoppers in their own sight did not mean the Israelites were literally the size of insects. (Numbers 13:33)

If the Nephilim in Genesis 6 were the result of sexual unions between materialized angels and human females, they would have died in the Noachian Deluge, but there were Nephilim during Israel’s conquest of Canaan (Numbers 13:33) and in David’s time (1 Samuel 17:4-7). This is either evidence that angels materialized and impregnated human females again (there is no indication of this) or these Nephilim on the earth from time to time were exceptional but not superhuman.

The term "sons of God" refers to human believers and not angels in Scripture. Job 1:6 & 2:1, passages often used to "prove" otherwise, are obvious references to human believers (sons of God) and days of worship. (Consider Deuteronomy 31:14-15; 1 Samuel 10:19) Job 38:7, another passage often used to "prove" the sons of God in Genesis 6 were angels, also refers to human believers in a context in which figurative language or symbolic terms are used throughout the chapter. (Also compare Ezra 3:10-12) While angels can take on the appearance of men (Hebrews 13:2), angels and humans are different kinds of being and angels do not marry. (Consider Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 24:37-39; Hebrew 1:13-14) Note that Genesis 6:3 refers to fleshly mankind and not fallen angels or mixed offspring of angels. According to Genesis 6:2 & 4, the children of the sons of God who married the daughters of men became mighty men (Hebrew: gibbor), a term also applied to Nimrod, the Gibeonites, Boaz, David, Saul, Jonathan, and others. (Genesis 10:9; Joshua 10:2; Ruth 2:1; 1 Samuel 16:18; 2 Samuel 1:19,25, 27; 2 Kings 5:1; 1 Chronicles 4:24; etc.)

Many interpret Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 to mean that Genesis 6 is talking about fallen angels that married human females, but the word angel means “messenger,” the exact meaning of the word angel depends on context, it does not always mean a spirit creature, and it can refer to a human. (Consider the Greek text of Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; James 2:25) Note also that both Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 occur within contexts dealing with apostasy, and the point is that holding a position (teacher, preacher, leader, etc.) does not make anyone exempt from the consequences of apostasy. (An apostate is someone who abandons his faith, or a pretended and counterfeit believer that never truly converted.).

The world conditions that moved God to destroy the world with an earth wide deluge were preceded by a religious movement and widespread conversions. (Genesis 4:26) So, what happened? Believers (sons of God) marrying unbelievers (daughters of men) became a popular trend which had a devastating impact on society. (Genesis 6:1-5)

 

MODERN DATING

 

          (I do not know if the couple in the picture is married, but I chose the picture because they are obviously socializing or fellowshipping, which should be the purpose of dating/courtship.)

          Here are a few reasons many single men have given up on dating: Many women have come to see a dinner date as something other than an opportunity for unmarried people to socialize and get acquainted (as a form of courtship), and many women see this as a means of using men to get free meals. For some reason many women are offended over the offer of a dinner date or coffee date from any man they do not find attractive, interesting, or appealing, and are quick to label a man as a creep or a predator, while at the same time most men do not even pretend to be able to read minds.

          Many men assume that buying a woman a meal or otherwise spending money on her entitles him to fornication, and many women assume that this is characteristic of all men and behave accordingly. This makes caution well-advised.

          Think about this: When courtship normally lasted one to six months before marrying and it was all about socializing to get acquainted with a view towards the possibility of marriage, because it was normal to seek a friendship that would develop into a committed and meaningful relationship, divorce was unusual. Now courtship normally lasts three years or more before marrying and is all about having a good time, and most marriages end in divorce.

          Regardless of how dedicated or spiritual you are, you are still capable of bad decisions, and you can be overcome by lust if you are not careful. Here are a few points to remember:

·        Concerned family and friends are likely to spot red flags that you might miss altogether.

·        Look for someone who shares the same religious and moral values. Remember, you may change someone’s location or name, but you cannot change what someone is inside; only God can do that. If dating and marrying an unbeliever was effective evangelism the Bible would not warn against unequal yoking. (Psalm 119:63; Amos 3:3; 1 Corinthians 15:33; 2 Corinthians 6:15-17)

·        Having a chaperone or double dating is often a good idea, and for private conversation a public place such as restaurant, the zoo, etc., is much preferable to seclusion (e.g., a room with the door closed, a car parked in a secluded spot, etc.).

·        Do not date (or keep dating) anyone that does not respect their elders (parents, pastor, etc.).

·        Avoid situations that would make it easy to give in to temptation, and do not date (or keep dating) someone that says or hints that celibacy till marriage is not important. (Proverbs 4:14-15; Romans 13:14; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 15:33)

·        Both petting and fornication are destructive to a potential marriage. For one thing, sexual intimacy causes the body and brain to release hormones and neurotransmitters that make one look at one’s partner through rose-coloured glasses, which is good for a married couple, but this makes an unmarried person ignore red flags.

·        Never assume that you are immune to temptation. (1 Corinthians 10:12-13)

·        Do not neglect regular prayer, personal Bible study, or church attendance. (Psalm 119:11, 105; Proverbs 2:3-16; 3:5-7; Hebrews 10:24-25)