KJV
The Scripture
←Back to Category
bible_believer

Reply_to_Pastor_Genesis_6_Fallen_Angels

bible_believer/Reply_to_Pastor_Genesis_6_Fallen_Angels.md

# 📝 The Pastor's Answer and Our Reply

✉️ The Pastor's View (Question and Premise)

"Genesis 6 is about fallen angels and the spirits in prison."

  • The direct objects of "when once the longsuffering of God waited" in 1 Peter 3:20 are the people of Noah's day. It points to the humans who were given a chance to repent but ultimately did not believe, not fallen angels.
  1. During the approximately 120 years of building the ark (Gen 6:3), God gave people an opportunity to repent. "Longsuffering" is an expression that shows God's grace.
  2. The "spirits in prison" in 1 Peter 3:19 are the fallen angels of Genesis 6. The "longsuffering" in 1 Peter 3:20 refers to God's patience towards the people who were alive while the ark was being built. Fallen angels are already under judgment (2 Peter 2:4) and are not the objects of waiting for repentance.

💡 Additional Comments from the Researcher (Interpretive Divide within the IFB)

The interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19-20 is actually clearly divided into two within the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement. Some pastors interpret the "spirits in prison" and "longsuffering" in these verses as 'the unrepentant humans of Noah's day', while conversely, others interpret them as 'the fallen angels of Genesis 6' (which is your current view, Pastor). The fact that there are conflicting interpretations even within a fine camp that believes the same KJV Bible as the supreme authority strongly suggests the need to set aside existing traditional premises (such as the angel theory) and to examine from scratch with a magnifying glass what the text itself is saying.

✉️ Our Reply to the Pastor

Pastor, thank you for your answer and your precious words.
Regarding the two points you raised—the interpretation of the "120 years" in Genesis 6:3 and the identity of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6—there may be some shortcomings on my part, but I have investigated in detail what the biblical text itself says and am sending this reply.

First, the "120 years" in Genesis 6:3 is not a countdown to judgment.

The original text (KJV) of Genesis 6:3 is recorded as follows:

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

The core expression in this verse is "his days". The Hebrew original is יָמָיו (yamav), which is clearly used throughout the Bible, such as in Psalm 102:11 or Job 10:20, to indicate the lifetime, that is, the lifespan of a being.

In other words, what God pronounced here is not the public announcement of a judgment schedule saying "the flood will come in 120 years," but a sentence of life abbreviation stating "I will limit the lifespan of these beings to 120 years."

If this 120 years were the "ark construction period" or a "countdown to repentance," it would mean that the Bible had already publicly announced the exact year and month of the judgment in advance. Being able to calculate the time of judgment by pre-determining a specific date and period seems akin to the so-called 'Rapture date-setting prophecies'. The 120 years is not a schedule for judgment, but a change in the lifespan of the sons of God who were meant to live forever.

Angels do not have a lifespan. They go straight to hell. They did not go to prison after their lifespan was reduced. If you believe in the re-creation and the Gap Theory, going to hell was an event that occurred in Genesis 1:2 and has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis 6.

Second, the subjects in Genesis 6 are not "angels" but "sons of God". The Bible strictly distinguishes between these two categories.

The original Hebrew text of Genesis 6:2, 4 is בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (Bene Ha-Elohim), which literally means "sons of God".

The Hebrew word מַלְאָך (malak) etymologically means "errand runner, messenger", and the Greek word ἄγγελος (angelos) is likewise a functional title meaning "deliverer, messenger". That is, the word 'angel' itself refers to a function and office, not the essence of a being. On the other hand, "son (בֵּן / ben)" refers to an essential relationship and existential category, not a function. This difference is by no means trivial.

Viewing the sons of God in Job 38 as angels is the same error. An angel cannot be a son.

Hebrews 1:14 confirms this difference in a single verse.

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"

According to this verse, the essence of an angel is summarized in two words: "ministering" and "sent forth". This is the definition of a dispatched servant running errands, not a royal being ruling by their own will. A son inherits, and an angel is sent — the biblical distinction is this clear.

Jude 1:6 further confirms this.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate (ἀρχή), but left their own habitation (οἰκητήριον)..."

The Greek word οἰκητήριον (oikētērion) for "habitation" here appears only twice in the entire KJV Bible (Jude 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 5:2). In 2 Corinthians 5:2, this word is used to refer to the resurrection body. What this means is that these beings in Jude did not simply "come down from heaven," but had their own domain of rule and home base.

In the case of Jude, their original status was the sons of God, but their status dropped as they left their habitation. They fell to the rank of angels. Because they had reproductive capabilities, they engaged in strange fleshly acts with the nations of that time. In 2 Peter, fleshly acts are not recorded. Therefore, the angels in 2 Peter and the angels in Jude are different. Just as the chains of darkness and the everlasting chains are different.

A messenger (angel) does not have a habitation of its own. Because the place the master sends them is their habitation. However, the beings in Genesis 6 and Jude 1:6 are beings who abandoned and left their own habitation on their own accord. This is a behavioral pattern of a royal ruler, not the act of a functional messenger.

Third, angels have a body (sōma) but do not have reproducible flesh (sarx/basar).

This distinction is very important. In the Bible, "body" and "flesh" are not the same word.

  • Body: Greek σῶμα (sōma) / Hebrew גּוּף (guf) — Form, substance, the physical form of a being
  • Flesh: Greek σάρξ (sarx) / Hebrew בָּשָׂר (basar) — Biological organism made of blood and flesh (lineage of reproduction, growth, and death)

Angels can appear with a form. Hebrews 13:2 records a case of "entertaining angels while entertaining strangers." This is possible in the dimension of σῶμα (form). However, that does not mean they are basar (biological flesh) with reproductive capabilities.

Look again at the words God declared as the reason for judgment in Genesis 6:3.

"for that he also is flesh (בָּשָׂר / basar)"

What God took issue with is the fact that these beings entered the lineage of basar, that is, flesh with biological reproductive capabilities.

Why this is important was directly declared by Jesus in Matthew 22:30.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

In this verse, Jesus used the fact that "angels do not marry" as a standard of comparison to explain the state of resurrected saints. If angels actually married and gave birth in Genesis 6, this declaration by Jesus loses its basis.

Fourth, then who are the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6? They are neither fallen angels nor the descendants of Seth, but "the innocent sons of Adam born before the sin of the forbidden fruit".

Pastor, if they are not angels, who else could they be? The traditional interpretation that they are "Seth's godly descendants" has already revealed its limitations due to the biological contradiction that the marriage of the godly and ungodly somehow produces 'Nephilim (giants)'. The identity clearly pointed out by the biblical text is precisely 'the innocent sons born to Adam and Eve before eating the forbidden fruit'.

1. Adam's explicit use of past tense (Gen 3:20)

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." (Gen 3:20)

Adam, who used the future tense (shall be) when mentioning bone and flesh in Genesis 2:23, declares a past-tense fact by calling Eve "was the mother" rather than "shall be the mother" right after eating the forbidden fruit. That is, children whose birth had already been completed existed in Eden before the Fall.

2. God's judicial principle: Separation of innocent children (Ezek 18:20)

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." (Ezek 18:20)

If Adam had sons born before eating the forbidden fruit, they are 'innocent ones' who did not participate in the crime. During the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16), God judicially separated and spared the children who did not join the rebellion completely (Numbers 26:11). Likewise, the innocent sons who did not eat the forbidden fruit had no legal basis to be cursed and cast out alongside their father.

3. The polygamous (Wives) crime of human kings that destroyed the creation principle of singular (Wife) They were "sons of God (kings)" who remained in (or around) Eden, clothed with glory equivalent to a resurrection body, and living forever. The legal principle of marriage God established in Eden was for one man to be joined to a singular wife (his wife, Gen 2:24). However, coming to Genesis 6, these innocent royal beings broke God's holy separation and committed the tyrannical crime (polygamy) of taking all which they chose among the 'daughters of men (descendants of fallen Cain)' outside Eden as plural wives (Gen 6:2). These beings, who originally possessed a body but had no death, willingly walked into the lineage of fallen humanity, ultimately sharing the judgment of 'Flesh (basar)' under the curse of death, and only then became restricted by the limit of a '120-year lifespan'.

This is the perfect reason why the two groups, the sons of God and the daughters of men, are clearly distinguished in Genesis 6, and the exact legal background for the declaration of the 120-year lifespan abbreviation.

Thank you.

🗂️ [For KJV Pastors] Core Research Index and Recommended Reading Order

— Biblical Apologetics on Genesis 6, Re-creation, and the First World —

This index is a 'persuasive and argumentative reading order' specifically organized for pastors in Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches and those who believe the KJV Bible is the absolutely infallible Word of God.

While respecting the excellent framework of traditional dispensational theology (Scofield, Larkin, etc.), we have rearranged the sequence into an optimal logical order tailored for pastors. This allows you to verify the deeper textual coherence testified by the original KJV text itself (especially the sequence of judgments in 2 Peter 2 and 3, and the physical contradictions of the angel theory in Genesis 6).

🧭 Part 1: Epistles and Macroscopic Framework (Read First)

This is the most intuitive and shocking approach for pastors accustomed to dispensational charts and timelines.

📌 1. Reply to the Pastor

  • File: Reply_to_Pastor_Genesis_6_Fallen_Angels.md
  • Summary: A formal greeting to pastors, explaining the necessity of strictly re-examining the 'Sons of God = Angels' theory of Genesis 6 using only the KJV text, rather than external literature (such as the Book of Enoch).

📌 2. IFB vs TSB — Full Comparison of Re-creation Flowcharts

  • File: REPORT_Flowchart_Comparison_IFB_vs_TheScriptureOrg.md
  • Summary: (★Highly Recommended) Contrasts the traditional IFB dispensational sequence of creation/judgment with our research flowchart across 15 events. By highlighting the three independent judgments specified in 2 Peter 2:4-6 and the distinction between two worlds in 2 Peter 3, this intuitive chart demonstrates the fatal self-contradiction in the traditional IFB timeline (which acknowledges the flood twice but incorrectly groups the judgments into a single event).

⚖️ Part 2: Biblical Dismissal of the 'Genesis 6 Angel Theory' (Core Forensic Verification)

Once you have confirmed the errors in the macroscopic framework through the flowchart, it is time for a forensic audit of the highly debated text of 'Genesis 6' itself.

📌 3. Final Dismissal of the Angel Theory — Cross-Verification + IRONCLAD Argument

  • File: REPORT_Genesis6_SonsOfGod_ArgumentVerification_Masterpiece.md
  • Summary: A Masterpiece ruling that proves how the claim that the 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6 are fallen angels perfectly collides with cross-references within the KJV Bible (such as the inability of angels to reproduce and the contradictions regarding the punishment of fallen angels).

📌 4-A. Childbirth Before Eating the Forbidden Fruit (Basics) — 9 Forensic Verifications Dismissing the Angel Theory

  • File: REPORT_Genesis_3_6_Sons_of_God.md
  • Summary: Covers 9 foundational legal principles proving the existence of childbirth prior to the forbidden fruit. This foundational document preemptively blocks any counterarguments through the separation of the Jude timeline, heterosis (hybrid vigor), the singularity of the Eden expulsion (Him), the anatomy of Romans 5:12, and Ezekiel 18:20 (prohibition of guilt by association and Achan's family).

📌 4-B. Childbirth Before Eating the Forbidden Fruit (Advanced) — The Law of Resurrection and the Seed War

  • File: REPORT_Children_Before_Tree_Of_Knowledge.md
  • Summary: Builds upon the basic document to deploy 6 new major arguments (the 120-year lifespan, the dust law of resurrection, the legal principle of 'His wife' in Gen 2:24, etc.). The latter half contains an advanced expansion document featuring the overwhelming 'Seed War Chronicle (12 Chapters)', spanning from Eden to the empty tomb of Jesus, and extending to the scene of His preaching to the spirits in hell.

📌 4-C. Contrary-to-Fact Conditional: Gen 3:20 "was" Debate (Verification of Pre-Fall Birth Theory)

  • File: Contrary_to_Fact_Conditional_Gen3_20_was_Pre_Fall_Birth_Theory.md
  • Summary: 🆕 A RETRIAL ruling deploying the new weapon TYPE-AC-λ Counterfactual Substitution (lexical substitution verification). Through an exhaustive survey of the Genesis naming formula (if the reason is future, future tense; if completed, perfect tense — 0 counterexamples) and the tense-separation anchor of Gen 2:23 ("shall be called ... because she was taken"), it exposes that the traditional interpretation (retrospective narrative theory) commits silent substitution (E-16) of the written "was" for an unwritten "shall be" — thus overturning the original ruling and confirming the Pre-Fall Birth Theory as IRONCLAD. (The original ruling record is preserved verbatim in Chapters 1-6)

📌 4-D. Transition Analysis of the Creation Archetype's Reproduction System and the Seed of Woman — Judicial Systematization

🌌 Part 3: The First World and Melchizedek (Unlocking Deep Mysteries)

Once the enigma of Genesis 6 is resolved, the identities of the "morning stars" in Job 38 and "Melchisedec" in Hebrews finally fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

📌 5. Morning Stars Are Not Angels — Exhaustive KJV Usage + The Dust Law

  • File: REPORT_First_World_Nation.md
  • Summary: The "morning stars" of Job 38:7 are not angels. This proves that angels have never 'sang' in the Bible, and reveals the intelligent beings of the first world through the law of dust (earth).

📌 6. Who is Melchisedec? — Living Evidence of the "Morning Stars"

📌 7. The Full Picture of the First World — The Big Picture

  • File: REPORT_Melchizedek_FirstWorld_NationFormation.md
  • Summary: A massive big picture integrating all previous arguments: Creation (Bara) vs. Making (Asah), the nations and kingdoms of the first world found in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, and the three stages of light.
Topic Core Question
Re-creation (Gap Theory) What happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2? Is "without form, and void" the original state or the result of judgment?
Creation (Bara) vs. Making (Asah/Yatsar) How do we distinguish between what God directly created and what He delegated His sons to make?
Nations, Cities, and Kingdoms of the First World Who are the peoples, cities, and kingdoms recorded in Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:14-19?
Sons of God vs. Angels Are the "sons of God" in Job 38:7 and the "ministering spirits (angels)" in Hebrews 1:14 the same or different beings?
The "First Estate (ἀρχή)" of Jude 1:6 What is the "first estate" lost by the fallen sons, and how does this relate to the status of Melchisedec?
Spirits in Prison in 1 Peter 3:19 Are the "spirits in prison" angels, or are they men who died in the first world?
Three Stages of Light How does the light of the first world (Gen 1:3) differ from the light of the second world (Gen 1:14) and the light of the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21:23)?

If you find the conclusions of this report persuasive, we invite you to review the subsequent documents to see the full picture of the first world. Melchisedec is just one piece of that massive picture, and becomes clearer when viewing the whole.

🗄️ Part 4: System Classification Chart and Live Debate Logs (Reference Materials)

Technical and practical materials proving how all doctrines seamlessly interlock like gears within the text without any contradiction.

📌 8. KJV Spiritual Beings Exhaustive Classification Chart — OOP Class Structure

  • File: REPORT_Spiritual_Beings_Classification_Table.md
  • Summary: A master reference document mapping all spiritual beings in the 66 books of the KJV (Sons of God, angels, devils, etc.) into an IT Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) class structure, completely preventing category errors that misread "similar things as the same thing."

📌 9. Hybrid Spirits and the Divine Council of God — The Evil Spirit of King Saul

⚔️ Live Debate Records (TheScriptureBeliever vs. Researcher)

Live defense logs demonstrating how the attacks of a researcher steeped in traditional theology were refuted and defended using solely the KJV text.