In Defense of Horn & Missler: A Response to Gaylene Goodroad

Thomas Horn

Tom Horn and Chuck Missler have recently been vehemently criticized by Gaylene Goodroad of the Herescope website. While it is fair to say they are colorful characters, both men are committed Christians, strong advocates of dispensationalism and writers/producers of popular media.  I have read and studied the works of both men. In fact, Chuck Missler’s Bible teaching had a lot to do with leading me to Christ. It should be said that he teaches the entire Bible not just prophecy and controversial subjects. Similarly, Horn has worked as a pastor and administratively at the top levels of the Assemblies of God denomination. They both believe Jesus will return sooner rather than later but to my knowledge neither set dates nor advocate doing so.  Admittedly, they both take speculative and controversial stands that might be considered unconventional but I would not label either as heretical. I don’t agree with everything they write but I do find their work thought provoking and interesting. While there is some validity to criticizing their penchant for showmanship and interest in fringe topics, it seems to me that the critique misrepresents them both and is itself an example of very poor biblical exegesis.

Bad Exegesis

Much of Goodroad’s complaint is concerned with the exegesis of Genesis 6. She does not like the idea that the Bible teaches divine beings mated with human women and had mutant offspring who were known as the Nephilim.  However, there really is no valid scholarship to suggest otherwise.  She seems histrionic in her assertions:

So, does it matter how we interpret the Bible? What is wrong with believing that fallen angels (“Watchers”) mated with humans to produce of hybrid race of creatures (“Nephilim”) that are part angel (god?) and part mortal? Might they be called demigods? One critic of these teachings has said that this scenario is a “scheme to downplay the importance of the incarnation…it takes away from Christ’s uniqueness, virgin birth, atonement.” Mockers can then say, “What’s the big deal with Christ being God and man [the God/Man]—so are the Nephilim?”[20] This also subtly overshadows man’s sin toward his Creator, thus diminishing the Gospel.[1]

This is a blatantly fallacious slippery slope argument. Potential objections from mockers and hyperbolic theological ramifications do not have anything to do with the interpretation of the vocabulary and grammar of the Hebrew text. One should not interpret the Bible emotionally to suit one’s tastes or preconceived notions, the Bible actually speaks very clearly on this issue where many try to obfuscate. Dr. Michael Heiser is an evangelical Christian and Semitic languages expert who argues:

The second tier is marked in the Hebrew Bible by the identification of the members of the divine council as divine family members or “sons of God,”  … the context of these references points to divine beings. [2]

He explains reactionary criticisms like Goodroads’ in this way:

Genesis 6:1-4 is one of those texts that, for many, is best left alone. Many contemporary evangelical Bible scholars have gone to great lengths to strip the “mythology” out of it (i.e., the supernatural elements) so as to make it more palatable. But one has to wonder how bending supernatural language to human reason is consistent with the testimony of affirming a supernatural worldview. [3]

Hebrew Bible scholars are in wide agreement on the “divine being” or angelic rendering of “sons of God” in Genesis 6.  According to the scholarly Word Biblical Commentary:

The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19). The NT (2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.

Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1–4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense.[4]

Furthermore, the New Testament evidence is completely ignored by Goodroad (2 Peter 2:4–10, Jude 5–7). If not Genesis 6, then what alternative examples from the scriptures can she suggest of Angels sinning (2 Pet 2:4)?  Clearly, the New Testament authors are referring to this Genesis 6 episode and understood the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as supernatural beings.  It is also clear enough that this episode involved “angels” and a decision those divine beings made to violate a God given limit when they “abandoned their proper abode” (Jude 6 NAS). Furthermore, the 2 Peter passage indisputably situates this sin at the time of Noah and the Flood (2 Pet 2:5).  That the sin committed by the angels was sexual is clear from the vocabulary as well as the linkage to the Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:6; Jude 7). In denying the supernatural view of Genesis 6, Goodroad is effectively suggesting that Peter and Jude also misunderstood the passage.

Apologist and philosopher Francis Schaeffer had no problem understanding the text with a supernatural worldview. Commenting on Jude 6-7’s connection to Genesis 6 he wrote:

This passage [Jude 6-7] seems to say that there are angels who left their own proper place and are specifically under judgment because they acted like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.  That is, as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah sought “other flesh” in homosexuality, these angels sought flesh that was “ other flesh”; they involved themselves with human women in what could be called fornication.

There is further interest concerning this if one understands it as a commingling of the angelic and the human, for then it is possible that it was the original historic source of an element common in mythology.  More and more we are finding that mythology in general, though greatly contorted, very often has some historic base.  And the interesting thing is that one myth that one finds over and over again in many parts of the world is that somewhere a long time ago supernatural beings had sexual intercourse with natural women and produced a special breed of people.[5]

Goodroad also criticizes the use of the term “Watchers”  as a term “taken from the apocryphal Book of Enoch” apparently ignorant that it is used three times in the canonical Book of Daniel  (Dan 4:13; 4:17; 4:23). In his dissertation, Heiser also argues, “It is clear from these passages that terms like ‘angels,’ ‘archangels,’ ‘Watchers,’ ‘holy ones,’ ‘highest ones,’ and ‘sons of heaven’ overlap.”[6] I’ve never seen any convincing scholarship refuting the angelic view of Genesis 6 that does not reek of anti-supernaturalist eisegesis.  For instance, Goodroad resorts to a long refuted canard when she quotes Matthew 22:30 as if it were some sort of  evidence against the supernatural view. Apparently she is oblivious to the fact that the text reads the “angels in Heaven.” It is not about the fallen Angels (who are not in heaven) and it says absolutely nothing about Angels abilities to biologically function. Chuck Missler has written an historical explanation of the dubious origins of the humanistic interpretation favored by anti-suprenaturalists known as the Sethite View available here.

Mischaracterizations

Chuck Missler

On the charges of date setting and using extra biblical sources, Missler has written:

The Bible is filled with admonitions in regards to date setting. The Bible indicates that everything will be established by two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15; Numbers 35:30; Matthew 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19). One would think that these references would be enough, and yet the fascination with date setting continues.[7]

I wonder if she bothered to read the last chapter of Tom Horn’s Apollyon Rising 2012:

A couple of points need clarification at the beginning of this final chapter having to do with 1) date setting and 2) extra-biblical sources for interpreting end times prophecy. Setting dates in particular for eschatological affairs, such as the beginning of sorrows, the return of Christ, or the battle of Armageddon, have been illustrated historically to be unwise, discrediting those who make such predictions concerning the exact timing of future events. In general, Christians should simply always be ready for the end of the age and the coming of Christ, because “ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Matthew 24:42). Jesus further told his followers that the exact date of his arrival would be known by “no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my father only” (Matthew 24:36).[8]

He goes on to write concerning extra-biblical texts:

While most Bible scholars admit these texts can provide invaluable insights for helping students of history fill gaps between cultural and historical events related to the first-century Judaism and the background of Christianity (for instance, The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus), they believe these should not be elevated among the divinely inspired or authoritative sources, especially if they contradict or supplant existing canonical teachings (the Bible). [9]

The pseudepigraphal texts tell us the way the Jews of Antiquity understood their scriptures. We refer to them in my seminary course work very often. They are an ancient witness and a valuable aid in proper exegesis.  Exegesis is about the authors intent. For instance, from these ancient witnesses like  1st Enoch there is no doubt that the Biblical author meant his reader to understand a divine being when he wrote “sons of God” in Genesis 6. The ancient sources unanimously evidence the supernatural view. As I have shown, the Old and New Testaments also overwhelmingly support the supernatural view of Genesis 6. When read in its ancient context, it’s really beyond dispute exegetically.

The Bottom Line

I don’t see why it is out of line for Christians to speculate about UFOs, aliens, fallen angels or 2012 prophecies as long as it’s represented as speculation. I have never taken it as anything other. The Bible is a supernatural book replete with demon possession and angelic conflicts (Eph 6:12; Dan 10:20). Could fallen angels be up to mischief masquerading as aliens? Apologists like Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross and Kenneth Samples have all voiced views that UFOs are demonic. Ross and Samples have written, “It seems apparent that residual UFOs, in one or more ways, must be associated with the activities of demons.”[10] Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist no less. Perhaps it is not so fringe a view after all? It seems abundantly clear that Missler and Horn might be capitalizing on it somewhat but they aren’t making it up. If you take the Bible seriously, then Apollyon is going to rise from the bottomless pit one day (Rev 9:1; 17:8) and the Angels in bondage will be released during the end times (Rev 9:14). It’s really up to you whether you believe it or not but it is indisputable that the Bible predicts it. Accordingly, I don’t think it is out of bounds for Christians to comment on what that might look like or how it could take place.

I’ll let them defend themselves on the rest but these points just jumped out at me as I read Goodroad’s emotionally charged mischaracterizations. Sure both men have a penchant for the extraordinary and have a tendency to ham it up but she is mischaracterizing them and is guilty of mishandling the Biblical text herself more egregiously by denying and castigating the supernatural view of Genesis 6.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (Jn 3:12)

 

 


[1] Gaylene Goodroad, “DOOMSDAY DATESETTERS 2012,” http://herescope.blogspot.com/2011/06/doomsday-datesetters-2012.html (accessed 6/11/2011).

[2] Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Cannonical and Non Cannonical 2nd Temple Jewish Literature.” (Ph.D. dissertation ,University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004) 49.

[3] Michael Heiser, http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

[4] Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary  : Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 139.

[5] Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer : A Christian Worldview. (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1982).

[6] Heiser, Dissertation, 224.

[7] Chuck Missler, “Date Setting?”  http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/36/ (accessed 06/11/2011).

[8] Thomas Horn, Apollyon Rising 2012: The Lost Symbol Found and the Final Mystery of the Great Seal Revealed (Crane, MS: Defender, 2009),  303.

[9] Horn, Apollyon, 304.

[10] Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples and Mark Clark, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002), 123.

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.

Comments

  1. Dr. Future says:

    An excellent job, Bro. Cris, in an informative and well-balanced response. I know this took a good bit of your time to prepare – time probably better served in other more frutiful endeavors, and it is a shame that your energies have to be expended in addressing distracting and ill-informed controversies, although I am glad that you have, in a much better way than I ever could. My hope would be that the good work otherwise done at “Herescope” could continue with a reconciled unity and focus on the true adversaries of the Christian mission.

  2. David says:

    Cris,

    One other thing. You asked, “If not Genesis 6, then what alternative examples from the scriptures can she suggest of Angels sinning (2 Pet 2:4)?”

    I think they would probably cite the story of one third of the stars of heaven being swept away by the dragon, as the sin of the angels. Most believe that Satan led an ancient rebellion of the angels against God, and one third of them rebelled with Satan. I do not agree with this, but I would bet anything that this would be their response.

    David

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Thanks David ( I corrected as per your suggestions)! I suppose they could bring that up but it really wouldn’t work – would it? Think about what biblical texts that Jude and Peter had access to when they wrote their epistles. A reasonable date for the writing of the letter by Jude is between a.d. 65 and 80. Revelation was likely not even written yet.

      • Not to mention, the angels referred to by Jude and Peter are “chained up”. If so, following the view that these are the same angels referred to as the 1/3, how are they still causing mischief among those on earth (I.e. demons)?

        Joshua

  3. David Lowe says:

    Cris,

    I posed the topic at hand to a prominent Bible teacher on the west coast who does not believe angels could have had sexual relations with humans. Here were my specific questions:

    I have a few questions for about II Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 that I’ve not heard you answer on your radio show or your recorded lectures:

    II Pet 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment,

    Jud 1:6 You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.

    and related…

    I Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? Why not ordinary matters!

    In these verses, Peter and Jude stated that there were angels that sinned, which resulted in the punishment of being locked up in chains (Tartarus) until the judgment. In perhaps a related passage, Paul indicated those in Christ would in the future “judge angels.” Can you answer for me the following:

    1. Does the Bible record anywhere what sin was committed by angels? If so, where?
    2. If the sin was what Jude referred to (not keeping within their proper domain and abandoning their own place of residence), what do you think he meant by that?
    3. If it is not recorded in the Bible, (a) what sin do you believe Peter understood to have been committed by angels, and (b) at what time in history was this sin committed?
    4. Jude’s statement is similar to Peter’s, but it is generally agreed by scholars that Jude used Peter’s second epistle to write his, expanding upon and supplementing what Peter wrote, which would mean that Peter did not get his information from Jude’s letter, but rather vice versa. Thus Peter must have received his understanding from a source other than Jude. Given this, what source do you believe Peter used to come to his understanding about the angels that sinned?
    5. Since Paul indicated that those in Christ would judge angels, does it necessarily follow that the sin committed by angels was one that impacted humans/Christians in a negative/ungodly way? If so, how did not keeping their proper domain and abandoning their own place of residence impact humans/Christians in a negative/ungodly way?
    6. Is it possible that each of these verses represent cases where “angels” (aggelos in Greek) should have been translated into English as messengers instead of angels?

    This was his response:

    “I have always thought Peter and Jude were referring to some otherwise unknown (to us) sin on the part of the angels.”

    They don’t like to talk about the subject because the scriptural evidence is not in their favor.
    David

    • Cris Putnam says:

      @David His response is revealing. Great job with a thorough set of questions, the evidence is really conclusive. I really do not see it so much as legitimate debate rather trying to convince someone who is in denial of the truth. Admitted its not all that palatable but as I argued above we don’t base exegesis on our feelings.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Another thought David, it’s not enough to say the Peter and/or Jude was privy to some private revelation because of the way they incorporate the angels sin into their letter inherently assumes their readers would be familiar with what they were talking about. In the first century, it is easily demonstrable that everyone held the supernatural view of Gen 6, so that answer he gave is clearly not adequate.

  4. Mark says:

    Just admit IT. Our ancient ancestors encountered and interacted with enities from other realms of existance. These enties were capable of great feats through technology(s). Of those “chosen” in ancient scripture(s) by these “gods”. Were shown what we call The Mysteries. These Mysteries were passed down through the Priesthoods of certain Bloodlines. And to this day. Those same Bloodlines hold these Mysteries to control mankind.
    So keep believing that the Great Pyramids were built by Stone Age “slaves”. And a Sumerian called Abram (Abraham) is a “hebrew”. Or an Egyptian Prince called Moses freed 500,000 to 2 Million “slaves” and was “lost” in the Sinia for 40 years.
    By all means keep believing this nonsense. The fact remains. Our Ancient History has been suppressed. And we have been decieved by “churches” and governments to remain in a state of ignorance and oppression.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Mark, The Bible is strongly evidenced by fulfilled prophecy and the transcendent teachings of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the “god of this world” has simply deceived you (2 Cor 4:4). I wonder why you feel so confident that you know the secret truths?

  5. RichardK says:

    The problem with the critique of Goodroad is his depending upon one lexicon such as the word study bible which by the way is heavily laiden with the authors theology even the Strongs portion isn’t the totally actual work of Dr Strongs one only needs to obtain an original strongs not the current ammended ones which falsely declare themselves the work of Strong whom by the way is passed on to the lord.this being written it is best to examine the works of several biblical linguistics such as EW Bullinger, Goodspeed, and many others one will find several that hold to the sons of God as being angelic as many other topics What is sad is the fact that so many of the biblical translations are done with a particular theology in mind we really do not have an unbiased bible such terms as hell which by the way is the english word used to translate 4 or perhaps five different words which is wrong Hell can mean simply the grave, or gehenna = the lake of fire or tartarus and the pit i.e the special holding place of te fallen ones etc. Perhapos in time past this asn’t a problem but as we are nearing the time of the end it is the timeto be precise with meanings of scriptures. nuff said

    • Cris Putnam says:

      RichardK – Thanks for your comments. It really does not matter what any lexicon says, what really matters is what the ancient Hebrews meant. The Word Biblical Commentary is not a lexicon rather an exhaustive scholarly commentary and what it points out is that every occurrence of “sons of God” in the Torah consistently means a divine being. That decides it. Then when you look at other ancient sources like Enoch or Jubilees to see how they used the term – it still always means a divine being. The evidence is overwhelming. Obviously the author chose the words he did under the inspiration of the Spirit for a reason. There really is no doubt about the authors’ intention. The arguments against the supernatural reading of Genesis 6 are all from modern people who just do not want to accept the clear unambiguous meaning of the ancient text. Unbelief is not an argument. The text says what it says.

  6. RichardK says:

    David
    The Angels that sinned you ask about the particular sin was no 1 being they defied God 2. If the angels want to live in this life then they need come through the womb as everyone else and live even as Our Lord Lived this is their sin they were in confederation with Satan himself they tried to destroy the seedline. This is the teaching of Gen 6 it is the reason for the flood destroying that awful race of hybrids.

  7. RichardK says:

    One final thought I promise relying on the works of the mayans and others is fallible it is well known the ancients would have heard of the flood as well as Eden and other secrets but there is no substitute for the bible which actually provides us with Gods version Himself which is the correct version now no doubt we are missing some parts of scripture such as Enoch and Jubilees to note in fact the troubling aspect is do we have actual versions out there it is my hope that such as the dead sea scrolls were found we may eventually find some complete versions so we all can know for sure. About the ancient mysteries or Mysteries of God I am sure we will all find out someday from the source itself for now I am concentrating on the Only Man to come back from the dead and rise to heaven and the mighty works that He performed and is still performing today.

  8. RichardK says:

    Chris correct on the lexicons that is why I pointed out it is wise to take into consideration several following the principal of two or three witnesses as our Lord taught Her version is based on the premise the sons of Cain married with the daughters of Adam which is flawed both from the linguistics and from the witnesses the Holy Spirit provided i.e. Peter, Jude, and Yes Paul also all seem to be in agreement it was the fallen Angels On Pauls remember him warning the women to wear coverings over their heads because of the angels. The other flaw is the fact Jesus stated the Angels of God do not marry however when we take that saying into consideration Jesus never stated the angels couldn’t procreate and we know the eat as the Israelites ate Manna. On commentaries apply the same also helps to peruse the Church Fathers especially I key up on the first two centuries. Notwithstanding it is also wise to consider the centuries of biblical scholars. Last but not least we have interracial marriages occuring today and we do not see Giants.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Of course I agree Richard! As you point out the early church father’s held the supernatural view as well. Tertullian insists that proper Christology is related to proper angelology. Since angels have “solidity in their bodily substance” and can “change into human form,” he argues, Christians should not take the Gnostic approach and deny that Jesus—who is more powerful than angels—could possess a real physical body (“On the Flesh of Christ,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:523).

  9. Mark says:

    Do you people actually listen to yourselves? The text of the torah, bible, veta’s and koran are ignorant man’s attempt of explaining the unexplained at that time.
    Example: A talking snake. There are two explainations for this fable. Either the so called snake in the garden was a Reptilian entity (race). Or the entity represented itself with the snake. (Ever heard of the Brotherhood of the Snake?) That’s right. The Brotherhood of the Snake was a SECRET PRIESTHOOD of Egypt. The same BLOOD that flows through Queen Elizabeth II’s veins. Is the same as those in Ancient Egypt! Same can be said of the Order of the Dragon. From this Order. Came Vlad Dracul, the Holy Roman Emporer, the father of Vlad the Impaler. Queen Elizabeth II is related to this bunch of blood drinkers by King George VI.
    Ask yourselves. Who invented the Divine Right of Kings? When you reaseach these questions. You will find the Bloodline of the Priest(s). And then ask yourselves. WHO wrote the so-called Holy Books?
    The same Bloodlines of ancient priesthoods are alive and well in world banking and world religions. Follow the money. And you will find your religion.
    Whether it’s Abraham’s theft of gold to his incest/inbreeding with his half sister. Or some “English” King marrying their cousin. They are the same BLOODLINES.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      @Mark None of that information is new to me and some of it is coherent with a biblical worldview. Although first and foremost you are demonstrably wrong about who wrote the Holy Books of the Bible. The prophets were hated and killed by Kings. Jesus was crucified. His disciples were martyred…by who? Roman Kings. You are just wrong, the Bible stands alone against the powerful of the world. You are rejecting Christianity for invalid reasons. You have bought into the lie of serpent. You should not easily jump to conclusions without study. For instance, with your “talking snake” remark, you are basing your objections on an English translation. I do not believe it was a “talking snake.” If you care to learn what thinking Christian scholars believe is going on I downloaded a file by Dr Heiser for you to read: Nachash Notes It’s not too far removed from your current theory. I think you might be surprised.

  10. RichardK says:

    Mark I do not get carried away with myths you pointed out the snake in the garden God sometimes uses Idioms and figures of speech to illustrate a deeper meaning it is so in Gen chapter 3 I believe the term snake is from the hebrew word Nahash which is to say a bright shinning one, slippery one etc. Where we cannot imagine Eve holding a conversation with a literal snake we can however see Eve holding a conversation with The Serpent himself which is to say Satan. We actually have this idiom ikewise in our language which is to say a snake in the grass when we use this we do not actually mean a snake but a slippery one in a bad sense i.e. a con artist. Eve was beguiled from that serpent and in Rev chapter 12 we are told whom actually the serpent was which was none other than Lucifer a shinning angel i.e the devil. I would challenge you to research the scriptures before you jump to conclusions on the bible stop listening to men whom breath is in the nostils i.e full of hot air. As far as the Koran Mohammed didn’t walk on water he is a fraud.

  11. Kate says:

    As with anything, all one needs to do is just add a little Leaven and the whole becomes corrupted. We as followers of Jesus Christ are not to be unequally yolked with those who are spreading “fables” as though it is from the word of God. All that comes to my spirit is Tom Horn is merchandising Gods people as so many others have since Christ walked this earth. I agree with Mrs. Goodroad in that anything that keeps our thoughts and focus upon “wonderings” instead of the Holy Word of God is idolatry. Remember the faithful have absolutely nothing to FEAR except One and that is The Father Himself. Tom Horn sells Fear because Fear has become a tremendously lucrative business model. Tom Horn and others sell and peddle their goods upon the dialectic approach 1st used by satan in the garden. Problem+Reaction=Solution. By using this approach the problem is we should all Fear so that we can buy their goods so that we can be safe from what we feared in the 1st place. Absolutely ridiculous circus wheel. Do not Fear those who can kill the body, only FEAR GOD who has power to kill both the body and the soul. ” The FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” This is the whole Truth.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Thanks David, good point… Kate exactly what “fables” are you referring to? As far as Tom’s business perhaps watch the evening news and they seem to be talking about impending economic collapse as well… perhaps you should wake up?

  12. David Lowe says:

    Kate,

    Exactly what fables are you referring to that we are spreading? Have you not read Genesis chapter 6 and the supporting texts of II Peter 2:4 and Jude?

    These are not fables.

  13. Andy says:

    Slight johnny-come-lately and am not of scholar material but I thought it would be good to revisit the ‘Angels having Sex’ issue –

    Tom Horn in his book or blog believes that the Angels (in Gen 6) may have practiced a form of cloning/species crossbreeding experiments in order to create hideous creatures, outsized (six fingered) humans etc. This is a reasonable hypothesis as it seems sexual relations are not unequivocally stated and would fall in with ‘going after strange flesh’
    And while it can’t be history as we understand it but all parts of the word relate endless stories concerning giants and strange beasts not least those engraved in Pyramids etc.
    As a result he raises significant alarm bells re strong evidence of parallel or similar experiments increasing in the scientific community.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Andy, Tom is correct about the parallels between the ancient mythological chimeras and today’s science. Now that doesn’t necessarily prove that the mythological chimeras were actual, but it does make you wonder. Did you happen to see the movie “Splice” ?

  14. Andy says:

    Yeah of course Cris – I just have a penchant for the wacky -it’s more ‘fun’.
    Which makes it a shame Isa 13:21 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.) is translated more prosaically elsewhere!

  15. Steven Lynch says:

    Chris,

    Excellent job. Ms. Goodroad has been updating her blog recently and I was led there by a link from Derek and Sharon Gilbert of PID Radio.

    Googled her name and found your post.

    Her commentary is sadly involved in a lot of denial of the scriptural and historical record and leans as you say on the histrionic opinions.

    She IS right about one thing though… this stuff DOES matter and DOES make a difference within the body of Christ as another place where we separate ourselves unfortunately.

    Dr. Future (the first responder) can attest, as can I, that many of us who have learned about this subject, started listening to Dr. Missler on an ongoing basis… have found our respective churches and Pastoral leaders… unsatisfactory in their biblical knowledge… and then find ourselves invited to leave those fellowships… by the Pastors.
    The same Pastors who exhort us to study our bible… don’t like it when do to the point that we know more about it than THEY do.

    Why?

    It was quite stunning to me that YES… it actually DOES come down to the Angel View.

    Goodroad is sort of right about one thing… It changes one’s belief system.

    For me, the focus of Genesis 6 is no longer all about one’s Moral Behavior.

    The Angel View restores the War between God and Satan to the prominence it is meant to be. It rescues the rest of the Bible from those who would enforce more and more legalism.

    To me… It actually verifies “the Gospel” far better than what we were taught in Sunday School as children. You know… those lessons geared toward making us “be good”.

  16. I am in staggered disbelief at the number of discernment ministries that have either bought into the Line of Seth argument or passionately oppose that Nephilim are the offspring of the union between fallen angels and women.

    I wanted to commend this site Son’s of Seth rebuttal aka the antithesis of Serpentine Line. The biggest question they can’t answer is that how a race of giants was produced…simply by male to female but still both human’s having illicit sex? Second question they can’t answer. What did the angels that sinned do in order to be bound in Tartarus forever (the rest of the fallen angels aren’t there but are still with us). Bottom line, is Son’s of Seth argument can’t make any sense!

    here is the site:

    http://ministerfortson.com/?p=4042

    • Andy says:

      You obviously have a deeper understanding of this subject but a nugget I picked up somewhere talked about the apparent origin of the American Indian ‘How’ sign with an upraised hand – this was to indicate that there was Five fingers and not Six! Which indicates the Natives had issues with six-fingered folks! (ref; 2 Sam 21:20)
      ‘Let the Bible be your Guide’ – I know you’ll agree :)
      All the best

      • Cris Putnam says:

        Andy, we have archeological evidence for 6 fingered folks in Arizona, which lends support to that notion.

        General surveys of skeletal collections from Arizona for evidence of trauma and pathology led to the identification of polydactyly in two subadults. Polydactyly is a congenital condition characterised by the presence of extra digits on the hands or feet. Both affected subadults exhibit a sixth digit in the form of a branching fifth metatarsal. One of the affected individuals is an infant from the Tapia del Cerrito site exhibiting Y-shaped fifth metatarsals indicative of postaxial type A polydactyly. The second individual is a juvenile from the Nuvakwewtaqa (Chavez Pass Ruin) site exhibiting a left fifth metatarsal with a lateral branch, also diagnosed as postaxial type A polydactyly. These two cases appear to be the first examples of polydactyly from archaeological contexts identified among subadults, and bring the total number of known cases from the American Southwest to six. Discovery of so many examples of this relatively rare condition amongst the Puebloan people of the Southwest adds to the evidence that, rather than simply being an artistic motif, rock art depictions featuring hands and feet with six digits were probably inspired by observation of the condition amongst living people. Furthermore, burial treatment of the Tapia del Cerrito infant suggests that polydactyly may have conferred a special status on the bearer.

        Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.820/abstract

  17. Wow, marvelous blog format!
    How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy.

    We are part of DOVE Europe, a apostolic movement with has churches worldwide but also in Europe.

  18. Steve says:

    Well written. Nicely stated. It is nice to see people with an intention to shine light of truth instead of tear down those who are on their side in the name of self promotion. Thanks for standing up for these teachers.

  19. Thanks designed for sharing such a pleasant idea, article is nice,
    thats why i have read it fully

  20. They are used in residential and business premises, and sport facilities.

    The problem with the sod lies in the shipping, as it takes about 5 days to get to South Florida.
    A leaf blower can be used to remove old leaves and fragments
    that have gathered.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=2245 This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 11:49 pm and is filed under Awsome People, End Times Prophecy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  2. […] of Horn & Missler: A Response to Gaylene Goodroad,” Logos Apologia, June 11, 2011. Online at: http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=2245. [3] Tom and Nita Horn, Forbidden Gates: How Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic […]

  3. […] not simply offering possible readings. This was all addressed thoroughly enough in my original post (refer to the quote form the Word Biblical Commentary).  Scholarship aside, I find his essay […]

Speak Your Mind