Let's debate the topic of the Nephilim/giants

[Doug Hamp]

Hello Paul,

I was recently notified that I am on your list of false teachers. That in and of itself doesn't bother me too much as Jesus is my only judge. Nevertheless, you accused me of being ignorant on the topic of Genesis 6 and the Nephilim. If you are truly confident that you are correct, then please accept my invitation to be on my show, the Awakening Report, to present your evidence of who are the giants in Genesis 6 and I will present my research. Our debate will be very civil and we will have a moderator so that we both have time to fairly present. Since you have taken the liberty to slander my reputation, I trust that you will have the courage to present your side on my show in this matter.

Respectfully,

Douglas Hamp

[Paul Cohen]

Hi Doug,

I've already put forward what you call "my side" regarding the "giants" in Genesis 6 in our posting of you as a false teacher. You're welcome to answer here.

And I find your use of the word, “slander” inaccurate. I was dealing in truth, not lies or false accusations. Speaking the truth, as unpalatable as it may seem to those against whom the truth is spoken, is not slander or abuse by any decent dictionary’s definition.

Paul

[Doug Hamp]

Paul, your explanation of Genesis six is simply out of touch with linguistics, history, and the Bible. While I don't mind if you disagree with me, labeling me as a false teacher is simply cowardly and it is slander - no matter how you try to explain it away. Should you not have demonstrate your integrity to your readers by being willing to put address me to my face? It is easy to sit behind your keyboard and throw stones - why not have the courage to defend your statements? I am willing to prove from the Bible, Hebrew and Greek texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and more that your sophomoric claim is baseless and not accurate.

For your information, I no longer hold to a pretrib rapture position as I could not substantiate that from the Bible.

Concerning the elect, I am glad to debate you on this matter too - the evidence is very clear that God elected Israel and none other. Let your followers see that you are legit by bringing forth the evidence of your claims - you owe it to them. However, if you are not prepared for public debate, perhaps there is someone on your staff who is and we could have a civil debate. Does that sound reasonable?

Respectfully,
Doug

[Paul Cohen]

Paul, your explanation of Genesis six is simply out of touch with linguistics, history, and the Bible.

Show us how, Doug.

While I don't mind if you disagree with me, labeling me as a false teacher is simply cowardly and it is slander - no matter how you try to explain it away.

That’s your opinion without validation. Show us how what I said is false. The fact that you refuse to do so is a strong indicator you can’t because it’s true and while you can’t argue with it, neither will you turn from yourself or your error. This is neither cowardly nor slanderous on my part, only unfortunate on yours.

Should you not have demonstrated your integrity to your readers by being willing to put address me to my face?

Already done, which only the blind who insists he can see refuses to acknowledge or address.

It is easy to sit behind your keyboard and throw stones - why not have the courage to defend your statements?

Defend against what? My statements speak for themselves and you haven’t answered them.

I am willing to prove from the Bible, Hebrew and Greek texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and more that your sophomoric claim is baseless and not accurate.

Stop talking and start doing, then.

Concerning the elect, I am glad to debate you on this matter too - the evidence is very clear that God elected Israel and none other.

No need to debate what has already been proven, Doug. I quote from the posting in question:

“Hamp also teaches that the apostles, when speaking of the ‘elect,’ are speaking only of physical Israel and not of those saved according to God’s foreknowledge and present work in Christ. This is sheer stupidity, a wicked perversion of the Scriptures, which clearly show the elect are those called and chosen to salvation in Christ, both Jew and Gentile:

Romans 9:22-26 MKJV
(22) What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;
(23) and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory [the elect];
(24) whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also of the nations [Gentiles]?
(25) As He also says in Hosea, “I will call those not My people, ‘My people’; and those not beloved, ‘Beloved’.
(26) And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people’; there they shall be called sons of the living God.”

How much clearer can it be made? But for those who walk in their own understanding and righteousness, refusing the Light of Men and His righteousness, darkness withholds them from seeing.

The ball is in your court, Doug. So far you’re only playing against yourself – and losing.

All that said, it is arrogance to suppose we're obligated somehow to our readers to explain every falsehood anyone speaks in the world, there being millions of them. Not only is such a task impossible, it is totally unwarranted.
We know the Truth, Who is Jesus Christ, which is sufficient, and we preach Him and address matters not as you, or even we, please but as led of the Lord. You neither know nor preach Him, and it would do you great good to listen up, repent of your sins, and put away your selfish, foolish, misleading, deceptive, soul-destructive, diabolical agendas lest you perish in your sins. You are perishing and you draw others to fall in your ditch with you. It is wickedness, Doug; nothing less.

[Brian McDonald]

Doug, one of the two truths I find in your claim regarding fallen angels, hybrid Giants, Nephilim and so on is this. #1: When it comes to making money off the backs of gullible “christians” (which make up most of your audience and targeted sales market) there is no better topic. There are many just like you who were and are at the very same game. Zecharia Sitchin with his ancient astronauts. Zen Garcia, Steve Quayle, Jacob Prasch, Chuck Missler, Tom Horn, Steve Cioccolanti, Perry Stone, Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist, and the guy doing the rounds on the YouTube block one, Jonathon Kleck, to name but a few. Its a money spinner and you know it. The subject fills book shelves, conference halls, church halls, Amazon book store, TV History Channel and lets not forget the great and mighty Hollywood. Its all the same crap rehashed with different characters and story boards. YouTube is full of it, it can be found on the same page as “Flat Earth.” Tell the truth Doug, you couldn’t care one way or the other about so-called, fallen angel offspring or anything else for that matter, especially God, if it wasn’t making you money..... and....by the looks of the Web Store page on your site, I’m betting your doing alright in that department. #2: The only other truth I see; and this is a common one running throughout many of these subjects and with most of the people who take them up, including you Doug, is this. You craftily mix in some truth by way of believability in order to set the stage, otherwise people would see, straight of the mark, that you are in the business of hoodwinking them, with no other aim than to extract money. You’re a markateer Doug, not a Christian. You’re a seller of goods and services. If you were a Christian you would be preaching the truths found on this site, not selling tall stories to gullible people. Having your name in the hall of fame (false teachers page) on this site is deserving of your character and the rebuttal associated with it speaks the truth.

In order to argue your point Doug you have to first present the truth of a matter. The untruth in your case, with the fallen angel theory, is the premise that the sons of God were fallen angels to start with, otherwise your argument just doesn’t fit. As Paul already pointed out....”where do you see angels here? God says He won’t strive with whom – angels? No, He says He won’t always strive with man. If angels were the fathers of the giants (or “nephilim” in Hebrew), then why are they called “men of renown”? And why did it repent God that He had made man on the earth if angels from the spirit realm were to blame for what happened by taking the “daughters of men” for their wives?”

Doug I could confidently say I am nowhere near as well versed in the scriptures as you, yet will little study I found these scriptures that prove angels are not and never were the Sons of God

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 1: 5-6. KJV

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3: 1-2 KJV

“therefore the world knoweth us not.” That’s you Doug. Full of the world. Lining your pockets with money. How much money would you make telling people the Sons of God are men, not much I guess, but spice it up and say something like.......the sons of God were fallen angels who had sex with human women and their coming to get you “scary scary” and the money will come rolling in. Why? Because many so-called christians want their ears tickled and they love a good bible horror story. But of course you already know this. I have come across many modern-day christian carpetbaggers like you Doug who feed off the uncertainty and fearful notions of misguided christians.
Some time ago I was looking some spiritual help from one such person and all he could offer me was one of his books for sale, cost £17 or somewhere around that. The point being, he was more interested in making money, whilst using the name of Jesus to do it, than he was in helping me.
Go debate your dead theory with the dead Doug and leave the living to get on with becoming Sons of God.
Brian.

[Victor Hafichuk]

Amen and Amen, Brian. God bless you, and is. I bless you in the Wonderful Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Brian McDonald]

Thank you Victor for your blessing. Amen.

[Paul Cohen]

Amen, Brian and Victor!

[Alan Agnew]

Yes, amen, Victor and Brian!

This reminds me of how YouTube's ad money on videos is drying up for "controversial" content like religion, nephilim, and flat earth. There's still money in their books and other means, but it is also wrong for such people to continue making lies in God's Name and expect money from YouTube ads.

Surely it's a curse on people like Rob Skiba that is working to end their works. It is not suffering for Godly reasons like the saints. Here is Rob discussing how he's losing money https://www.facebook.com/robskiba/posts ... 0625762754" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here is Doug soliciting money so that he can do more work https://youtu.be/w5-yxxrTI7I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; because YouTube's ad revenue is dropping.

There is plenty for you to read on this site, Doug, and I hope you'll repent of your foolishness. Not that I expect you to. You have a PhD in Biblical studies, after all, yet you teach this nonsense.

Or you, Doug, could at least point Rob and others to ThePathOfTruth. There are many papers here, for free, so that you all could repent and live. Or you all can choose to condemn yourselves and denounce us. It's up to Jesus Christ.

[Tom Babcock]

I sent this yesterday to an old internet friend that I left regular contact with some years ago but remembered some things he was keen on and felt that Brian's post was well deserving of passing on. Below is my email to Paul, and his brief reply follows. The hurricane he mentions is Irma.

Subject: Fwd: Brian McDonald has replied to the topic "Let's debate the topic of the Nephilim/giants" in the forum: "False Teachers"
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 02:42:37 -0700
From: Tom Babcock
To: Paul <truthwchrist>


Hi Paul:
I have reconsidered my understanding in the matter that is discussed in this email; Sons of God, Daughters of men and their offspring. I subscribed, as you know, to many of the things touched on in the forward email. Simplicity says that the Sons of God are those of the family of Seth leading to Noah and his family, while the daughters of men are those from Cain who followed an ungodly path. The offspring that came when the Sons of God became carnal and did their own choosing and took other women were the ungodly mixture that led to the flood. And I think that the brief post replying to Doug Hamp provides some substance here. Just thought to pass it on, as simplicity in Christ is a great blessing. . .
The Path of Truth is the site my wife used to refute the teaching of another site, not yours, that I had spent far too much time on.
Tom


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Brian McDonald has replied to the topic "Let's debate the topic of the Nephilim/giants" in the forum: "False Teachers"
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 20:40:49 -0400
From: forum@thepathoftruth.com
Reply-To: forum@thepathoftruth.com
To: Tom Babcock <tomjb@shaw.ca>


Topic: Let's debate the topic of the Nephilim/giants
Link:
http://thepathoftruth.com/forum/viewtop ... 436&e=8436" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian McDonald said the following:

------------------------------------------------------------
Doug, one of the two truths I find in your claim regarding fallen angels,
hybrid Giants, Nephilim and so on is this. #1: When it comes to making
money off the backs of gullible “christians” (which make up most of your
audience and targeted sales market) there is no better topic. There are
many just like you who were and are at the very same game. Zecharia Sitchin
with his ancient astronauts. Zen Garcia, Steve Quayle, Jacob Prasch, Chuck
Missler, Tom Horn, Steve Cioccolanti, Perry Stone, Peter Joseph’s
Zeitgeist, and the guy doing the rounds on the YouTube block one, Jonathon
Kleck, to name but a few. Its a money spinner and you know it. The subject
fills book shelves, conference halls, church halls, Amazon book store, TV
History Channel and lets not forget the great and mighty Hollywood. Its all
the same crap rehashed with different characters and story boards. YouTube
is full of it, it can be found on the same page as “Flat Earth.” Tell the
truth Doug, you couldn’t care one way or the other about so-called, fallen
angel offspring or anything else for that matter, especially God, if it
wasn’t making you money..... and....by the looks of the Web Store page on
your site, I’m betting your doing alright in that department. #2: The only
other truth I see; and this is a common one running throughout many of
these subjects and with most of the people who take them up, including you
Doug, is this. You craftily mix in some truth by way of believability in
order to set the stage, otherwise people would see, straight of the mark,
that you are in the business of hoodwinking them, with no other aim than to
extract money. You’re a markateer Doug, not a Christian. You’re a seller of
goods and services. If you were a Christian you would be preaching the
truths found on this site, not selling tall stories to gullible people.
Having your name in the hall of fame (false teachers page) on this site is
deserving of your character and the rebuttal associated with it speaks the
truth.

In order to argue your point Doug you have to first present the truth of a
matter. The untruth in your case, with the fallen angel theory, is the
premise that the sons of God were fallen angels to start with, otherwise
your argument just doesn’t fit. As Paul already pointed out....”where do
you see angels here? God says He won’t strive with whom – angels? No, He
says He won’t always strive with man. If angels were the fathers of the
giants (or “nephilim” in Hebrew), then why are they called “men of renown”?
And why did it repent God that He had made man on the earth if angels from
the spirit realm were to blame for what happened by taking the “daughters
of men” for their wives?”

Doug I could confidently say I am nowhere near as well versed in the
scriptures as you, yet will little study I found these scriptures that
prove angels are not and never were the Sons of God

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
to me a Son? Hebrews 1: 5-6. KJV

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not,
because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth
not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we
shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3: 1-2 KJV

“therefore the world knoweth us not.” That’s you Doug. Full of the world.
Lining your pockets with money. How much money would you make telling
people the Sons of God are men, not much I guess, but spice it up and say
something like.......the sons of God were fallen angels who had sex with
human women and their coming to get you “scary scary” and the money will
come rolling in. Why? Because many so-called christians want their ears
tickled and they love a good bible horror story. But of course you already
know this. I have come across many modern-day christian carpetbaggers like
you Doug who feed off the uncertainty and fearful notions of misguided
christians.
Some time ago I was looking some spiritual help from one such person and
all he could offer me was one of his books for sale, cost £17 or somewhere
around that. The point being, he was more interested in making money,
whilst using the name of Jesus to do it, than he was in helping me.
Go debate your dead theory with the dead Doug and leave the living to get
on with becoming Sons of God.
Brian.

Paul's reply without header:
Tom
I appreciate your candor and of course I have a different view. I sell nothing and in fact have deleted my contact and follower lists several times as NOT to be motivated by money or followers or sensationalism. COL SC and I have worked “black projects” – and KNOW…all I can say…

Scripture also is clear when one does the word studies – Gen 3.15 is Zera/Sperma – literal offspring… I am very familiar with the “Son’s of Seth” view – this is the majority view… I have NEVER found the Majority to be right on ANYTHING!

I do know you have a sincere heart and spirit, and in that context, may Jesus Christ bless you and your loved ones – pray for me as the NEW Hurricane is headed right for me!
Paul

[Doug Hamp]

Paul - Josephus states: "For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants."

According to William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, “This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.”

The book of Jude likewise speaks of what happened in the days of Noah:
"Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe. You also know that the angels [angelous αγγελους] who did not keep within their proper domain [arkhen αρχην] but abandoned their own place of residence [oiketerion οικητηριον], he has kept [There is an interesting play on words used in this verse. Because the angels did not keep their proper place, Jesus has kept them chained up in another place. The same verb keep is used in v. 1 to describe believers’ status before God and Christ. (NET Notes Jude 6)] in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day. So also [hos ως] Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality [ekporeusasai εκπορνευσασαι] and pursued unnatural desire [sarkos heteras σαρκος ετερας] in a way similar to these [toutois τουτοις] angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire," (Jude 1:5-7 NET).

I have written extensively on this matter and the simply reality is that you are simply ignorant of what you are speaking about. I again invite you to demonstrate to your followers that you actually have the courage to debate me and to demonstrate that you are not ignorant. You have slandered me (and apparently others) and yet you don't seem to have the integrity or courage to face those you slander - it would seem because you don't actually know what you are talking about. Perhaps you are the biggest false teacher on this site?

[Victor Hafichuk]

Let whosoever will answer Doug Hamp, though he has already had some appropriate answers.

[Brandon LaBerteaux]

Doug, your quotations, appeal to authority and analysis are a stretch, to say the least.

First, who was Josephus? Not a believer in Christ. Many scholars and his contemporaries thought he was conceited and a traitor to his own kind as he sat idly by and watched Jerusalem burn working for Titus. Sure, he was an instrument of God to bring judgment upon Israel, "in like manner" as Judas was to Jesus in his betrayal.

So quoting a non-believer as though he would have an understanding of the spiritual meaning of Scripture is a weak way to start off.

Now, your take on Jude is about as stable as a house of cards. Let's compare a few other versions of Jude 1:7 to see how the translation came out:

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (ESV)

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.(KJV)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to impurity, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Webster's)

as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering. (Young's Literal)

You're trying to stretch here and say that the sexual sins of Sodom and Gamorrah are being called "in like manner" to the angels mentioned. That's not how it reads at all, for even those with common sense. How can angels have sex? What did Christ say?

“But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22:29-30

There's no sexes and no marriage in the heavenly realm. This isn't the Islamic paradise where the afterlife is filled with orgies. Sex is of the flesh. Angels are spirit. There's no need for marriage, because there's no need for sex and reproduction (the essential need for godly marriage in the world) because Heaven is not of the flesh.

What's a more likely and rational reading of those verses you quoted is that the angels who rebelled had impure, unnatural (rebellious) desires. They thought to usurp God, to rebel against Him, and Sodom and Gamorrah did in their pride as well. That's the comparison. Besides isn't it said that sexual immorality/coveting after the flesh in an ungodly way is idolatry?

“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5:5‬

Therefore, it is easy to see that Sodom and Gamorrah idolized sex and the flesh, and acted as those angels who idolized themselves by thinking to usurp God. That's what Satan and the man of sin does, seek to establish himself as God.

Also, if the angels committed sexual sins, why not say that in verse 5 and 6 before mentioning Sodom and Gamorrah? The comparison being made is one of judgment, not an act of sexual immorality; the sin shared is rebellion against God's authority, not carnal desires.

Last, let's just cut to the chase here over what really matters. Do you testify you have the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord Jesus Christ dwells and lives today inside of you, and that it is by Him and not your self that you speak?

I hear a lot of pride and posturing pointing to your theological studies and research, but I don't hear any fruits of the Spirit in you, Doug.

The apostle Paul was a learned man as yourself, studying the scriptures for years, and assuredly one of the foremost Jewish scholars of his day. Here's what he had to say regarding his educational background after receiving the Holy Spirit:

“Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭3:4-8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Dung means shit, Doug, as in, to use a colloquialism, Paul's theological studies didn't mean shit. If you have not Christ, neither do yours.

If you don't have Christ, who is love, you don't have anything:

“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love [Christ], I am nothing.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭13:2

[Brian McDonald]

“Let whosoever will answer Doug Hamp, though he has already had some appropriate answers.”

Doug, if I may, there is more I would like to say on this subject but I would like to take you to task on another matter first. As part of your correspondence you had this to say. “I again invite you to demonstrate to your followers that you actually have the courage to debate me and to demonstrate that you are not ignorant.”
Firstly, I would like to point out that this is not some “cult” you are dealing with and none of the people you refer to here as “followers” actually follow Paul, or Victor for that matter. I think I can speak for most people here, if not all, when I say, we strive to follow Jesus and Him only. Jesus has called Victor and Paul and others to lead this ministry and there is nothing unusual in this from a biblical stand. Victor and Paul are not recruiting for followers, they are pointing, not to themselves but to a higher Authority. The one to whom all Authority in heaven and earth was given. If I am not mistaken this is the second time you have used the word “followers” with regards to the people here and I would ask you to please refrain as your use of the term is clearly derogatory.
Now that that matter is cleared away where can I start. To be honest, I felt a certain degree of guilt at being so harsh with you in my last post. Please don’t take that as an apology because it’s not, it’s just weakness on my part. I know Jesus would have me speak the truth regardless of feelings on both our parts.
Doug I can’t help but wonder where you think this theory (fallen angels) is going, or what purpose it serves in the kingdom of God. Let me expand that a little so you understand where I am coming from..... I turn up at one of your conferences and you fill my head with all this knowledge about fallen angels that came to earth and had sex with women. I refer to the scripture below
.
When humankind1 began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born2 to them,3 2 the sons of God4 saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose. 3 So the Lord said, “My spirit will not remain in5 humankind indefinitely,6 since7 they8 are mortal.9 They10 will remain for 120 more years.”11
4 The Nephilim12 were on the earth in those days (and also after this)13 when the sons of God were having sexual relations with14 the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children.15 They were the mighty heroes16 of old, the famous men.17
5 But the Lord saw18 that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination19 of the thoughts20 of their minds21 was only evil22 all the time.23 6The Lord regretted24 that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended.25 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals,26 including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.” Genesis 6:1-7 New English Translation.

Really Doug, apart from anything else, this reads more like a translation the JWs would publish. Reading and studying their NWT with them I just couldn’t help but feel there was something suspicious going on. I get the same feeling here with this rendering. I know you like the NET bible but come on.
For a start, “ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children.”
You purport that the nephilim were the net result of this strange angel + humankind breeding program, yet here they are already on the earth in those days. And another thing, as Paul already pointed out, where is God’s wrath towards these wayward angels. Why is His regret at having made these angels not shared here also. Not a single word of condemnation for these super beings “angels” no less. If such was the case, one would think that God would have put most of the blame, there and then, on these highly intelligent, super powerful, beguiling angels who just took what was not theirs to take in the first place but strangely, not a word. I have to ask, did you all get together in some dark Vatican council and commissioned this translation to suit your own twisted notions? The NWT is littered with “key” words, dropped in just the right places, to purposely change the scriptures to their way (JWs) of thinking. I have digressed enough.

..... I turn up at one of your conferences and you fill my head with all this knowledge about fallen angels that came to earth and had sex with women. So fine, now I know all that, what good is it to me? Am I living the word of God? Does my life reflect that of one who purports to follow Christ? What happens to these people who come to your meetings and sit for hours while you feed them all this information? I can tell you if you like. They end up spending half their lives on YouTube searching out all the info and videos they can on “fallen angels.” But....hold on, it doesn’t end there because such and such a pastor has a slightly different view. Next thing, Jonny kleck comes on and he’s got the proof, it’s all over the US currency. That’s not all, Jonny thinks are DNA is already corrupted and we are part of the hive system. You on the other hand think the DNA corruption comes at the end when the anti-christ decides to share his with humanity under the false assertion that he really wants to save us all. And....oh hang on, pastor such and such says something completely different. Shit, how am I going to get saved now? I don’t know which one is right. Maybe I should go visit the doc and get my DNA checked, just in case.
Doug why don’t you just stick to what you know for sure the bible really teaches and leave the fairy tales to the scary book writers. You have a great knowledge of scripture and can pick many scriptures right out of you head and quote them word for word. Surely you could put that God given talent to serving the Lord in Spirit and in Truth and put an end to this confusion because that’s all this is, total confusion and something that has no bearing on weather one gets saved (Born again) or not. If you are concerned as to the mark of the beast, are we not all under that mark already until the Lord takes us through the fires and removes the man of sin who sits in the place where he should not be.

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4

Are we not temples of the living God? Who was it that occupied that seat before the fall, who occupies it now if we are not “saved.”? We are that man of sin, surrendering to the spirit of anti-christ and setting ourselves up (under his corrupting spirit) as gods of our own making. Each one going his own way? It’s not so much a mark that we need worry about but rather an attitude. Is it not this that needs to change if we really want to be reborn of God?

[Brian McDonald]

Amen Brandon.

[Paul Cohen]

Doug, you’re required, as the respondent in this “debate,” to answer what’s already been posted. Yet you continuously avoid dealing with the material in Giants Who Bring Humanity Down and the answers provided in this thread.

Not only do you refuse to acknowledge or answer the facts laid out from the Scriptures, you also hypocritically taunt us as if you’ve answered satisfactorily. Yet all you’ve done is recycled a theory that’s already been discredited, adding a new twist by using the word “angels” to substitute for “the sons of God” in Genesis 6.

The men referred to as the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are those whom Josephus is referring to as “angels” in his similar quote:

“For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.”

Genesis 6:1-5 KJV
(1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
(2) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
(3) 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.
(4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
(5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Josephus has changed “the sons of God” into “angels,” which you, Doug, have taken and run with, linking the passage in Genesis to Jude to support your theory that spiritual beings came out of Heaven to have sexual relations with women.

But your theory doesn’t stand up even when using “angels” because the word rendered such from the original language means “messenger” and can refer to human beings, as in:

“For this is the one of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger [angel] before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You’” (Matthew 11:10 MKJV).

“And you did not despise my temptation in my flesh, nor did you spurn it. But you received me as an angel [messenger] of God, as Christ Jesus” (Galatians 4:14 MKJV).

“And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she had received the messengers [angels] and had sent them out another way” (James 2:25 MKJV).

And why call Jesus Christ a liar as you surely do by insisting that angels marry when He said they didn’t marry (by nature)?

“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven” (Matthew 22:30 MKJV).

We pay no regard to what Josephus, William Whiston, the “church fathers,” or any man thinks of these things mean when they’re in conflict with what has been revealed to us as sons of God through His Only Begotten Son. You don’t have the Son of God and can’t testify of Him, which is why you appeal to carnal authorities who also didn’t know or have the Son. Your confidence is in the flesh. You’re full of yourself, but empty of God and His Spirit.

“He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12 MKJV).

Three strikes you’re out, Doug. As Brian McDonald put it, “Go debate your dead theory with the dead Doug and leave the living to get on with becoming Sons of God.”

No slander here calling you a false teacher; we know our Father’s business and know you by your fruits. We only tell the truth about you, a mercenary using God’s Name in vain.

[Simon Hall]

Doug, not that false teachers like yourself don’t say some true things, but I am really at a loss as to why we should be listening to any of your dribble at all, considering you are an enemy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you clearly and blatantly operate outside of His commandments. Just one of the simple ones being:
As you go, preach, saying, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. Freely you received, so freely give. (Mat 10:7-8 WEB)

Or for clarification, another version:

And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. (Mat 10:7-8 ESV)

Doug, how dare you sell what you think are the things of God, revelations that you think He has freely given to you. That makes you a hypocrite, a liar, a thief and a scoundrel. Even though most of, if not all of the things you peddle on your website are crap, the fact you think they come from God, selling them is wrong and it is antichrist by nature, as are you.

The fact that you are not even given to receive and obey such a simple command from the Lord, proves that you are not His. What, with all your study and great knowledge of the scriptures, you can’t even glean one simple truth from the Bible. Doug, you are full of it. You come here posturing, with your chest stuck out and your spiritual nose in the air, even calling Paul ignorant and challenging him because you think you can take him down publicly and make a fool out of him, while big noting yourself. Not just are you the only fool on this forum thread, you are both ignorant and arrogant, and you are wrong.

Unless you repent here, Doug, nothing you have to say has any validity as far as I’m concerned. If you can’t be trusted in the small things, how could you possibly be trusted in anything else?

Doug, you do not represent the true Lord Jesus Christ, you represent a false jesus, with a false lying gospel of your own. You are a vessel of dishonour, formed by the hand of God to lead others like yourself, who don’t care for the truth or for the Lord Himself, into delusion so as to believe a lie.

Your time to receive the truth will come, but neither do you or I get to determine the time for that. It’s all in the Lord’s hands. Until then though, you will remain under His wrath.

Simon Hall

[Victor Hafichuk]

You come here posturing, with your chest stuck out and your spiritual nose in the air, even calling Paul ignorant and challenging him because you think you can take him down publicly and make a fool out of him, while big noting yourself. Not just are you the only fool on this forum thread, you are both ignorant and arrogant, and you are wrong.

The fruit identified. Even if we WERE in the wrong (and we're not), would the Right One come along and challenge, even press, the "Pharisees," scribes, commoners, or anyone else to a public debate?

But we being right, Hamp is all the more in the wrong, even if he had something of true value, which he does not.

No, the Spirit of the Lord doesn't operate that way. He has no need to do so. He addressed the enemy in no uncertain terms, no debate. He didn't pride Himself in His Superior Knowledge, He didn't major on minor issues He thought would gain him prominence, and He sure as Hell (and Heaven) didn't sell the Truth. Fruits accurately identified here, Simon.

You deny you're a false teacher, Doug? Oh, you've proven our words to be perfectly accurate quite handily. No weapon formed against us ever prospers. Thus says the Lord, all praise, honor, glory, and power to Him!

And Simon, I think the word is "drivel," unless you Aussies have modified , which is fine by me. Either way, the message is clear enough!

[Simon Hall]

Drivel would have fitted into that sentence just nicely too, Victor. But yes, dribble, while maybe being an Aussie adaptation, it is more something I like using myself. It comes from watching what happens to babies at the point where they are trying to talk but can't yet form the words. It's kind of like they know what they're saying, but no one else does. And at this age babies still dribble on themselves.
When some one is making something up/lying, in Australia, we call that talking or dribbling s--t.
So if you join the above two bits of information together, you now understand what it means when I say dribble, with dribble being my abbreviated G rated version of the above.

Simon

[Victor Hafichuk]

I'd like to ask some questions:

Genesis 6 and following says God destroyed all flesh in the earth because of the corruption perpetrated by the sons of God. Did He destroy the victims or the perpetrators?

According to Doug Hamp, the "angels" were the perpetrators but God destroyed the defiled and not the defilers. Did God then fail to root out the cause of the evil, destroying the victims rather than the perpetrators? Just what kind of God do we have? According to Hamp, the dark side is too powerful for the Omnipotent Creator of All - more than He can handle.

Is that Who He is and how He works? Is God unjust? Is He inept and stupid? Doug Hamp says so.

And as Brian essentially asks of Doug, if what Doug says is true, what is the sure course of action and remedy? What is our hope with such a god? Is not your message perverse, Doug?

What am I missing, people? Clarify and correct me, if you will.

[Victor Hafichuk]

Marilyn wishes there was a "Like" button here, Simon. That would be handy.

[Brandon LaBerteaux]

It comes from watching what happens to babies at the point where they are trying to talk but can't yet form the words. It's kind of like they know what they're saying, but no one else does. And at this age babies still dribble on themselves.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is what I saw when you used the word too, Simon. A drooling fool, I believe is the term? Etymology shows dribble and drivel were interchangeable at one point.

Here, Victor, from Doug's website (after a lengthy section of his "credentials"):

I take the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. We can trust it in every way. I believe in a literal six day creation which serves as an important basis for interpreting the rest of the Bible. I believe in the tri-une God the Father and Jesus, the second person of the Godhead incarnated, took my sins on the cross, died and rose again. I believe that He is coming back bodily at the second coming and the rapture of true believers will proceed the second coming is what is called the rapture. After the tribulation the Lord will establish His kingdom and we shall forever be with Him in the New Jerusalem.

So his end game would simply be to convince people Jesus Christ died for their sins and to wait for the "rapture." All the speculation and analysis would then just be for kicks by that reasoning, or perhaps a Kirk Cameron-esque scare tactic into "winning souls"?

[Brian McDonald]

Will this do?

2015-10-21-1445455426-5159507-facebook_like_button_big.jpeg (53.36 KiB) Viewed 5021 times

[Victor Hafichuk]

I recall a TV series I used to watch occasionally many years ago, Magnum PI, where Magnum would say to his friend, "That will do, Higgins!" In his case, it was impatience. In my case, it's pure agreement.

Brandon, thanks for that information. Well done and well answered in this thread. He has tons of error - the main meal being the common Orthodox Christian error, topped off with a goodly ladle of dung for exceptionality.

[Simon Hall]

I also had a couple of thoughts that came to mind while writing my response to Doug. I’m not sure if they’re worth anything, but I will communicate them anyway. And if anyone has any comments, I would love to hear them.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any animal of the field which Yahweh God had made. He said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” (Gen 3:1 WEB)

You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
(Joh 8:44 WEB)

We know by the above scriptures that God created Satan as is, to do an act in all the ungodly, antichrist ways imaginable. My thoughts were, that if the devil or his angels (demons) can’t change their design and if and of themselves they can’t repent and become honest and true, and I’m not just talking about saying true things and representing themselves as angels of light, which we know they do (2 Cor 11:14), but actually changing their ways and turn to good, then why would angels of light created to do other things as God commands, be any more able to change their design and turn bad and go against God’s wishes. Man doesn’t have free will (Phil 2:13), and it appears that the angels, either good or bad don’t either. So then, how could angels (sons of God as Doug wrongly misrepresented them as) go against their design? Man can’t turn from his sinful ways until the gift of repentance is given (2 Tim 2:25), even though there are many who say they are repentant, but by their fruits we know they are not, with Doug being the perfect example. And a sheep can be nothing but a sheep, or a duck be anything but a duck. Even though I once saw a sheep raised in a back yard around only dogs, while that sheep would try to bark like a dog instead of bah like a sheep, it couldn’t do it. And if God wants to create an angel or angels that fly around His throne for all eternity doing nothing but singing His praises, and that is their design, then at no stage, for example after a million years, even if you could measure eternity by physical time, which we can’t, would those angels look at each other and say “ hey Barry,……….. yes George,…. I’ve had enough of this and I’m bored, let’s go do something else?.... Yeh, sounds good, Barry, let’s go do some evil things, let’s do the opposite of what God wants”. It’s hogwash and it’s not true. Is a sheep fulfilled in being a sheep? Is it really dissatisfied and so wants to be a cow? No. And does the devil want to be anything other than what he is? Is he capable of being anything other than what he is? NO. Are we capable of being anything else other than the beasts we are until God gives us repentance and the gift of faith to follow through? No. Do we yearn for something more? I do…….. why? Is it because I haven’t yet fully been made to my design? Yes. Am I currently 100% made in the image of God? No, but I will be. My design is a work in progress. When the Lord has made me completely in His image, 100% to His design for me, am I going to want be something or someone else? No. Will I rebel against God because I don’t want to be like Him? NO. Even with the little that He has already given me to be like him, I want to be more like Him, not less.

Can anything or anyone operate outside the will of God? NO, NO and NO. Praise be to the name of our God, our Saviour, the Author and Finisher of our faith, the Alpha and Omega, the Lord Jesus Christ. All glory and honour to Him, Amen.

FYI, as I started to write the couple of thoughts that I was going to communicate at the top of this post, it actually morphed in to something else. I had to keep writing, I couldn't stop.

Marilyn, I'm glad you enjoyed the "dribble" explanation. And thanks, Brian, for posting the big "like" button.

Simon